Puritanism and Democracy
Author(s): A. S. P. Woodhouse
Source: The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne
d'Economique et de Science politique, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1938), pp. 1-21
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Canadian Economics Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/136751
Accessed: 05/11/2010 10:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Canadian Economics Association and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne
d'Economique et de Science politique.
http://www.jstor.org
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF
ECONOMICSAND POLITICALSCIENCE
Volume IV
FEBRUARY, 1938
PURITANISM
Number 1
AND DEMOCRACY'
I
I HAVE been invited to present to you my thesis regarding Puritanism.
and Democracy in seventeenth-century England. The thesis in question is simple and obvious, though some of its ramifications are (I hope)
neither simple nor altogether obvious. The period of the Puritan revolution was one in which religion and even theology dominated the common
modes of thought and expression. Lord Acton, who (unlike some
historians) was sufficiently unenlightened to know theology when he
saw it, described the period as "the middle ages of Protestantism".
It follows that the concepts whether of liberty or of authority which the
Puritans developed, can be fully understood only if they are studied in
their proper setting, and their native terminology. Dogma formed that
terminology and the Puritan church organization constituted the setting.
Without denying the validity of other approaches (the constitutional
approach for example, in which the liberals have long had their own
way, or the economic, in which the Marxists are, I understand, taking
theirs)-without denying the usefulness of these approaches, I suggest
the value to the student who would know what really happened,.of a
third, namely the religious approach. For the Puritan concept of
democracy, if it did not spring from Puritan religion,. at least sprang
up in closest contact with it. Puritan religion constituted the climate
of opinion in which the concept was born and nourished. The religious
approach has one advantage (shared in measure with the constitutional):
it can stay within the period under discussion, and it can afford to rest
its case on the actual words used. It does not require a transposition
of terms,.whereby theology is shown to be a roundabout way of saying
economics, and St. Mark's gospel gets spelled with an x. Nor does it
'A lecture deliveredto the Political Economy Seminar in the University of Toronto,
on November 18, 1937. The conclusions are for the most part based on material
collected in my volume Puritanism and Liberty, shortly to be published, in London, by
Messrs. J. M. Dent and Sons. Instead of referring to pamphlets inaccessible to the
reader, I have, wherever possible, cited the appropriate pages of this volume. The
reader may wish to consult, in addition, Pamphletson Libertyin the Puritan Revolution,
ed. by William Haller (New York, 1934), and in so doing to test my thesis by reference
to a collection made with no such thesis in view.
1
2
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
ask us to make any large assumptions-to believe that Calvin built
better than he knew: he intended a church and it turned out to be a bank!
One will no doubt be told that some of the theological argument with
which the pamphlets in the Thomason Collection are filled, and most
of the reasons urged in the Councils of the Army at Putney and Whitehall,2 are what are now called "rationalizations", and that we gain
nothing by refusing to recognize this fact. So be it. But if these are
rationalizations they involve the terms in which the Puritan viewed his
world and they rest upon the convictions with which he was prepared
to face not only his fellows, but his Maker. We shall gain nothing by
brushing those terms and those convictions aside, though to comprehend
them requires patient study and a modicum of historical sympathy.
"Nothing", says Lord David Cecil, "is more baffling to the imagination
than the religion of another age."
What, then, are the features of the Puritan mind that are relevant
to our thesis? What, for example, are the features which strike a reader
of the debates in the Councils of the Army or of the pamphlets before
mentioned? The first is the intrusion of dogma into every argument,
and the constancy and directness of the scriptural reference. We shall
have occasion presently to modify this statement in respect of half of the
thinking of some of the Puritans. But for most of them it remains
altogether true. Israel was ever before their eyes. Forget that and the
policy of the Presbyterians becomes in part at least unintelligible. Had
not God given to the Jews kings, and, whenever they could do so with
impunity, had not that model people knocked them about? And so all
along the line. Puritan religion in the various phases of the struggle
with Charles, and beyond it, was a mighty revolutionary agent. Nothing
indeed could withstand the divinity that hedged a king save the divinity
of religion itself when it was ranged against him. Calvrinis not thought
of as a revolutionary or even a liberal. But between the lines of his
injunction to Christian obedience may be read a strictly limited incitement to disobedience, which in the final words of the Institutes becomes
perfectly specific:
But in that obedience.
.
.
due to . . . rulers we must always make this exception
that it be not incompatiblewith obedience to Him to whose will. . . kings should
be subject, to whose decrees their commandsmust yield, to whose majesty their sceptres
must bow. And indeed how preposterouswere it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence
of Him for whose sake you obey men! . . . If they command anything against Him
let us not pay the least regardto it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess
as magistrates-a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the
special and truly supreme power of God.3
2Puritanismand Liberty, pp. 1-178.
3'nstitutes,IV, xx, 32.
Puritanism and Democracy
3
Calvin enjoins Christian obedience, and fixes its limits. Nor does he
leave active resistance without recognition or a means of becoming
effective: private citizens may not actively oppose their prince; but the
inferior magistrates may, and when godliness is menaced, must. Here
Calvin is at one with the more liberal thought of the Renaissance. His
prescription might have been written for the Presbyterian party of the
First Civil War. Charles is cast for the role of prince, and Parliament
for -that of the inferior magistrates: they fight by the book.
Extreme Puritanism soon leaves Calvin far behind, but not dogma
and scripture. The Puritan knows no other means of counteracting
scripture save by scripture. The model of Israel might become oppressive
to the more extreme Puritan himself when it was urged to enforce the
power and duty of the civil magistrate in religion, or urged against the
separation of church and state and against the plea for liberty of conscience. What then did the extreme Puritan do? Did he rebel against
the dogmatic principle? No, he merely denied its particular application;
he called in the New Testament to counteract the teaching of the Old,
and sought by a long and ingenious argument to demonstrate the distinction between the Law and the Gospel and to prove that what was
the duty of the magistrate under the Law was no longer his duty under
the Gospel. The mode of argument was thoroughly characteristic of
the Puritan mind, and its substance (we shall observe) bears directly
on the concept of liberty. But besides precept and model the Bible
contained prophecy. Every party among the Puritans, save the Presbyterian, was in some degree touched by the Millenarian ho.pe. It
appears in such a sermon as A Glimpse of Sion's Glory,4published before
the outbreak of hostilities, or in discourses like Thomas Collier's to the
Army at Putney in 1647, A Description of the New Creation,5 or in the
most curious -of all the petitions to Parliament and Army when Charles'
death had thrown the constitution into the melting pot, Certain Queries
from Christian People,6 in which government by the Saints in churchparliaments is seriously urged as a practical expedient and championed,
against an Agreement of the People. Millenarianism, with its ideal of
the dictatorship of the Saints, was based on the prophecies of Daniel and
Revelation, and it supplied at once a key to history and a programme
of revolution.
It was also an extreme manifestation of one of the most constant and
dominant features of the Puritan mind, its concern for positive reform.
This concern springs from a quality (one might perhaps call it a defect)
4Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 233-41.
5lbid., pp. 390-6.
6lbid., pp. 241-7.
4
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
of Puritan religious experience: it is overwhelmingly active in character
and scarcely contemplative at all. This is the stuff of which religious
liberators are made, but it is also, and even more obviously, the stuff
of religious tyrants. And the Puritan impulse towards liberty, which is
a real and powerful impulse, very soon falls foul of the Puritan zeal for
positive reform, so that the struggle in which the Puritans are engaged
is a cisvil war indeed. Somewhere near the heart of Puritanism there
exists in potential and unresolved conflict the impulse to freedom and
the irresistible desire to dragoon men into righteousness for God's glory
and the safety of his Church. The Levellers represent the full outworking of one impulse; the Millenarians, of the other. Too little
attention has been paid to this second impulse by idealizers of the
Puritan temper, who fail to recognize its dogmatic basis in Puritan
theology-just
as too little effort is made to understand the Puritan
impulse to liberty by the other type of modern critic who can see in
Puritanism nothing but the desire to make righteousness prevail. The
impulse to liberty and the impulse to reform are both authentic notes of
Puritanism. The latter, however, is the more pervasive. In the wide
diversity of ideas uncovered by a survey of Puritanism from the Presbyterians, the party of the Right, to the sectaries, the parties of the Left,
and through the Independents, the composite party of the Centre, which
occupies the whole interval between the two extremes-in this wide
diversity of ideas, there is one constant, namely, the acceptance of what
Troeltsch7 has named the ideal of the holy community. Whether or not
this operates against the impulse to liberty in secular politics, will depend
on whether the ideal of the holy community is confined to the church
or extends to dominate also the life of the state. To this, a central
problem of our thesis,-we shall return.
Whether libertarian or reforming, the Puritan is marked by varying
degrees of utopianism and iconoclasm. Of the latter the concerted
effort to destroy the religious institutions of a thousand years is an
undeniable example. And such effort fosters an iconoclastic spirit.
But all along the line religion is the Puritan's training ground, whether
in liberty or reform, and theology lies at the basis of his thinking. If the
Puritan learned anywhere to level institutions and build from the foundation up, it was not in the state but in the church. In regard to the
utopianism (which is not the academic utopianism of Sir Thomas More)
it is enough to remind ourselves of Charles I's indignant protest against
"the utopia of religion and government into which they would reduce
this kingdom" ;8 to remind ourselves furthermore of how (as the period
7Ernst Troeltsch, Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (London, 1931):
8Husband's Exact Collection (1643), p. 315.
Puritanism and Democracy
5
goes on) utopias become more frequent and more diverse. Religion lies
at the root of many of them, as of Vane's Healing Question; and even
where it is less obvious it is still a potent influence, as in Milton's Ready
and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth, which embodies an
individualistic, but not very democratic kind of republicanism, and in
Winstanley's Law of Freedom in a Platform, which adumbrates a communistic and collectivist state.
With other documents of a utopian cast, such as the Levellers'
Agreements of the People and the Millenarians' Certain Queries (already
mentioned), these utopias reveal all the main tendencies of Puritan
political thought, and put us on the track of their sometimes hidden
theological foundations. The tendencies appear in a series of antitheses.
First, the impulse to liberty and the concern for positive reform (the
former almost identical with the very strong Puritan inclination to
individualism and ultimately to anarchism; the latter counteracting this
inclination and issuing generally in a tendency to junto and dictatorship,
but in one instance, Winstanley, in a form of collectivism). This, then,
is the second antithesis: individualism and some form of rule in which the
interests of the individual, or at all events the unregenerate individual, are
sacrificed to a loftier aim. Thirdly, equalitarianism subsisting beside the
sternest and most unyielding form of inequality-the distinction between
the elect and the reprobate, which is insuperable. "Men as men", said
Ireton, "are corrupt and will be so." Nor is the distinction merely
theoretic. In Certain Queries (for example) it becomes the foundation
of a scheme of political settlement. Four of the queries will suggest
the tone of the pamphlet and the implications of the doctrine:
1. Considerwhetherit be not a far greater honourfor parliaments,magistrates, &c.
to rule as Christ's officersand the churches'representatives than as officersof a worldly
kingdom and representatives of a mere natural and worldly people?
2. What right or claim mere natural and worldlymen have to rule and government,
that want a sanctified claim to the least outward blessings?
3. How can the kingdom be the Saints' when the ungodly are electors, and elected
to govern?
4. Whetherit be not a straitening of the Church'spower, to limit it only to spiritual
matters?9
Evidently this doctrine stands in sharpest contrast with the equalitarianism of other Puritans of the Left, whether the individualist variety
(of the Levellers) or the collectivist variety (of Winstanley and the
Diggers). The last query quoted is even more searching than it appears;
for (as we shall see) it is aimed directly against the principle or device
which the Levellers employed to extend Christian liberty and equality
9Puritanism and Liberty, p. 246.
6
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
from the religious to the secular sphere. The contrast is not the simple
one between Puritanism of the Right (where one might expect some
reactionary ideas) and that of the Left (where one might expect whatever
ideas of liberty and equality Puritanism could muster). The contrast
is within the parties of the Left, and as such it becomes very significant
of the really divergent tendencies of Puritanism. Each of the tendencies
glanced at has its recognizable source in the dogmas of Puritan theology.
That is not surprising. But the divergent tendencies sometimes turn
out on investigation to spring from the same dogma. And that, I think,
is more surprising.
We have seen the basis of the idea of inequality in the doctrine of
predestination. But the specifically Puritan idea of equality springs in
part from the same source, and in part from the Protestant doctrine of the
priesthood of the believer. All that Puritanism itself can say in the first
instance is that the elect are equal, or (with the second and less theoretic
doctrine in view) that all believers are equal. And this, so far as it goes,
is an idea of great potency. It is turned first against the elaborate
hierarchy of the Christian Church and brings it crashing down. Then
it is turned against the distinction of cleric from lay, and that too goes
by the board. Finally it establishes a community in which, in spiritual
things at least, absolute equality prevails:
The fifth rule [says William Dell] is to keep equality among Christians. For though
according to our first nativity whereby we are born of men, there is great inequality,
some being born high, some low, some honourable, some mean, some kings, some
subjects, &c.,yet according to our new or second birth whereby we are born of God,
there is exact equality, for here are none better or worse, higher or lower, but all have
the same faith, hope, love, the same God, Christ, Spirit, the same divine nature, the
same preciouspromises,the same incorruptiblecrownand inheritanceof Saints in light.10
But such equality pertains only to the church order and cannot be
separated from the inequality between Saint and sinner. This does not
mean that it has not some levelling influence outside the church. The
basic inequality, or the idea of Christian privilege, is something very
different from inequality and privilege as the world knows them, and
cuts sharply across the distinctions of caste and wealth. God (as Roger
Williams observes) has "chosen a little flock out of the world, and those
generally poor and mean"." Truth in religion (say other writers) comes
not from the learned, but often from "the meanest of the brethren".
Christ does not rely on the great ones to forward his work, but can
overthrow the wise by the foolish, and things that are mighty by things
'Olbid.,pp. 312-3 (from The Way of True Peace and Unity, 1648).
"Puritanism and Liberty, p. 282.
Puritanism and Democracy
7
that are weak."2 Again Puritanism claims for the conscience of the
individual Christian (however humble his station) a new dignity and
a new responsibility. Those in authority may demand an unquestioning
obedience (say the Agents of the regiments to Fairfax) but a Christian
is finally responsible to his own conscience;13 that is (in Ireton's phrase)
to "conscience obliging above or against human and outward constitutions".14 The consciences of common men were a new phenomenon in
politics, and one that has never since disappeared. But these Christian
ideas, emphasized by the Puritans, while they were immensely important,
still carried with them the basic notion of inequality. Every claim was
made for the believer alone; and while this remained true, the destination
of such thinking was not democracy, but the rule of the Saints. It is
easy to see how one arrives at the ideal of the Millenarians from these
premises, but not at the ideal of the Levellers. One can catch more
than a Glimpse of Sion's Glory, but not of an Agreement of the People.
That is the fundamental problem, then: how did some of the Puritans
manage to transfer to secular politics the liberal elements in Puritanism
while discarding the reactionary elements-how did they develop the
liberal inferences from dogma without the reactionary inferences? I
have preferred to state the problem in terms of equality rather than of
liberty (though the two ideas are almost inseparable) in order that we
might reach a solution and then apply it in our discussion of liberty.
(1) A first and partial solution is found in the tendency of dogma to
break down, a tendency which to a limited degree is seen in those Puritans
of the Left who espouse the cause of political liberty and equality. There
were some elements in the Puritan creed which might conceivably
minister to that end. For example, there was the idea, fairly frequently
and emphatically expressed, of the progressive interpretation of truth.
No doubt the Bible was a complete revelation, but its meaning had
been obscured until the Reformation, zandthe process of reformation was
not yet complete; might not new light still break forth from the Holy
Word? And this attitude of mind in some of the Puritans met and
coalesced with impulses to free enquiry coming down from the Renaissance. In 1642 John Goodwin writes:
If so great and considerablea part of the world as America . . . was yet unknown
to all the world beside for so many generations together, well may it be conceived.
that . . . many truths, yea and those of main concernment and importance, may be
yet unborn. ...
That is neither new nor unjustifiable by the practice of wise men, to examine. .
'2Ibid., p. 263, and introduction, p. 42.
13Ibid.,p. 436.
4Ibid.,p. 459.
8
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
and. . . impugn.received opinions. He that will please to peruse the first book of
Dr Hakewill's learned Apology of the Power and Providence of God. . . shall meet with
great variety of instances,
. . .
in divinity, philosophy,.
.
. history [and] . . . natural
history, of opinions which had a long time been received, and yet were at last suspected,
yea and many of them evicted and rejected upon due examination. . . . [Again]there
are many errors (erroneously so called) in the Christian world which are made of the
greatpestand choicest truths; yea, and which doubtless will be redeemed from their
captivity and restored to their thrones and kingdoms by [the] diligence, gifts, and
faithfulness of the approaching generation."
Transferred to politics, this experimental spirit is itself a matter of great
importance. It is essential to the ideal, shared by Independents and
Levellers, of the arrival at truth and agreement through free discussion.
But I cite it here rather as an example of an attitude which is finally
hostile to dogma and dogmatism. Of the actual impairing of dogma
the most striking instance is seen in a reaction among a minority of the
Puritans against the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination (which
parallels a much wider reaction in the Anglican Church), and this if it
had been more general would have been highly significant because it
undermines a chief foundation of Puritan inequality. Again there is a
limited, but very interesting tendency to undermine dogma by a process
of allegorical interpretation, of which we shall have a word to say later.
This and other evidence might be brought forward to suggest two further
features of the period which bear on the breakdown of dogma. The
first is the alliance effected between extreme Puritanism and a current
of thought which is not in origin or essence religious at all, but belongs
rather to a libertine tradition.'6 The second is a natural tendency,
illustrated in all the Levellers, for interest to shift from religion to
politics-a general secularizing of their thought anticipating the wider
movement whose English beginning is conventionally assigned to 1660.
(2) But when all these things are added up, they do not suggest a
sufficiently pronounced breakdown of dogma. And in the view of much
evidence that liberal opinions could and did subsist with unrelieved
dogmatism, we must turn elsewhere for the main solution of our problem,
how the liberal inferences from dogma could be developed in the secular
field without the reactionary inferences. -An iexample will make the
situation clearer. In politics Roger Williams is completely democratic
in opinion, adopting the doctrine of natural rights, the sovereignty of
the people, government by consent. But in religion he remains the
'Imputatio Fidei (preface).
'6The best example is Richard Overton whose edifying combination of hostility to
.organized religion, crude materialism, and radical opinions in politics, has gained him
he would no doubt be locked up just as he was in
some admirers in Moscow-where
London.
Puritanism and Democracy
9
strictest of the Separatists. Viewed in itself, his church is no doubt a
religious democracy. Viewed in relation to the world, it is no democracy
but an aristocracy of the elect. The world shall perish, but the Church
shall remain always. It is instructive to notice the fate reserved for the
sovereign people, from which no natural rights can save them, and to
which they certainly do not consent:
When the world is ripe in sin . . . those holy and mighty officers and executioners,
the angels, with their sharp and cutting sickles of eternal vengeance shall down with
them and bundle them up for the everlasting burning. . . . Then shall that man of sin
(2 Thess. 2. 8) be consumedby the breathof the mouth of the Lord Jesus. . . and . . .
be tormentedwithfire and brimstonein the presenceof the holy angels..
. And the smoke
of theirtormentshall ascend up for everand ever(Rev. 14. 10, 11).17
How can opinions so liberal in politics, so reactionary in religion, subsist
peacefully together in one mind? Only by some principle or device
which succeeds in completely isolating the spiritual and the secular, and
permits the application of different standards of judgment in the two
spheres. Failing that, the reactionary religion must communicate its
quality to the political thinking and Williams must say that while the
world lasts, the Saints should rule it. He says nothing of the kind.
He insists upon the natural rights of natural men just as vehemently
as upon the spiritual rights of spiritual men. And here the true relation
of his religious and his political thought appears. First the separation
of the spiritual and the secular; and then the influence of one upon the
other, not by way of direct inference but by way of analogy.
This separation of the secular and the spiritual curiously parallels
Bacon's division of the territory of thought between natural philosophy
and divine. But in the Puritan the division rests on an altogether
different foundation, a foundation of dogma. It is the result of a
confident and extreme appeal to what I will call the dogma of the two orders.
Man as man belongs to the order of nature; man as believer belongs
to the order of grace. God is the creator and ruler of both orders; but
they have different economies and are ruled by different laws. As one
of the ablest of all the Puritan pamphlets on toleration, The Ancient
Bounds (1645), puts it:
Christ Jesus, whose is the kingdom, the power and the glory, both in nature and in
grace, hath given several maps and schemes of his dominions. . . both of his great
kingdom, the world, .
which he hath committed to men to be administered in truth
and righteousness, in a various form as they please; . . . and also his special and peculiar
kingdom, the kingdom of grace. Which kingdoms though they differ essentially or
formally, yet they agree in one common subject-matter (man and societies of men)
though under a diverse consideration.
And not only man in society, but every man
"7Puritanismand Liberty,p. 271 (from The Bloody Tenent,1644).
10
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
individually, is an epitome, either of one only or of both these dominions: of one only,
so every natural man (who in a natural consideration is called microcosmus, an epitome
of the world), in whose conscience God hath his throne, ruling him by the light of nature
to a civil outward good and end; of both, so every believer who, besides this natural
conscience and rule, hath an enlightened conscience carrying a more bright and lively
stamp of the kingly place and power of the Lord Jesus, swaying him by the light of
faith or scripture, and such a man may be called microchristus,.the epitome of Christ
mystical.'8
The dogma of the two orders was common to all the Puritans, and the
differences in their political thinking turn in the last analysis on the
different relations which they suppose to obtain between the two orders.
To most of the Puritans it seems evident that the superior order, the
order of grace, must rule the inferior. That is the position which
receives extreme illustration in the Millenarians, and in such a document
as Certain Queries. But to some of the Puritans this dogma means the
total separation of the two orders, each with its own appropriate kind
of goodness. For of goodness there are two kinds: the spiritual, or
what we call piety, to which is attached the gift of salvation; and natural
goodness (of various types) to which the unconverted and even the
heathen can rise, but to which no such gift is attached. Williams writes:
[T]his I must remember you of: that when the most high God created all
things of nothing, he saw and acknowledged divers sorts of goodness, which must still
be acknowledged in their distinct kinds-a good air, a good ground, a good tree.
I say the same in artificials, a good garment, a good house,. . . a good ship. I also
add a good city, a good company or corporation, a good husband, father, master.
that is, morally, civilly, good in their several civil respects and employments.
These I observe to prove that a subject, a magistrate, may be a good subject, a good
magistrate, in respect of civil or moral goodness, which thousands want; and where
it is it is commendable and beautiful, though godliness, which is infinitely more beautiful
be wanting, and which is only proper to the Christian state, the commonweal of Israel,
the true church, the holy nation (Ephes. 2; 1 Pet. 2).19
It is not for the sake of the natural order that the distinction of the two
orders is in the first place emphasized, but for the sake of the spiritual.
In Williams, at least, it is a sense of the uniqueness of the spiritual
experience that demands its sharp separation from everything elsebut with momentous results in the order of nature and in politics. The
separation indeed gets itself recorded (as we shall see) in the Agreement
of the People.
In general terms the result of the separation of the two orders is to
enable the Puritan who emphasizes the distinction between them to
adopt in the secular sphere radical and naturalistic ideas, and to avoid
18Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 247-8.
191bid., pp. 282-3 (from The Bloody Tenent).
Puritanism and Democracy
11
(or rather, as the subsequent history of Dissent seems to show, to postpone) the repercussion of these ideas upon his dogmatic creed. In
secular education, for example, the Puritan can accept the ideas of
Bacon, while stoutly maintaining that for preaching the Word nothing
is required but a knowledge of the English Bible and the gift of the Spirit.
This fact is fully illustrated in William Dell's volume, The Stumbling
Stone (1653), which has been hailed as a pioneer work in university
reform, and condemned as Puritan obscurantism of a peculiarly vulgar
variety. Both views are correct. But our concern is with politics.
In politics the most obvious result of what I will for brevity call the
principle of segregation, is the separation of church and state. And this
has a twofold bearing on liberty: first, as it becomes the basis for the
full Puritan doctrine of toleration; secondly, as it effects the complete
secularizing of the state. The primary object is to spiritualize the
church; but not less certainly it secularizes the state, and invites a new
account of its origin, nature, and functions. The new account will not
necessarily be democratic in character; but it may be so. The secularizing of the state is democracy's opportunity.
But the separation of the two orders, and of their social organs, the
church and the state, does not mean the cessation of all influence one
on the other. Religion will continue to influence politics-but not by
direct inferences drawn from dogma; by analogy instead. The two
orders are roughly parallel, and what is true within one is true within the
other, though the basis in one instance is grace and the basis in the other
is nature. There is (we have seen) a spiritual equality in the order of
grace. Is there not an analogous equality in the order of nature? This
is only one of a dozen points at which analogically Puritanism could
reinforce the cause of liberty and equality. In a word, wherever one
discovers within the order of grace, as the Puritan conceives it, ideas
of liberty, of equality, of democratic organization, of government by
the consent of the governed, of truth and agreement reached through
free and equal discussion, there is also the possibility of their transfer
to secular politics. Where, however, the principle of segregation is not
emphasized, the inferences from dogma point towards the dictatorship
of the Saints. Where the principle is emphasized this inference is
prevented, and analogy points towards an Agreement of the People.
It remains to see how.
II
As there is a specifically Christian idea of equality, so there is a
specifically Christian idea of liberty. The doctrine of Christian liberty
has been consistently overlooked by historians, though references to it
12
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
abound in the seventeenth century, and there is a complete exposition
of it in Milton, of its theological aspects in the De Doctrina, and of its
practical bearings in Of Civil Power im Ecclesiastical Causes.20 In simplest
terms the doctrine is something like this. The note of the old dispensation is bondage, for it means subjection to the letter of an external law.
The note of the new dispensation, of the Gospel, is freedom, for it means
the abrogation of this outward law, in favour of an inward law written
by the Spirit in the heart of the believer. It will make a great deal of
difference whether this abrogation of outward law is taken to mean
the abrogation of the ceremonial law only, or of the ceremonial and
judicial, or of these two and the moral law as well.2' According to
Milton the whole Mosaic Law, in its three branches, is for the believer
abrogated by the Gospel of Christ. Here one recognizes the basis of
Antinomianism. But the doctrine need not, and in Milton does not,
amount to Antinomianism. Nor is it original with Milton, as A/1.Saurat
assumes; precisely the same doctrine is found in Luther, where it is
turned against the papal tyranny, as Milton turns it against the tyranny
of bishop and presbyter. But Luther, who originates, at least in its
Protestant form, what I have called the principle of segregation, applies
that principle so as to cut off all bearing of Christian upon civil liberty.22
Not so Milton, who does not apply the principle of segregation at all
consistently. Milton makes the doctrine of Christian liberty a foundation of his plea for liberty of worship (which is quite compatible with the
principle of segregation); but he also tends to transfer it directly, and
not merely analogically, to the secular sphere (which is not compatible
with that principle).Y This by the way. The fact to recognize is the
tremendous force of the doctrine of Christian liberty itself, and its
fundamental position in the struggle for religious toleration. This can
best be seen by a quotation from Milton made up largely of texts from
St. Paul:
I have shown that the civil power hath neither right nor can do right by forcing
religious things. I will now show the wrong it doth by violating, the fundamental
privilege of the Gospel, the new birthright of every true believer, Christian liberty:
Wherethe spirit of the Lord is, thereis liberty;Jerusalemwhich is aboveis free, which is
the motherof us all....
For he [ChristJhath not only given us this gift as a special privilege and excellence
20This is treated in some detail in my article, "Milton, Puritanism and Liberty"
(University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. IV, July, 1935, pp. 483-513).
21Debated with cognate questions in the Council of Officers at Whitehall on
December 14, 1648 (Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 145-67).
22Ibid., pp. 221-5 (from the Commentary on Galatians in the form in which the
Puritans read it).
23Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 228-32.
Puritanism and Democracy
13
of his free Gospel above the servile Law, but strictly also hath commanded us to keep
it and enjoy it: You are called to liberty. . . . Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith
Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. . . . Ye are
bought with a price: be not made the servants of men. Some trivial price belike and for
some frivolous pretences paid in their opinion if-bought and by him redeemed whdcis
God, from what was once the service of God-we shall be enthralled again and forced
by men to what now is but the service of men. . . . Ye are complete in him which is
the head of all principality and power; not completed therefore or made the more religious
by those ordinances of civil power from which Christ, their head, hath discharged us,
blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
Hence it plainly appears that if
we be not free, we are not sons but still servants unadopted....
Ill was our condition changed from legal to evangelical and small advantage gotten
by the Gospel, if for the spirit of adoption to freedom promised us we receive again the
spirit of bondage to fear. .
It will therefore not misbecome the meanest Christian
to put in mind Christian magistrates. . . that they meddle not rashly with Christian
liberty, the birthright and outward testimony of our adoption, lest, while they. . .
think they do God service, they themselves, like the sons of that bondwoman,be found
persecuting them who are free-born of the Spirit, and by a sacrilege of not the least
aggravation, bereaving them of that sacred liberty which our Saviour with his own
blood purchased for them.24
It is thus that the Puritan counteracts the appeal to the Old Testament by an appeal to the New. The argument does not imply a
departure from dogma and scripture; it is carried on within their confines,
as could be proved just as conclusively from Roger Williams.25
One debt of liberty to the Puritan parties is the fact that they are
always bringing the question of liberty forward for discussion. The
subject of the Army debates in 1647-9 is religious liberty and political
liberty. For the Puritan the priority of religious liberty is plain to
read. It is in that protracted argument, carried on first with his opponents and then with his fellow Puritans, that his principles of freedom
take shape. The object is to secure for the Christian his inalienable
right, Christian liberty-the birthright of the second birth. Presently,
however, two facts become evident. (1) You cannot guarantee the
liberty of the Saint without at the same time guaranteeing the liberty
of all men. In this one department, at least, the step forward from
liberty to equality is logically forced upon the Puritans of the Left
though only some of them take the step. (2) But secondly, it is not
really possible to draw a sharp line between religious liberty and civil
liberty. As Harrington observed, "Where civil liberty is entire, it
includes liberty of conscience; where liberty of conscience is entire, it
includes civil liberty".26 Thus the struggle for religious liberty holds,
24Ibid., pp. 226-8 (from Of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes).
25Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 266-92.
26Political Aphorisms, nos. 23-4.
14
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
as it were, in solution the whole gift of Puritanism to the cause of freedom.
But in order that the gift may be made, it is necessary that the principle
of segregation (already applied irl the interests of the Christian) should
be carried to its logical conclusion and be applied also in the interests
of the natural man. Roger Williams and the Levellers have done this
so successfully that the modern reader tends to forget one fact: that
in the first instance it is the Christian, and not the natural man, for
whom they are concerned. The concern for the natural man follows.
For Roger Williams religious liberty, resting on the total separation of
church and state, is equally essential for the spiritual well-being of the
church and for the internal peace of the civil state. In the Levellers
the secular interest finally becomes paramount.
But to return to the doctrine of Christian liberty itself. It emphasizes the freedom of the believer. And we must add, his freedom
not only from the bondage of the Law but from the bondage of sin.
Thus Milton can say that "only good men can truly love liberty; the
rest love not liberty, but licence". "Know that to be free is the same
thing as to be pious, to be wise, to be temperate and just, to be frugal
and abstinent, and lastly to be magnanimous and brave; so to be the
opposite of all these is the same as to be a slave.."27 But if only good
men can be truly free, then Christian liberty is perfectly compatible
with the rule of the regenerate over the unregenerate, as Milton increasingly came to believe. It is compatible even with the cruder notion
of the dictatorship of the Saints. But this is true only if the principle
of segregation is not applied. If the principle is applied, and is followed
up by the principle of analogy, the result is totally different: Christian
liberty for the Christian; natural liberty for the natural man. So that
for the Levellers even liberty of worship becomes not merely an evangelical, but also a natural right. But the principle of analogy, once it
is free to operate, will carry us further than that. Overton knows what
he is about when, in his Arrow Against All Tyrants, he addresses the
secretaries, men familiar with the ideas of Christian liberty and Christian
equality, in these terms:
For by natural birth all men are equal. . . born to like propriety, liberty and
freedom, and as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, every
one with a natural innate freedom and propriety,. . . even so we are to live, every one
equally . . . to enjoy his birthright and privilege, even all whereof God by nature hath
made him free . . .; every man by nature being a king, priest, prophet, in his own
natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose right and freedom it is.
All save the last few words (and they have their own special relation to
27Puritanism and Liberty, p. 231.
Puritanism and Democracy
15
Puritanism) are virtually a statement of the doctrines of Christian liberty
and equality, with man written over the word "believer", and nature
written over the word "grace".
Analogy will lead from liberty and equality in the spiritual order to
liberty and equality in the natural order. But what of the special
features of Christian liberty? Do they reproduce themselves in politics?
In measure they do. The marks of Christian liberty are twofold (though
the two marks are perhaps in the last analysis one): (1) It is essentially
individualistic, depending upon an inward spiritual state reached by the
individual believer, and not upon any level of outward condition achieved
by the community. And (2) liberty is defined in terms of the abrogation
of outward law. It is not merely individualist, but at bottom anarchist
in character. The ideal in Milton's phrase is to be able to live without
laws because "our reason is our law".28 And in Milton's view of the
state and of civil liberty precisely the same characteristics are seen.
His is a laissez-faire state. It should guarantee the absolute separation
of the ecclesiastical and political functions, removing from the church
all state support and all power of persecution. It should guarantee
complete freedom of discussion. It should provide for a state-supported,
but not of course a compulsory, system of education-this, apart from
the maintenance of order, being the one positive duty assigned to it.
Finally, it will be well, he says,
since laws are usually worse in proportion as they are more numerous, if you shall not
enact so many new laws as you abolish old, which do not operate so much as warnings
against evil as impediments in the way of good; and if you shall retain only those which
are necessary . . . which, while they prevent the frauds of the wicked, do not prohibit
the innocent freedoms of the good, which punish crimes without interdicting those things
which are lawful, only on account of the abuses to which they may occasionallv be
exposed. For the intention of laws is to check the commission of vice, but liberty is
the bestschoolof virtue.29
In this Milton is thoroughly typical. Individualism is part of the
heritage of Puritanism. And up to a point both the Independents and
the Levellers agree in advancing a laissez-faire ideal of the state. Distrust not only of corrupt government, but of over-much government,
appears in both the Heads of the Proposals30 and the Agreements of the
People,3" which set forth the individual's inalienable rights, and are
obviously designed above all else to safeguard them. Under the absolutist system of Charles I government had been everywhere, and under
28Paradise Lost, IX, 654.
29Puritanism and Liberty, pp. 230-1.
30Ibid., pp. 422-6.
31Ibid., pp. 355,67, 443-5.
16
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
a self-perpetuating Parliament the old menace had assumed a new guise.
On the practical level Independents and Levellers are reacting against
this situation. On the theoretic level they are embodying in their
constitutions an individualism which is at bottom religious in origin.
And this twofold reference is indeed presented by the official Agreement
of the People32 taken as a whole. It springs from a particular historical
situation, and it embodies a set of principles which, if they are not
derived from theology and the Puritan church order, are at least strongly
reinforced thereby.
It must suffice to indicate what the points of contact between the
Agreement and Puritan religion are; and by this statement to allow our
thesis to stand or fall.
(1) The first point of contact is less a principle embodied in the
Agreement than an assumption which underlies the document as a whole:
namely the possibility of arriving at truth, and at agreement in the
truth, through free discussion; for the Agreements (as Mr. Pease33 has
shown) are designed to furnish a basis for discussion. The idea is indeed
widespread in the Puritan revolution. It is the confident assumption
of Milton in the Areopagitica, and (originally at least) of all parties in
the Army debates. It is an idea thoroughly democratic in character
(as witness its adoption by a Russia grown respectable). And one of
its sources in seventeenth-century England (I do not claim this as the
only source) is the democratic practice of the Puritan congregations,
Independent and Anabaptist. Moreover, there underlies the ideal of
truth and agreement through discussion a view of truth as progressive
in comprehension if not in revelation, which is precisely the view that
we saw at the beginning of this paper to be characteristic of the Independents and which we illustrated by a quotation from John Goodwin.
(2) In the second place, the Agreement incorporates (as already
hinted) the idea of the separation of the two orders, or what I have
called the principle of segregation. After specifying the matters reserved
as inalienable rights, it provides: "That the Representative have the
supreme trust in order to the preservation and government of the whole,
and that their power extend. . to the enacting. . . [and] repealing.
of laws, and the highest and final judgment, concerning all natural or
civil things, but not concerning things spiritual or evangelical."
(3) The Agreement itself, eschewing all effort at reform in the church,
concentrates on the shaping of a perfect civil constitution. And here
just below the surface lurks a very striking example of influence by
32Presented to Parliament in January, 1649.
33C. T. Pease, The Leveller Movement (New York, 1916); to which admirable study
I would acknowledge my indebtedness at this point.
Puritanism and Democracy
17
analogy. Behind the idea of a free state composed of equals stood the
model of a free church. And the mode of procedure in the two cases is
identical, as Milton in the Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth, makes abundantly clear. Those who would reform the state, he
remarks,
are not bound by any statute of preceding parliaments but by the law of nature only,
which is the only law of laws truly and properly to all mankind fundamental, the
beginning and end of all government, to which no parliament or people that will thoroughly reform but may and must have recourse, as they had (and must yet have) in church
reformation . . . to evangelic rules, not to ecclesiastical canons though never so ancient,
so ratified and established in the land by statutes-which
for the most part are mere
positive laws, neither natural nor moral.
The model of ecclesiastical excellence, says the author of Regal
Tyranny Discovered (1647), is founded on the law of God set forth in the
New Testament and received by faith; that of civil excellence is "founded
on the law of God engraven in nature and demonstrated by reason". In
each case there is a primitive model of excellence, and underlying it a
fundamental law; and in each case the injunction is to depart from, and
if need be destroy, whatever conflicts with the law or fails to conform
to the model. In the order of grace it is the law of Christ revealed in the
New Testament (and, we may add, written in the heart of the believer)
and so to be known by faith; in the parallel order of nature it is a parallel,
but this time a natural law, discoverable and demonstrable by reason.
In the church Puritan scripturism is a mighty agent of destruction and
reconstruction. And whether operating directly, as in the Millenarians,
or by analogy, as in the authors cited and in the Levellers, it is capable
of having a similar effect in the state. Here are Puritan iconoclasm and
utopianism with the principles from which they derive their strength.
I am not, of course, suggesting that the concept of a law of nature is
derived by the Independents and Levellers by analogy from the law of
grace; but merely that it is reinforced and rendered acceptable by the
analogy. Indeed throughout I am concerned to know how the 1Puritans
came to adopt these liberal and often radical opinions, and not the
actual sources of the opinions themselves.
(4) But the analogy between the purely spiritual church of extreme
Puritanism and the purely secular state of the Levellers can be carried
further. First there is the note of individualism, already observed, and
expressed in the concept of inalienable rights. Secondly, if the Leveller
emphasizes the contract on which the authority of all just government
depends (not the contract between governor and governed, a form of
contract with which he was, of course, familiar, and which he had urged
effectively against Charles; a contract rather among the sovereign people
18
The CanadianJournal of Economicsand Political Science
themselves as well as with their delegates)-if
(I say) the Leveller
emphasized this contract, and the principle of government by the consent
of the governed, was it not because he had had, in his church, experience
of a community organized upon. these very principles? Behind the
model of a free state stands the model of a free church, with its church
covenant which embodies (and is conditioned by) the fundamental law,
but which is freely consented to by every member of the church, and
constitutes, so far as that congregation is concerned, an agreement of the
people in spiritual things. There is, of course, one very real difference.
In the church, government by consent is safeguarded by the power of
withdrawal. In the state this power of withdrawal virtually disappears;
its place is taken in part by a series of "reserves" (the inaliena'ble rights
mentioned above), which are not thus specified in the church covenant,
and in part by the democratic device of ,biennial elections, so that (as
Mr. Lindsay happily remarks) voting against the successful candidate
is somehow thought of as a way of recording your consent to be governed
by him.
(5) But, finally, the democratic order of the government to be
established by the Agreement has a much wider significance. We spoke
of the belief in the possibility of arriving at truth and agreement through
free and equal discussion as something that underlay the very idea of
an Agreement. It permeates the form of government to be set up.
The Agreement may tend to reduce the members of the biennial Parliaments to the status of delegates, but if so, it is the interests of the democracy as a whole. Representative institutions are necessary in a national
state; but the democracy in which the Leveller really believes, and which
he wishes to perpetuate even at the expense of the Parliament, is the
direct democracy of the Puritan congregation.
III
On a long view of the subject the conflict between this ideal and the
sovereignty of Parliament, if not removed, is at least mitigated. For
(as Mr. G. P. Gooch has observed in another connection) with the
coming of democracy the old aptithesis of the state and the individual
loses much of its acuteness. Despite their defeat in practical politics,
the Levellers' ideal persists as a valuable secondary tradition in English
political thought and modifies the primary tradition for its good. But
there is yet a third tradition in politics-happily never consolidated in
English politics-between which and the Leveller ideal quarter is neither
asked nor given: this is the tradition of dictatorship. It too has its
representatives in the Puritan period, and (as we have seen) its place in
Puritanism and Democracy
19
the pattern of Puritan thought. The terms in which that pattern is
built up strike strangely upon the modern ear. Their study is a matter
of historical-if you will, of antiquarian-interest; but the issues have
not lost all their relevance to-day. "The consent of the governed is the
only secure and lasting basis of government; and liberty is the condition
of consent. Only free men can consent to their form of government.
No enduring system can be established on the negation of liberty, even
if it comes with the temporary gift of good government." Thus writes
General Smuts in the 1930's; and that is precisely the Levellers' case
against arbitrary government three hundred years ago-not merely
against arbitrary and inefficient government by Charles, but against
arbitrary though efficient government by Cromwell: against all those
elements in Puritan thought which fostered dictatorship at the expense
of democracy, and reform at the expense of freedom. It is with weapons
drawn from the same armoury, from Puritan religion, that the Levellers
oppose "the negation of liberty, even if it comes with the temporary
gift of good government": from ideas derived from, or at least supported
by, Puritan theology and the Puritan church order, they formulate the
opposing creed. But to concentrate on the extremes, on the Levellers
with their doctrine of the sovereignty of the People and on .the Millenarians with their doctrine of the privileges and the duties of the Saints,
is to miss one of the most fascinating of the problems, too complicated
to develop here: the problem of the conflict of ideas within the party of
the Independents, and in Cromwell himself with his real feeling at least
for religious liberty but his readiness to defy the will of the majority
in the interests of reform-"That's the question: what's for their good,
not what pleases them."34
All this is not, of course, to deny the presence, conscious or half
conscious, of motives far other than those on which our attention has
been fixed. "All that I speak for", says Ireton, in the debates on the
franchise, and naively enough-"All the main thing that I speak for
is because I would have an eye to property." And Rainborough utters
his immortal phrase: "The poorest he that is in England has a life to
live, as the greatest he".3" But the Levellers, as Petty and Rainborough
declare with justice, intend no attack upon the institution of private
property, which is grounded in the law of nature36 and guaranteed by
the law of God.37 One power withheld from the Representative in the
34Puritanism and Liberty, p. 420.
35Ibid., pp. 53, 57.
36Ibid., p. 63.
37Ibid., p. 59.
20
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
Agreement of the People is the power of levelling estates: private property
is an inalienable right.38
Communism in the period-of necessity we use the term rather
loosely is represented by the Diggers alone, whose position must in a
word be made clear. The historian who chooses to assume that communism is the corollary, or perhaps rather the sine qua non, of political
democracy, may regard the Diggers as carrying over to the economic
sphere the principles of reason, justice, and equality advanced by the
Levellers in the political. By the title, The True Levellers'*Standard
Advanced,39Winstanley and his associates put forward some such claim.
But the bases of Leveller and of Digger thinking are in truth as different
as are their results. In the Levellers, as in the Independents, there is a
strong, perhaps an exaggerated element of individualism: nothing could
be more remote from collectivism than the Agreements of the People,
in which Independent and Leveller collaborated and over which they
wrangled in heated debate. But in the Independents, as distinct from
the Levellers, the strong current of individualism which takes its rise
in their common religious life is crossed and in measure thwarted by a
desire to establish the reign of righteousness on earth and by a failure
to apply without reserve the principle of segregation. With the Diggers
the desire to establish the reign of righteousness, as they conceive it,
obliterates every other motive. In them, as in the Millenarians, the
principle of segregation is not invoked; the direct inferences from their
religious thought are allowed to dominate their view of secular life, their
interpretation of the past and their vision of the future; the ideal of the
holy community, in the peculiar form which it takes in their minds, is
not restricted to the order of grace but intrudes upon the order of nature.
The Diggers are working for an economic millennium. And by them the
liberty of the individual, so prized by the Levellers, is perhaps as little
regarded as by the stern visionaries who hope on the battlefields of the
Civil War to usher in the rule of Christ and his Saints. But instead of
taking scripture, dogma, and prophecy with the terrifying literalness of
Harrison and his felldws, Winstanley and his group subject them to a
process of allegorical interpretation no less startling: the fall and its
curse mean the emergence of pride and covetousness and the introduction
of private property; the whole history of Israel and the coming of Christ
are re-read in the light of this assumption; and the millennium (which,
wherever emphasized, always carries some promise of perfectibility) is
interpreted as the defeat of covetousness, the abolition of private property, and the establishment of communism throughout the world. Thus
38Ibid.,p. 363; cf. p. 340.
39Ibid., pp. 379-85.
Puritanism and Democracy
21
does the dogmatic scheme furnish a theological foundation for their social
and political thought, even though their treatment of dogma undermines
it in the very process of interpretation.
The Diggers do not contradict our thesis of the close connections in
the Puritan revolution between religious and political thinking; rather
they offer one more illustration of the variety of those connections. But
instead of restating the thesis, I am disposed to formulate another:
before we can arrive at the pattern of any period's thought we must
surrender ourselves, at least temporarily, to its dominant terminology;
only after so doing are we permitted (and perhaps constrained) to
translate it into the terms of our own age-into those terms which it is
our comfortable habit to regard as finally and even exclusively significant.
A. S. P. WooDHOUSE
The University of Toronto.