E-text prepared by Suzanne Lybarger, Louise Pryor,
and the [Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team]
from page images generously made available by the
[Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries]

Transcriber's note

The original has a number of inconsistent spellings and punctuation. A few [corrections] have been made for obvious typographical errors; they have been noted individually. A list of specific items will be found at the end of the file.

THE DIGGER MOVEMENT
IN THE
DAYS OF THE COMMONWEALTH

THE DIGGER MOVEMENT

IN THE

DAYS OF THE COMMONWEALTH

AS REVEALED IN THE WRITINGS OF

GERRARD WINSTANLEY, THE DIGGER

MYSTIC AND RATIONALIST, COMMUNIST AND SOCIAL REFORMER

BY

LEWIS H. BERENS

AUTHOR OF “TOWARDS THE LIGHT” ETC. ETC.

“Was glänzt ist für den Augenblick geboren;
Das Echte bleibt [der] Nachwelt unverloren.”

Goethe.

LONDON
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LTD.
1906

RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
TO
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS
(THE CHILDREN OF LIGHT)
TO WHOM THE WORLD OWES MORE THAN IT YET RECOGNISES
AND
WHOSE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES
THE AUTHOR
HAS LEARNED TO LOVE AND ADMIRE
WHILST WRITING THIS BOOK

CONTENTS

THE DIGGER MOVEMENT

CHAPTER I
THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY

“Whatever the prejudices of some may suggest, it will be admitted by all unbiassed judges, that the Protestant Reformation was neither more nor less than an open rebellion. Indeed, the mere mention of private judgment, on which it was avowedly based, is enough to substantiate this fact. To establish the right of private judgment, was to appeal from the Church to individuals; it was to increase the play of each man’s intellect; it was to test the opinion of the priesthood by the opinions of laymen; it was, in fact, a rising of the scholars against their teachers, of the ruled against their rulers.”—Buckle.

What is known in history as the Reformation is one of those monuments in the history of the development of the human mind betokening its entry into new territory. Fundamental conceptions and beliefs, cosmological, physical, ethical or political, once firmly established, change but slowly; the universal tendency is tenaciously to cling to them despite all evidence to the contrary. Still men’s views do change with their intellectual development, as newly discovered facts and newly accepted ideas come into conflict with old opinions, and force them to reconsider the evidence on which these latter were based. Prior to the Reformation, many such conceptions and beliefs, at one time holding undisputed dominion over the human mind, had been called into question, their authority challenged, undermined, and weakened, and they had commenced to yield pride of place to others more in accordance with increased knowledge of nature and of life. The revival of classical learning, geographical and astronomical discoveries, and more especially, perhaps, the invention and rapid spread of the art of printing, had all conspired to give an unparalleled impetus to intellectual development,—and the Reformation was, in truth, the outward manifestation in the religious world of this development.

Prior to the Reformation, wherever a man might turn his steps in Western Europe, he found himself confronted with what was proudly termed the Universal Church: one hierarchy, one faith, one form of worship, in which the officiating priests were assumed to be the indispensable mediators between God and man, everywhere confronted him. Religion was then much more intimately blended with the life of man than it is now; and on all matters of religion, Western Europe seemed to present a united front and to be impervious to change. Appearances, however, are proverbially deceitful. Beneath this apparent uniformity and general conformity, there lurked countless forces, spiritual, intellectual, social and political, making for change. Dissent and dissatisfaction, with myriads of tiny teeth, had undermined and weakened the stately columns that upheld the imposing structure of the Universal Church. Even within the Church itself there was seething inquietude, and thousands of its purest souls longed, prayed and struggled for its practical amendment. To emancipate the Church from the clutches of the autocracy of Rome; to remove the abuses that, in the course of centuries, had grown round and sullied its primitive purity; to lighten the fiscal oppression of the Papacy and to check the rapacity of the Cardinals; to reform and discipline the priesthood; even to modify certain doctrines and dogmas: such were the aspirations of some of the most devout, eminent and cultured sons of the Church. Outside its communion there were many forms of heresy, which, though generally regarded as disreputable and often treated as criminal, the apparently all-powerful Church had never been able entirely to eradicate. And, at first at least, both these forces favoured the efforts of the early Lutheran Reformers.

The influence of the Reformation, of “the New Learning,” on theological, ethical, social and political thought can scarcely be overestimated. Under the supremacy of the Church of Rome, men, educated and uneducated, had come to rely almost entirely on authority and precedent, and had lost the habit of self-reliance, of unswerving dependence on the dictates of reason, which was one of the distinguishing characteristics of the classical philosophers and their disciples, as it is of the modern scientific school of thought. In short, concerning matters spiritual and temporal, Faith had usurped the function of Reason. Hence any innovations, whatever their abstract merit, were regarded not only with justifiable suspicion and caution, but as entirely unworthy of consideration, unless, of course, they could be shown to be in accordance with accepted traditions and doctrines, or had received the sanction of the Church. But even the Church itself was popularly regarded as bound by tradition and precedent; and when the Papacy sanctioned any departure from established custom, it was understood to do so in its capacity of infallible expounder of unalterable doctrines.

The habits of centuries still enthralled the early Reformers. Circumstances compelled them to attack some of the doctrines and customs of their Mother Church, of which at first they were inclined to regard themselves as dutiful though sorrowful sons. The logic of facts, however, soon forced them outside the Church. Then, but then only, for the authority of the Church, they substituted the authority of the Scriptures. To apply to them Luther’s own words, “they had saved others, themselves they could not save.” In their eyes Reason and Faith were still mortal enemies,—as unfortunately they are to this day in the eyes of a steadily diminishing number of their followers,—and they did not hesitate to demand the sacrifice of reason when it conflicted, or appeared to conflict, with the demands of faith: and that, indeed, as “the all-acceptablest sacrifice and service that can be offered to God.” In a sermon in 1546, the last he delivered at Wittenberg, Luther gave vent, in language that even one of his modern admirers finds too gross for quotation, to his bitter hatred and contempt for reason, at all events when it conflicted with his own interpretation of the Scriptures, or with any of the fundamental dogmas and doctrines he had himself formulated or accepted. While even in milder moments he did not hesitate to teach that[4:1]—

“It is a quality of faith that it wrings the neck of reason and strangles the beast, which else the whole world, with all creatures, could not strangle. But how? It holds to God’s word: lets it be right and true, no matter how foolish and impossible it sounds. So did Abraham take his reason captive and slay it.... There is no doubt faith and reason mightily fell out in Abraham’s heart, yet at last did faith get the better, and overcame and strangled reason, the all-cruelest and most fatal enemy to God. So, too, do all other faithful men who enter with Abraham the gloom and hidden darkness of faith; they strangle reason ... and thereby offer to God the all-acceptablest sacrifice and service that can ever be brought to Him.”

However, whatever may have been the personal desires and tendencies of those associated with its earlier manifestations, the forces of which the Reformation was the outcome were not to be controlled by them. The spirit of which they were the product was not to be controlled by any fetters they could forge. The Reformation emancipated the intellect of Europe from the yoke of tradition and blind obedience to authority; it let loose the illuming flood of thought which had been accumulating behind the more rigid barriers of the Church, and swept away as things of straw the feebler barriers the early Reformers would have erected to confine the thoughts of future generations. The futility of all such efforts we can gauge, they could not. Blind obedience to authority, in matters spiritual and temporal, had been the watchword and animating principle of the power against which they had rebelled; liberty and reason were the watchwords and animating principles of the movement of which they, owing to their rebellion, had temporarily become the recognised leaders. The right of private judgement, in other words, the supremacy of reason as sole judge and arbiter of all matters, spiritual as well as secular, was the essential element of the movement of which the Reformation was the outcome; how, then, could they, the children of this movement, hope to change its course?

When considering the forces and circumstances that made the Reformation possible, when so many equally earnest previous attempts in the same direction had failed, we should not lose sight of the favourable political situation. Under cover of its religious authority, by means of its unrivalled organisation, as well as by its temporal control of large areas of the richest and most fertile land in Europe, the Church of Rome annually drained into Italy a large part of the surplus wealth of every country that recognised its spiritual authority. Such countries were impoverished to support not only the resident but an absentee priesthood, and to enable the Princes of the Church to maintain a more than princely state at Rome. This was a standing grievance even in the eyes of many sincerely devout Churchmen, and one which was prone to make statesmen and politicians look with a favourable eye on any movement which promised to lessen or to abolish it. Germany in this respect had special reasons for discontent; as has been well said, “It was the milch cow of the Papacy, which at once despised and drained it dry.” And, as everybody knows, it was in Germany that the standard of revolt against the authority of Rome was first successfully raised. The political constitution of that country was also peculiarly favourable to the protection of the Reformation and of the persons of the early Reformers. Although owing a nominal allegiance to the Emperor, or rather to the will of the Diet which met annually under the presidency of the Emperor, the head of each of the little States into which Germany was divided claimed to be independent lord of the territory over which he ruled. Hence, when the Ernestine line of Saxon princes took the Reformation and the early Reformers under their protection, there was no power ready and willing to compel them to relinquish their design. The democratic independence of the Free Cities also made them fitting strongholds of the new teachings.

Students of history would do well never to lose sight of the fact that every religion which attempts to bind or to guide the reason, to direct the lives and to determine the conscience of mankind, necessarily has an ethical as well as a theological, a social as well as an individual side. It concerns itself, not only with the relation of the individual to God or the gods, but also with the relations and duties of man to man. Hence the close relation and inter-relation of religion and politics. Politics is the art or act of regulating the social relations of mankind, of determining social or civic rights and duties. It is neither more nor less than the practical application of accepted abstract ethical, or religious, principles in the domain of social life. Hence we cannot be surprised that almost every wide-spread religious revival, every renewed application of reason to religion, which almost necessarily gives prominence to its ethical or social side, has been followed by an uprising of the masses against what they had come to regard as the irreligious tyranny and oppression of the ruling privileged classes. The teachings of Wyclif in England, in the fourteenth century, were followed by the insurrection associated with the name of Wat Tyler; the teachings of Luther and his associates, in the sixteenth century, by the Peasants’ Revolt.

To the economic causes of the unrest of the peasantry and labouring classes during the fifteenth and sixteenth century, we can refer only very briefly. At the time of the great migration of the fifth century, the free barbarian nations were organised on a tribal or village basis. By the end of the tenth century, however, what is known as the Feudal System had been established all over Europe. “No land without a lord” was the underlying principle of the whole Feudal System. Either by conquest or usurpation, or by more or less compulsory voluntary agreement, even the free primitive communities (die Markgenossenshaften) of the Teutonic races had been brought under the dominion of the lords, spiritual or temporal, claiming suzerainty over the territory in which they were situated. The claims of the Feudal Magnates seem ever to have been somewhat vague and arbitrary. At first they were comparatively light, and may well have been regarded and excused as a return for services rendered. The general tendency, however, was for the individual power of the lords to extend itself at the cost and to the detriment of the rural communities, and for their claims steadily to increase and to become more burdensome. During the fourteenth century many causes had combined to improve the condition of the industrial classes; and during the end of the fourteenth and the early part of the fifteenth century the condition of the peasantry and artisans of Northern Europe was better than it had ever been before or has ever been since: wages were comparatively high, employment plentiful, food and other necessaries of life both abundant and cheap.[7:1] At the beginning of the sixteenth century, however, the prices of the necessaries of life had risen enormously, and there had been no corresponding increase in the earnings of the industrial classes. Moreover, the Feudal Magnates had commenced to exercise their oppressive power in a hitherto unparalleled manner: old rights of pasture, of gathering wood and cutting timber, of hunting and fishing, and so on, had been greatly curtailed, in many cases entirely abolished, tithes and other manorial dues had been doubled and trebled, and many new and onerous burdens, some of them entirely opposed to ancient use and wont, had been imposed. In short, the peasantry and labouring classes generally were oppressed and impoverished in countless different ways.

In Germany, as indeed in most other parts of Feudal Europe, the peasantry of the period were of three different kinds. Serfs (Leibeigener), who were little better than slaves, and who were bought and sold with the land they cultivated; villeins (Höriger), whose services were assumed to be fixed and limited; and the free peasant (die Freier), whose counterpart in England was the mediæval copyholder, who either held his land from some feudal lord, to whom he paid a quit-rent in kind or in money, or who paid such a rent for permission to retain his holding in the rural community under the protection of the lord. To appreciate the state of mind of such folk in the times of which we are writing, we should remember that “the good old times” of the fifteenth century were still green in their minds, from which, indeed, the memory of ancient freedom and primitive communism, though little more than a tradition, had never been entirely banished: which sufficiently accounts, not only for their impatience of their new burdens, but also for their tendency to regard all feudal dues as direct infringements of their ancient rights and privileges.

“We will that you free us for ever, us and our lands; and that we be never named and held as serfs!” was the demand of the revolting English peasant in 1381; and the same words practically summarise the demands of the German peasantry in 1525. The famous Twelve Articles in which they summarised their wrongs and formulated their demands, forcibly illustrate the direct influence of the prevailing religious revival on the current social and political thought.[8:1] Briefly, they demanded that the gospel should be preached to them pure and undefiled by any mere man-made additions. That the rural communities, not the Feudal Magnates, should have the power to choose and to dismiss their ministers. That the tithes should be regulated in accordance with scriptural injunctions, and devoted to the maintenance of ministers and to the relief of the poor and distressed, “as we are commanded in the Holy Scriptures.” That serfdom should be abolished, “since Christ redeemed us all with His precious blood, the shepherd as well as the noble, the lowest as well as the highest, none being excepted.” That the claims of the rich to the game, to the fish in the running waters, to the woods and forests and other lands, once the common property of the community, should be investigated, and their ancient rights restored to them, where they had been purchased, with adequate compensation, but without compensation where they had been usurped. That arbitrary compulsory service should cease, and the use and enjoyment of their lands be granted to them in accordance with ancient customs and the agreements between lords and peasants. That arbitrary punishments should be abolished, as also certain new and oppressive customs. And, finally, they desired that all their demands should be tested by Scripture, and such as cannot stand this test to be summarily rejected.

That the demands of the peasants, as formulated in the Twelve Articles, were reasonable, just and moderate, few to-day would care to deny. That they appealed to such of their religious teachers as had some regard for the material, as well as for the spiritual, well-being of their fellows, may safely be inferred from the leading position taken by some of these both prior to and during the uprising. Nor can there be any doubt but that at first the peasants looked to Wittenberg for aid, support and guidance. Those who had proclaimed the Bible as the sole authority, must, they thought, unreservedly support every movement to give practical effect to its teachings. Those who had revolted against the abuses of the spiritual powers at Rome, must, they thought, sympathise with their revolt against far worse abuses at home. They were bitterly to be disappointed. From Luther and the band of scholastic Reformers that had gathered round him, they were to receive neither aid, guidance nor sympathy. The learned and cultured Melanchthon, Luther’s right hand, denounced their demand that serfdom should be abolished as an insolent and violent outrage (ein Frevel und Gewalt), and preached passive obedience to any and every established authority. “Even if all the demands of the peasants were Christian,” he said, “the uprising of the peasants would not be justified; and that because God commands obedience to the authorities.” Luther’s attitude was much the same. Though a son of a peasant, and evidently realising that the demands of the peasants were just and moderate, and “not stretched to their advantage,” he at first assumed a somewhat neutral attitude, which, however, he soon relinquished; and in a pamphlet to which his greatest admirers must wish he had never put his name, and which shocked even his own times and many of his own immediate followers, he proclaimed that to put down the revolt all “who can shall destroy, strangle, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing is more poisonous, hurtful and devilish than a rebellious man.”

The rulers did not fail to better his instruction. In defence of their privileges, the German princes, spiritual and temporal, catholic and evangelical, united their forces, and the uprising was put down in a sea of blood. The peasants, comparatively unarmed, were slaughtered by thousands, and the yoke of serfdom was firmly re-fastened on the necks of the people, until, some three hundred years later, in 1807, the Napoleonic invasion compelled the ruling classes voluntarily to relinquish some of their most cherished privileges. From a popular and religious, the Reformation in Germany degenerated into a mere political movement, and fell almost entirely into the hands of princes and politicians to be exploited for their own purposes. The reorganisation of the Churches, which the Reformation rendered necessary in those States where it was maintained, was for the most part undertaken by the secular authorities in accordance with the views of the temporal rulers, whose religious belief their unfortunate subjects were assumed to have adopted. The activities of the Lutheran Reformers were soon engrossed weaving the web of a Protestant scholasticism, strengthening and defending their favourite dogma of justification by faith, abusing and persecuting such as differed from them on some all-important question of dogma or doctrine, framing propositions of passive obedience, and other such congenial pursuits.

Of the moral effect of the Reformation, of its effect on the general character of the people who came under its influence, which is the one test by which every such movement can be judged, we need say but little. To put it as mildly as possible, it must be admitted, to use the words of one of its modern admirers,[10:1] that “the Reformation did not at first carry with it much cleansing force of moral enthusiasm.” In the hands of men more logical or of a less healthy moral fibre, Luther’s favourite dogma, of justification by faith alone, led to conclusions subversive of all morality. However this may be, enemies and friends alike have to admit that the immediate effects of the Reformation were a dissolution of morals, a careless neglect of education and learning, and a general relaxation of the restraints of religion. In passage after passage, Luther himself declared that the last state of things was worse than the first; that vice of every kind had increased since the Reformation; that the nobles were more greedy, the burghers more avaricious, the peasants more brutal; that Christian charity and liberality had almost ceased to flow; and that the authorised preachers of religion were neither heeded, respected nor supported by the people: all of which he characteristically attributed to the workings of the devil, a personage who plays a most important part in Luther’s theology and view of life.

Thus, to judge by its immediate effects, the Reformation appears to have been conducive neither to moral, to social, nor to political progress. And yet to-day we know that the intellectual movement of which it was the outcome contained within itself inspiring conceptions of social justice, political equality, economic freedom, aye, even of religious toleration and moral purity, unknown to any preceding age, and the full fruits of which have yet to be harvested to elevate and to bless mankind.

[4:1] Luther’s Works, ed. Walch, viii. 2043: “Erklärung der Ep. an die Galater.” Quoted by Beard, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, p. 163.

[7:1] See Thorold Rogers’ Six Centuries of Work and Wages, p. 389.

[8:1] See [Appendix A].

[10:1] Beard, loc. cit. p. 146.

CHAPTER II
THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND

“It was in the name of faith and religious liberty that, in the sixteenth century, commenced the movement which, from that epoch, suspended at times but ever renewed, has been agitating and exciting the world. The tempest rose first in the human soul: it struck the Church before it reached the State.”—Guizot.

In Germany, as we have seen, from a religious and popular, the Reformation degenerated into a mere scholastic and political movement, favourable to the pretensions of the ruling and privileged classes, opposed to the aspirations of the industrial classes, and conducive neither to moral, social, religious, nor political progress. In England, on the other hand, it ran a very different course. From a merely political, it gradually rose to the height of a truly religious and popular movement, infusing new life into the nation and lifting it into the very forefront of the van of progress, curbing the insolent pretensions of king, priest and noble, purifying the minds of the people of time-honoured but degrading conceptions of the functions of Church and of State, inspiring and uplifting them with new conceptions of political freedom, social justice, moral purity and religious toleration, which, despite temporary periods of reaction, have never since entirely lost their sway over the hearts nor their influence over the destinies of the British nation.

For many centuries prior to the Reformation the English people had been jealous and impatient of all ecclesiastical power, as of all foreign interference in their national affairs, more especially of the claims and pretensions of the Papacy. In England, as in Germany and even in France, the idea of a National Church controlled and administered by their own countrymen, and freed from the supremacy of the Church and Court of Rome, was one familiar even to devout Catholics. Moreover, the teachings of Wyclif had sunk deep into the hearts of the people, and only awaited a favourable opportunity to yield their fruits: already in the fourteenth they had paved the way for the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Hence it was that when Henry the Eighth, from purely personal and dynastic reasons, became involved in a quarrel with the Pope, he found his subjects prepared for greater changes in religious matters than any he contemplated or desired. However, by a series of legislative enactments, the Church of England, in 1534, was emancipated from the superiority of the Church of Rome; the papal authority was wholly abolished within the realm; Henry was legally recognised as the supreme head of the Church of England; the power of the spiritual aristocracy was broken and the whole body of the clergy humbled; the monasteries were suppressed; the great wealth and vast territorial possessions of the Church became the prey of the Crown, only to be dissipated in lavish grants to greedy courtiers: and thus the foundations were laid for greater changes in both Church and State than those who promoted such measures ever dreamed of.

From its inception the Church of England comprised two opposing and apparently irreconcilable elements, namely, those whose sympathies and leanings were toward the forms, dogmas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism, and those whose sympathies and leanings were toward the forms, dogmas and doctrines of the German and Swiss Reformers. Of religious toleration both parties were probably equally intolerant. That the State was directly concerned with the religious beliefs of the people, hence was justified in enforcing conformity to the Church as by law established, seems to have been unquestioningly accepted by both. The one desired to make use of the temporal power to prevent, the other to promote, further changes in Church government, worship and doctrine. The result was a compromise, which, like most compromises, satisfied the more logical and consistent of neither party. As ultimately established, in the reign of Elizabeth, the Church of England occupied a sort of middle position between the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches of the Continent; and the attempt to enforce conformity to its demands resulted in the separation from it of the extremists of both sections. On the one hand, the English Roman Catholics became a distinct and persecuted religious body, whose members were generally regarded, despite repeated evidence to the contrary, as necessarily enemies of England. On the other, despairing of further changes in the direction they desired, a large number of the extreme Protestants separated themselves from the National Church—though by so doing they rendered themselves liable to be accused not only of heresy, but of high treason, and to suffer death—and formed themselves into different bodies of Separatists or Independents, differing on many points among themselves, but united by a common animosity of all outside ecclesiastical control. Within the Church the Catholic sentiment crystallised into the Episcopalian, the Protestant sentiment into the Presbyterian section of the Church of England. During the reign of Elizabeth the Protestant element grew steadily stronger, as did also the spirit of political independence, as manifested in the debates and divisions of the House of Commons. It is a suggestive and noteworthy fact that during the long reign of Henry the Eighth the House of Commons only once refused to pass a Bill recommended by the Crown. During the reigns of Edward the Sixth and of Mary the spirit of political independence commenced to revive; and during the reign of Elizabeth the spirit of liberty and sense of responsibility manifested by the House of Commons were such as repeatedly to thwart the designs and to alter the policy of this high-spirited monarch. It was, however, the severity of the policy of the last of the Tudors and the first two of the Stuart kings against the dissenting Protestants, that identified the struggle for religious liberty, for liberty of conscience, with the struggle for political liberty, and made these men in a special sense the champions of a more or less qualified religious toleration, and of a constitutional political freedom.

The growth of extreme Protestantism, more especially perhaps of Independency, was greatly quickened during the reigns of both Mary and Elizabeth, by the immigration of many thousands of refugees fleeing from religious persecutions on the Continent. Amongst these were disciples and apostles of many sects that were heretics in the eyes of both the Catholic and the Protestant Churches, and who rejected alike the dogmas and doctrines of Rome, of Wittenberg, and of Geneva. The one point all such sects seem to have had in common was the denial of the sanctity and efficacy of infant baptism: hence their inclusion under the general term Anabaptists, even though many of them passionately disclaimed any connection with this hated, proscribed and persecuted sect. As Gerrard Winstanley, the inspirer of the Digger Movement, seems to us to have been greatly influenced by the teaching of one of these sects, the Familists, or Family of Love, it may be well to give here a brief outline of its history and main doctrines.

The founder of the Family of Love was one David George, or Joris, who was born at Delft in 1501. In 1530 he was severely punished for obstructing a Catholic procession in his native town. In 1534 he joined the Anabaptists, but soon left them to found a sect of his own. He seems to have interpreted the whole of the Scripture allegorically;[15:1] and to have maintained that as Moses had taught hope, and Christ had taught faith, it was his mission to teach love. His teachings were propagated in Holland by Henry Nicholas, and in England by one Christopher Vittel, a joiner, who appears to have undertaken a missionary journey throughout the country about the year 1560. According to Fuller,[16:1] in 1578, the nineteenth year of the reign of Elizabeth, “The Family of Love began now to grow so numerous, factious, and dangerous, that the Privy Council thought fit to endeavour their suppression.”

The most lucid account of the doctrines of this sect may be gained from a beautifully printed little book, entitled The Displaying of an Horrible Sect of Gross and Wicked Heretics naming themselves the Family of Love, published the same year, 1578, and written by one I. R. (Jn. Rogers), a bitter but fair-minded opponent of their heresies, a Protestant, and a zealous defender of the Lutheran dogma of justification by faith alone. In his Preface the author bewails “the daily increase of this error,” declaring that “in many shires of this our country there are meetings and conventicles of this Family of Love.” Amongst those who have been converted, he tells us, were many who had hitherto been “professors of Christ Jesus’ gospel according to the brightness thereof.” He denounces Christopher Vittel, the joiner, as “the only man that hath brought our simple people out of the plain ways of the Lord our God,” and complains how “he driveth the true sense of the Holy Ghost into allegories,” and contendeth that “otherwise to interpret the Holy Scriptures is to stick to the letter.” To the Family of Love, he tells us, “Christ signifieth anointed.” He continues, “I pray you mark but this one thing in their teachings, how they drive the true sense of the Holy Ghost into allegories. And when any text of Holy Scriptures is alleged by any of God’s children, they answer that we little understand what is meant thereby; and then if they be pressed to expound the place, by and by it is drawn into an allegory. For they take not the creation of man at the first to be historical (according to the letter), but mere allegorical: alleging that Adam signifieth the earthly man ... the Serpent to be within man; applying still the allegory, they destroy the truth of the history.”

The writer’s greatest grievance, however, is their rejection of the Lutheran dogma of justification by faith, and their agreement “with the Papists in extolling works as efficient causes of salvation.” “Amongst the rest, indeed,” he exclaims, “they insinuate a good life, as which they pretend to follow, which is as the vizard and cloak to hide all the rest of their gross and absurd doctrines, and the hook and bait whereby the simple are altogether deceived.” He is greatly concerned that “none but those who are willingly minded to their doctrines can get a sight of their books”;[17:1] and that “they are disinclined to disputations and conferences with those not inclined to their opinions.” He informs his readers that “it is a maxim in the Family to deny before men all their doctrines, so that they keep the same secret in their hearts”; that though they may inwardly reject, yet they will outwardly conform to the forms of the Church as by law established; that “they have certain sleights amongst them to answer any question that may be demanded of them.” Thus “they do decree all men to be infants who are under the age of thirty years. So that if they be demanded whether infants ought to be baptized, they answer yea; meaning thereby that he is an infant until he attain to those years at which time they ought to be baptized, and not before.” However, it may be well to mention here that the writer speaks of the Anabaptists and of the Family of Love as if he recognised them to be distinct heresies.

From their doctrines as formulated in this pamphlet, based on “A Confession made by two of the Family of Love before a worthy and worshipful Justice of the Peace, May 28th, 1561,” we take the following:

(a) “When any person shall be received into their congregation, they cause all their brethren to assemble, the Bishop or Elder doth declare unto the newly-elected brother, that if he will be content that all his goods shall be in common amongst the rest of all his brethren, he shall be received.”

(b) “They may not say God save anything. For they affirm that all things are ruled by Nature, and not directed by God.”

(c) “They did prohibit bearing of weapons, but at the length, perceiving themselves to be noted and marked for the same, they have allowed the bearing of staves.”

(d) “When a question is demanded of any of them, they do of order stay a great while ere they answer, and commonly their words shall be Surely or So.”

(e) “They hold that no man should be baptized before he is of the age of thirty years.”

(f) “They hold that heaven and hell are present in this world amongst us, and that there is none other.”[18:1]

(g) “They hold the Pope’s service and this service now used in the Churches to be naught.”

(h) “They hold that all men that are not of their congregation, or that are revolted from them, to be dead.”

(i) “They hold that they ought to keep silence amongst themselves, that the liberty they have in the Lord may not be espied of others.”

(k) “They hold that no man should be put to death for his opinion: therefore they condemn Master Cranmer and Master Ridley for burning Joan of Kent.”

We shall have occasion to refer to some of these doctrines again later on. It may be well, however, to mention here that the views that no Christian ought to be a magistrate; that magistrates should not meddle with religion; that no man ought to be compelled to faith, or put to death for his religion; that war is unlawful to Christians; that their speech should be yea or nay, without any oath: seem to have been accepted by Anabaptists generally, as they were by the primitive Christian communists of the fourteenth century.[18:2]

To return to our immediate subject. To the development of religious and political thought in England, as to the inevitable struggle due to the inherent antagonism of Catholic and Protestant ideals and aspirations, we can refer only very briefly. The former can perhaps best be traced in the writings of three eminent theological writers, Jewel, Hooker, and Chillingworth. Though in 1567 we hear of the first instance of actual punishment of Protestant Dissenters, still during the earlier portion of the reign of Elizabeth, to the year 1571, there seems to have been a gradual growth of national sentiment toward a simpler form of worship, resulting in a modification of those rites and usages disliked by Protestants of all shades and sects, and against the established policy of forcible suppression of religious differences. In 1571, a Bill having been introduced imposing a penalty for not receiving the communion, it was objected to in the House of Commons on the grounds that “consciences ought not to be forced.” The same Parliament “refused to bind the clergy to subscription to three articles on the Supremacy, the form of Church Government, and the power of the Church to ordain rites and ceremonies, and favoured the project of reforming the Liturgy by the omission of superstitious practices.”[19:1] In 1572, however, the appearance of Thomas Cartwright’s celebrated Admonition to the Parliament stemmed the course of religious reform, and produced a reaction of which Elizabeth and her Primates were not slow to avail themselves. The establishment, in 1583, of the Ecclesiastical Commission as a permanent body, wielding the almost unlimited powers of the Crown and creating their own tests of doctrine, put an end to the wise spirit of compromise which had hitherto characterised Elizabeth’s religious policy. The “superstitious usages” were encouraged; subscription by the clergy of the Three Articles, which the Parliament of 1571 had refused to enforce by law, was exacted; and the non-conforming clergy were relentlessly harried and persecuted: with the result that the Presbyterians within and the Puritans without the National Church were temporarily united by the pressure of a common persecution.

It was Cartwright’s political rather than his religious views that alarmed Elizabeth and her Ministers. As against their theory of a State-controlled Church, he advocated a Church-controlled State. In fact, the most arrogant and insolent pretensions of the Papacy were surpassed by this Presbyterian divine. Of course, all his demands were based on the authority of Scripture and the ways and customs of the primitive Christian Church. The rule of bishops he denounced as begotten of the devil; the absolute rule of presbyters he held to be established by the word of God. All other forms of Church government were ruthlessly to be suppressed, and heretics were to be punished by death. For the ministers of the Church he claimed not only all spiritual power and jurisdiction, the decreeing of doctrines, the ordering of ceremonies, and so on, but also the supervision of public morals, under which every branch of human activities was included. In short, the State, as well as the individual, was to be placed beneath the heel of the Church. The power of the prince, the secular power, was tolerated only so that it might “protect and defend the councils of the clergy, to keep the peace, to see their decrees executed, and to punish the contemners of them.” Such doctrines aroused no responsive echo in the minds of the English people. The nation whose revolt against the papal supremacy had made the Reformation possible, were not disposed to accept Presbyterian supremacy in its place. The national impatience of ecclesiastical power was not likely suddenly to be removed by any attempt to re-impose it under a new name and in a new garb. In fact, Cartwright’s work almost seems as if specially written to warn the nation against a possible, if not an imminent, danger, to warn them, in truth, that—“New Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large.”

Cartwright’s narrow-minded dogmatism was crushingly answered in Richard Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, the first volume of which appeared in 1594. This remarkable book forms, indeed, an important landmark in the history of English political and religious thought. Its forcible exposition of the basic principles of constitutional civil government makes many portions of it even to-day most attractive and instructive reading. For the first time in the history of religious controversy, reason is extolled above any and every authority, and accepted as supreme judge and arbiter of spiritual, as well as of temporal, affairs. Though Hooker thought it fit that the reason of the individual should yield to that of the Church, he did not hesitate to declare “that authority should prevail with man either against or above reason, is no part of our belief. Companies of learned men, be they never so great and reverend, are to yield unto reason.” As Buckle well points out,[21:1] if we compare this work with Jewel’s Apology for the Church of England, written some thirty years previously,—and ordered, together with the Bible and Fox’s Martyrs, “to be fixed in all parish churches and read to the people,”—“we shall at once be struck by the different methods these eminent writers employ.... Jewel inculcates the importance of faith; Hooker insists on the exercise of reason.... In the same opposite spirit do these great writers conduct their defence of their own Church. Jewel thinks to settle the whole dispute by crowding together texts from the Bible, with the opinions of the commentators upon them.... Hooker’s defence rests neither upon tradition, nor upon commentators, nor even upon revelation; but he is content that the pretensions of the hostile parties shall be decided by their applicability to the great exigencies of society, and by the ease with which they adapt themselves to the general purposes of ordinary life.”

The celebrated work by Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants, a Safe Way to Salvation, published in 1637, and of which two editions were issued within less than five months, also deserves special mention here. His fundamental position may be well summarised in one of his own sentences—“I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that man ought not to require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scriptures to be God’s word, to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it.” Even more fully than Hooker, Chillingworth accepts reason as the all-sufficient guide of human conduct, and admits no reservations that might limit the sacred right of private judgement. The essential difference between these three eminent writers is admirably summarised by Buckle in the following [words]:[21:2] “These three great men represent the three distinct epochs of the three successive generations in which they respectively lived. In Jewel, reason is, if I may so say, the superstructure of the system; but authority is the basis upon which the superstructure is built. In Hooker, authority is only the superstructure, and reason is the basis. But in Chillingworth, whose writings were harbingers of the coming storm, authority entirely disappears, and the whole fabric of religion is made to rest upon the way in which the unaided reason of man shall interpret the decrees of an omnipotent God.”

In fact, Chillingworth’s great work may well be regarded as the last word of the Protestant Reformation in England.

[15:1] According to Beard, The Hibbert Lectures, 1883, p. 119, “It was a mediæval maxim, which no one thought of questioning, that the language of the Bible had four senses—the literal, the allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical, of which the last three were mystical or spiritual, in contradistinction to the first.” The learned Erasmus, who lived and died a devout Roman Catholic, seems to have accepted this allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. Of interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, he recommends those “who depart as far as possible from the letter.” Erasmus, Opp. (Enchiridion), v. 29, B, C, D. Quoted by Beard, p. 120.

[16:1] Church History, vol. iv. p. 407.

[17:1] When occasion arose, they do not seem to have been averse to giving publicity to their opinions. In 1656 a London publisher, Giles Calvert, to whom we shall have occasion to refer again, republished A Discourse on the Family of Love, originally presented to the High Court of Parliament in the time of Queen Elizabeth. This Giles Calvert was the printer and publisher of nearly all Winstanley’s pamphlets, and also one of the first authorised printers and publishers for the Children of Light, as the Quakers, or Society of Friends, originally styled themselves. We have reason to believe that Calvert, as well as many other of Winstanley’s disciples, joined the Quakers about the time of the republication of this pamphlet.

[18:1] “There is no other flame in which the sinner is plagued, and no other punishment of hell, than the perpetual anguish of mind which accompanies habitual sin.”—Erasmus, Enchiridion. Quoted by Beard.

[18:2] See Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation, by Karl Kautsky, more especially p. 79.

[19:1] Green’s Short History of the English People, p. 457.

[21:1] History of Civilisation in England, vol. i. p. 340.

[21:2] Ibid. vol. i. p. 351.

CHAPTER III
THE GREAT CIVIL WAR

“The lawful power of making laws to command whole politic societies of men, belongeth so properly to the same entire societies, that for any prince or potentate of what kind soever upon earth, to exercise the same of himself, and not either by express commission immediately and personally received from God, or else by authority derived at the first from their consent, upon whose persons they impose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny. Laws they are not therefore which public approbation hath not made so.”—Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity.

When Chillingworth’s great work was published, in 1637, the last of the Tudors, after having outlived her popularity, had passed to her rest, as had also her most unworthy successor, whose insolence had outraged, but whose weakness had strengthened, the awakening spirit of liberty, and who, as Macaulay well expresses it,[23:1] “was, in truth, one of those kings whom God seems to send for the express purpose of hastening revolutions.” To him had succeeded his most worthy son: a king whose perfidy and duplicity were only equalled by his self-complacency and power of self-deception, who never looked facts in the face, but placidly expected them to conform to his own petty desires, and whose dignified death failed to atone for a life devoted to ignoble personal ends, by crooked ways and treacherous means; a king peculiarly incapable of taking a broad statesman-like view of any question, who manifested no thought for the interests of the people of whom he regarded himself as ruler by right divine, whose futile domestic policy was inspired solely by considerations for the advancement of his own personal power, whose feeble and shifty foreign policy was determined only by considerations for his own family interests, who intrigued with France against Spain, with Spain against France, with both against Holland, and with Holland against both, and with France, Spain, Holland, and Rome against his own subjects, with English Presbyterians against English Independents, with English Independents against English Presbyterians, and with Irish Catholics and Scotch Presbyterians against both English Presbyterians and Independents, and who yet succeeded in deceiving nobody but himself, and in satisfying nobody, not even himself; a king whose love was far more dangerous than his hate, a worthy patron of a Buckingham, a Goring, or of a Laud, but unworthy the genius of a Shaftesbury or the loyal services of a Verney, a Montrose, or a Worcester; a king, in short, treacherous to his friends, faithless to his word, who went to his wedding and came to his throne with a lie on his lips,[24:1] whom, again to use the words of Macaulay,[24:2] “no law could bind, and whose whole government was one system of wrong,” of whom even the conservative and partial Hallam is forced to admit[24:3] that “it would be difficult to name any violation of law he had not committed.” Even the famous Petition of Right, to which some nine years previously, in 1628, he had given a solemn, though reluctant, consent, had been ruthlessly violated. Taxes had been levied by the Royal authority; patents of monopoly had been granted; the course of justice had been tampered with, and judges arbitrarily deposed; troops had been billeted upon the people; old feudal usages had been revived for the express purpose of harassing and defrauding the citizens; and, as if to exhaust every means to sap the loyalty and wear out the patience of the people, Puritans of every shade of opinion had not only been silenced but relentlessly persecuted, while High Church bishops preached passive obedience, declaring the persons and the property of subjects to be at the absolute disposal of the sovereign, and in the name of religion inaugurating a systematic attack on the rights and liberties of the nation.

The people whose representatives a quarter of a century previously, in 1604, had met the insolent claims of James the First with the dignified rejoinder, that “your Majesty should be misinformed if any man should deliver that the kings of England have any absolute power in themselves either to alter religion, or to make any laws concerning the same, otherwise than in temporal causes by consent of Parliament,”[25:1] were, however, not easily to be intimidated. Despite a Royal order to adjourn, the House of Commons of 1629, holding the Speaker by force in the Chair, supported the immortal Eliot in his last assertion of English liberty, and by successive resolutions declared that whosoever shall bring in innovations in religion, or whosoever shall counsel or advise the taking and levying of the subsidies of tonnage and poundage, not being granted by Parliament, “a capital enemy to this kingdom and commonwealth,” and any person voluntarily yielding or paying the said subsidies, not being granted by Parliament, “a betrayer of the liberty of England, and an enemy to the same.”[25:2] Having thus flung their defiance in the face of the King, the House then voted its own adjournment.

From that time events had marched quickly. Those who had played the most prominent parts in that momentous scene, including Holles, Selden, and Eliot, had been thrown into prison, the last-named to die there, the first martyr to the growing cause of civil freedom and religious liberty. In 1637, the year of the publication of Chillingworth’s work, the whole question of the right to levy taxation was revived by the demand on the inland counties for ship-money, and the attention of the whole country attracted to it by the trial of Hampden on his refusal to pay same. Later in the year, Charles’ attempt to alter the ecclesiastical constitution and form of public worship in Scotland led, first to discontent, then to riot, and finally to open rebellion. As a direct consequence, the King, in April 1640, was compelled to call what from its brief duration is known as the Short Parliament, in which, thanks to the Parliamentary tactics of Hampden, the design of the Court Party, to obtain supplies without redressing grievances, was constitutionally thwarted. On the manifestation of its determination to redress wrongs and to vindicate the laws, this Parliament was at once dissolved. The end of the tyranny, however, was fast approaching. In August of the same year the King marched northward; the Scotch crossed the border to meet him; on their approach the disaffected English army was well pleased to fly rather than to fight those whom they were inclined to regard as deliverers rather than as enemies; a truce was patched up, and to meet the critical situation the King, in November 1640, found himself compelled to summon his last and most famous Parliament, known in history as the Long Parliament.

The temper of the new Parliament, in which Pym and Hampden at first exercised a paramount influence, was very different from that of any of its predecessors. Recent events had convinced its leading members that half measures would be worse than useless. During its first session, Strafford and Laud, the two main supporters of absolute government and religious tyranny, were impeached and imprisoned; those whom the King had employed as instruments of oppression were called to account for their conduct; the Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission and the Council of York, were abolished; ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgement in Hampden’s case was annulled; the victims of the recent religious persecutions were set at liberty, and conducted through London in triumph; old oppressive feudal powers still appertaining to the Crown were swept away; the King was made to give the judges patents for life or during good behaviour; the Forest and Stannary Courts were reformed; Triennial Parliaments were established; and, finally, it was provided that the Parliament then sitting should not be prorogued or dissolved save by its own consent.

After the recess the difficulties and dangers of the situation increased daily. Revolt, popularly regarded as fomented by the Court Party, had broken out in Ireland; the King, evidently seeking power and opportunity to retract the concessions he had made, was seeking aid in all directions—Rome, France, Spain, and was intriguing in Scotland; the air was full of rumours of a plot of the Court to bring down the army in the North to overawe the Parliament; and the moderate men,—“that is to say, men who never go to the bottom of any difficulty,” as Gardiner expresses it,—by whose aid the above changes had been effected, were inclined to pause, if not to retrace their steps. Under these circumstances the popular leaders in the House of Commons, in November 1641, framed and passed the Great Remonstrance, which was practically an address to the nation, to justify their past action and to appeal for further support. In this famous document all the oppressive and arbitrary acts of the past fifteen years were narrated in impressive language; a detailed account was given of the necessary work already accomplished, of the dangers and difficulties yet to be surmounted, declaring the purpose of the House to be, not to abolish Episcopacy, but to reduce the power of the bishops; and, finally, indicating the line of future constitutional reform by urging that the King should employ no Ministers save those in whom the Parliament could place confidence.

Contrary to expectation, the debate on the Remonstrance was long and stormy, and the division—it was only carried in a full House by a majority of nine—showed plainly that a reaction in favour of the King had already begun. Charles had now a final opportunity of regaining the confidence of the representatives of the nation, and for a few days it seemed as if he were inclined to follow a moderate, dignified and constitutional course. But for a few days only. On the 3rd of January 1642, without giving a hint of his intentions to the constitutional Royalists he had so recently called to his councils, and whom he had faithfully promised to consult on all matters relating to the House of Commons, he sent down his Attorney-General to impeach the leading members of the House, Pym, Holles, and Haselrig, at the bar of the House of Lords, on a charge of high treason. As Macaulay well says,[28:1] “It would be difficult to find in the whole history of England such an instance of tyranny, perfidy, and folly.” But worse was to follow. The Commons refused to surrender their members, and Charles resolved on their forcible arrest on the floor of the House. The threatened members, however, had been warned, and had taken refuge in the City of London; their absence, together with the dignified attitude of the remaining members, prevented the outrage ending in bloodshed: in a bloodshed the possibility of which it is even to-day impossible to contemplate with equanimity.

Though the Militia Bill, which would have given Parliament the control of the armed forces of the nation, was the ostensible, this outrage on the part of the King was the direct and mediate, cause of the outbreak of the Civil War. “To be safe from armed violence,” the Commons, as far as the rules of the House would permit, placed themselves under the protection of the City; and the day previous to the one fixed for their return to St. Stephen’s under the protection of the trained bands of London, the King left Whitehall, to return to it only to pay the dire penalty for his past offences. Both sides now actively prepared for the inevitable struggle. Owing to Pym’s forethought, the Tower was blockaded, and the two great arsenals of Hull and Portsmouth secured for the Parliament. Owing to the force and boldness of his language, the House of Lords was scared out of the policy of obstruction it had taken up. On the avowal by Parliament of the refusal of the governor of Hull to open the gates to the King, the members of the Royalist party withdrew from Westminster; and on August 22nd, 1642, the uplifting of Charles’ standard on a hill at Nottingham announced the outbreak of the Civil War.

On the well-trodden ground of the progress of the war, it is unnecessary for our purposes to dwell. The issues involved were truly tremendous. The evolution of the English Constitution had left it undecided to whom the supreme power in the nation did rightfully accrue: and this was, perhaps, the most practical question at issue.[29:1] As between Parliament and King, the question was, whether the supreme power was to continue to be wielded by a king whose temporal jurisdiction was to be limited only by ancient laws interpreted by judges of his own creation and removable at his pleasure, or by the representatives of the nation in Parliament assembled? It was left to the Model Army to remind the members of the Long Parliament that their power, as that of “all future representatives of this nation, is inferior only to theirs who choose them.”[29:2] However, to make both King and Church responsible to Parliament was, in truth, the one common aim of the whole Parliamentary party; and, as Gardiner well points out,[29:3] “every year which passed after the Restoration made it more evident that, for the time at least, the most substantial gains of the long conflict had fallen to those who had concentrated their efforts on this object.”

Keeping in view the reforms secured during the first session of the Long Parliament, it may fairly be urged that everything necessary to this end had been gained prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, everything, of course, save the control of the sword; and this, if the King could have been trusted, was not immediately urgent, and would necessarily have followed the control of the purse. “If the King could have been trusted!” In these words the key to the whole situation is to be found. The Parliamentary leaders could not, did not, dared not, trust the King: hence the power of the sword had to be wrested from his grasp. It was this that made the Civil War inevitable. It was this that rendered constitutional government, government by discussion, government by compromise, impossible. It was this well-grounded and repeatedly confirmed distrust of the King that, after years of war and repeated and sincere negotiations, negotiations which only served still further to reveal his duplicity, made the execution of the King unavoidable. As the judicial Gardiner well says,[30:1] in summing up the causes which led to this most solemn, impressive, and instructive event in the whole history of England—“The situation, complicated enough already, had been still further complicated by Charles’ duplicity. Men who would have been willing to come to terms with him, despaired of any constitutional arrangement in which he was to be a factor; and men who had long been alienated from him were irritated into active hostility. By these he was regarded with increasing intensity as the one disturbing force with which no understanding was possible and no settled order consistent. To remove him out of the way appeared, even to those who had no thought of punishing him for past offences, to be the only possible road to peace for the troubled nation.”

The religious issues of the great struggle, however, were by no means so simple. Episcopacy, as it had existed, had few supporters in England outside the ranks of the bishops. The Laudian coercion had not only reawakened slumbering animosities and given renewed vigour to the Puritan dislike of the forms and ceremonies of the Anglican Church, but had served to fill men’s minds with a healthy, vigorous, and deep-rooted distrust of ecclesiastical government in any form. To any claims, whether of kings or of bishops or of presbyters, to rule by Divine right, the ear of the nation was temporarily closed. If Protestants of all shades of opinions had learned to distrust Episcopacy, intellectual men of all shades of religious beliefs, and of none, equally distrusted Presbyterianism, and feared that the free play of intellectual life would be as much endangered by the rule of the presbyters as by the rule of the bishops. We should, however, do well to remember that at the outbreak of the war most of the great Parliamentary leaders, including Pym, Hampden, and even Cromwell, had no deep-rooted objection to Episcopacy as a form of Church government, provided only that it was controlled by Parliament, and allowed the fullest possible liberty of conscience. They all shared Pym’s expressed conviction that “the greatest liberty of the kingdom is religion,” and seemed to have inclined toward the ideal of Chillingworth, a full liberty of thought maintained within the unity of the Church. It was their necessity, not their will, the necessity to gain the cordial co-operation of the Scotch, that later compelled them to commit themselves to Presbyterianism, of their profound distrust of which they gave repeated proof. And it is worthy of special note that even in the time of their greatest need the English Parliament, to use Gardiner’s words,[31:1] “was as disinclined as the Tudor kings had ever been to allow the establishment in England of a Church system claiming to exist by Divine right, or by any right whatever independent of the State.”

That religious conformity was a necessary condition of national unity, aye, even of national existence, was, however, still accepted as an axiomatic truth by those whose mental visions were limited by inherited conceptions. To such as these the only question at issue seems to have been whether an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian system of Church government should prevail. Of the claims of those who would bow the head neither to Rome, to Geneva, nor to Canterbury, who refused to entrust their conscience to pope, to bishop, or to presbyter, the extreme adherents of both these systems were probably equally insensible. And yet it was precisely such men who were to come to the front during the coming struggle, and who, under the guidance of their great leader, were to become the champions of that great democratic principle of toleration, of liberty of conscience, which was the one leading principle of his life.[31:2] It was precisely such men who were to proclaim to the rulers of the nation—“That matters of religion and the ways of God’s worship are not at all entrusted by us to any human power, because therein we cannot remit or exceed a tittle of what our consciences dictate to be the mind of God without wilful sin.” But who themselves were tolerant enough to be willing that “nevertheless the public way of instructing the nation (so it be not compulsive) is referred to their discretion.”[32:1]

“So it be not compulsive!” in these words we have the key to the position of the great body of sectarians known under the name of Independents. They recognised, to use the words of their immortal leader, that “it’s one thing to love a brother, to bear with and love a person of different judgement in matters of religion; and another thing to have anybody so far set in the saddle on that account, as to have all the rest of his brethren at mercy.” So it be not compulsive! in these words, too, we have the secret of their subsequent attitude toward the Long Parliament and its successors. As Gardiner forcibly expresses it—“Men who longed for religious toleration with a stern conviction were impatient of parliamentary majorities working for uniformity.” To their opponents, more especially to those of the strict Presbyterian school, toleration may have seemed of the devil, incompatible with individual salvation, and injurious alike to Church and to State; to the Independents, on the other hand, it was a necessary condition of continued existence. They had no desire to establish a State Church of their own; they were not prepared to deny that at least “a public way of instructing the nation” might be necessary; but they were determined that any such Church should be tolerant of the claims of men like themselves, who could not conform their conscience to its requirements. To create a home of liberty out of the England of the Tudors and the Stuarts, of Laud and of Prynne, was a task beyond even their powers. But whatever they may have failed to accomplish, they saved England from the ecclesiastical tyranny Presbyterianism at that time involved, and raised the standard of liberty and toleration, which during the great struggle obtained a hold of the mind of the nation such as it never had before, but never entirely lost again.

At the very outbreak of the Civil War, Cromwell’s aim had been to find “men who know what they fight for, and love what they know,—men as had the fear of God before them, as made some conscience of what they did.”[33:1] Such men soon gathered round the great Independent, and he moulded them into the famous Ironsides, by whose aid he turned the tide of defeat at Marston Moor, and gained the glorious victories of Naseby, Preston, Dunbar, and Worcester. Such men stood by his side at the momentous Army Council at Windsor, May 1st, 1648, when it was solemnly resolved, “not any dissenting,” “that it was our duty, if ever the Lord brought us back again in peace, to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to account for the blood he had shed, and mischief he had done to his utmost, against the Lord’s cause and people in these poor nations.”[33:2] It was such men who, on December 6th, 1648, to save the kingdom from a new war or from a peace destructive of everything they had fought for,[33:3] purged the House of Commons of its “malignant” members; and who cut the Gordian knot of the difficulties that beset the nation by bringing the King, who seemed to them to stand in the way of any and every satisfactory settlement, to trial and execution (January 30th, 1649). Moreover, it was such men who most heartily concurred with the resolution of the House of Commons (February 7th, 1649), “That it has been found by experience ... that the office of a king in this nation, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interests of the people of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished.” And, finally, it was such men who were the main supporters of the Council of State to whom, on February 13th, 1649, under the control of the House of Commons, was entrusted full executive authority over the home and foreign affairs of the nation.

[23:1] Macaulay’s Essays, “John Hampden.”

[24:1] In 1624, Charles had voluntarily sworn to the House of Commons that if he married a Roman Catholic “it should be of no advantage to the recusants at home.” In the autumn of the same year, on his betrothal to Henrietta Maria, sister to the King of France, he solemnly swore to grant the very condition he had previously solemnly sworn never to concede. He came to the throne early in the following year, 1625.

[24:2] Loc. cit.

[24:3] Constitutional History, vol. ii. p. 81.

[25:1] The Apology of the Commons, 1604. See Gardiner’s History of England, 1603-1642, vol. i. pp. 180-185.

[25:2] Ibid. vol. vii. pp. 72-76.

[28:1] Loc. cit.

[29:1] This was the point of view taken at the time by the Levellers, the most active and progressive politicians of the period. In a “Humble Petition of thousands of well affected people inhabiting the City of London,” presented September 11th, 1648, the petitioners address the House of Commons as “the supreme authority of England,” and desire it so to consider itself. They complain that the Commons have declared their intention not to alter the ancient government of King, Lords and Commons, “not once mentioning, in case of difference, which of them is supreme, but leaving that point, which was the chiefest cause of all our public differences, disturbances, wars, and miseries, as uncertain as ever.” See Clarke Papers, vol. ii. p. 76.

[29:2] See “The Agreement of the People for a firm and present peace,” as presented to the Council of the Army, October 28th, 1647. Reprinted at the end of the third volume of Gardiner’s History of the Civil War.

[29:3] History of the Civil War, vol. ii. p. 67.

[30:1] History of the Civil War, vol. iv. pp. 327-328.

[31:1] History of the Civil War, vol. iii. p. 95.

[31:2] See [Appendix B].

[32:1] “The Agreement of the People for a firm and present peace.” (Italics are ours.)

[33:1] See Carlyle’s Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches, part ii. p. 135, and part x. p. 255.

[33:2] See Gardiner’s History of the Civil War, vol. iv. pp. 120-121.

[33:3] Cromwell seems early to have foreseen and guarded against such a contingency. See Gardiner, ibid. vol. ii. p. 25.

CHAPTER IV
THE DIGGERS

“The way to cast out Kingly Power is not to cast it out by the Sword; for this doth but set him in more power, and removes him from a weaker to a stronger hand. The only way to cast him out is for the people to leave him to himself, to forsake fighting and all oppression, and to live in love one towards another. The Power of Love is the True Saviour.”—Winstanley, A New Year’s Gift for the Parliament and Army.

The Council of State which, on February 13th, 1649, within a month of the execution of the King, had been appointed to administer the public affairs of England, had scarcely settled down to their work when they received the following information of the mysterious doings of “a disorderly and tumultuous sort of people” very near to their doors:[34:1]

“Information of Henry Sanders of Walton upon Thames.

“Informeth, that on Sunday was sennight last,[34:2] there was one Everard, once of the army but was cashiered, who termeth himself a prophet, one Stewer and Colten, and two more, all living at Cobham, came to St. George’s Hill in Surrey, and began to dig on that side the hill next to Campe Close, and sowed the ground with parsnips, carrots, and beans. On Monday following they were there again, being increased in their number, and on the next day, being Tuesday, they fired the heath, and burned at least forty rood of heath, which is a very great prejudice to the town. On Friday last they came again, between twenty and thirty, and wrought all day at digging. They did then intend to have two or three ploughs at work, but they had not furnished themselves with seed-corn, which they did on Saturday at Kingston. They invite all to come in and help them, and promise them meat, drink, and clothes. They do threaten to pull down and level all park pales, and lay open, and intend to plant there very shortly. They give out they will be four or five thousand within ten days, and threaten the neighbouring people there, that they will make them all come up to the hills and work: and forewarn them suffering their cattle to come near the plantation; if they do, they will cut their legs off. It is feared they have some design in hand.

“Henry Sanders.

“16 April 1649.”

The Council of State were sufficiently impressed by this letter to forward it the same day to Lord Fairfax, the Lord General of the armed forces of the Commonwealth, with the following despatch:

“The Council of State to Lord Fairfax.[35:1]

“My Lord,—By the narrative enclosed your Lordship will be informed of what relation hath been made to this Council of a disorderly and tumultuous sort of people assembling themselves together not far from Oatlands, at a place called St. George’s Hill; and although the pretence of their being there by them avowed may seem very ridiculous, yet that conflux of people may be a beginning whence things of a greater and more dangerous consequence may grow, to the disturbance of the peace and quiet of the Commonwealth. We therefore recommend it to your Lordship’s care that some force of horse may be sent to Cobham in Surrey and thereabouts, with orders to disperse the people so met, and to prevent the like for the future, that a malignant and disaffected party may not under colour of such ridiculous people have any opportunity to rendezvous themselves in order to do a greater mischief.

“Signed in the name and by order of the Council of State
appointed by authority of Parliament,

“John Bradshaw, President.

“Derby House, 16th April 1649.

“For the Right Honourable
Thomas Lord Fairfax, Lord General.”

Acting on his instructions, within a few days Lord Fairfax was in possession of the following soldier-like letter from the active republican officer to whom he had entrusted the business, and who evidently was not so easily frightened as the Council of State:

“Captain John Gladman to Lord Fairfax.[36:1]
(Slightly Abridged.)

“Sir,—According to your order I marched towards St. Georges Hill and sent four men before to bring certain intelligence to me; as they went they met with Mr. Winstanlie and Mr. Everard (which are the chief men that have persuaded these people to do what they have done). And when I had enquired of them and of the officers that lie at Kingston, I saw there was no need to march any further. I cannot hear that there have been above twenty of them together since they first undertook the business. Mr. Winstanlie and Mr. Everard have engaged both to be with you this day: I believe you will be glad to be rid of them again, especially Everard, who is no other than a mad man. Sir, I intend to go with two or three men to St. Georges Hill this day, and persuade these people to leave this employment if I can, and if then I see no more danger than now I do I shall march back again to London tomorrow.... Indeed the business is not worth the writing nor yet taking notice of: I wonder the Council of State should be so abused with informations....

“Jo. Gladman.

“Kingston, April 19th, 1649.”

As they had undertaken, Winstanley and Everard duly appeared before Lord Fairfax at Whitehall, and under date April 20th the following account of their interview appears in the ponderous pages of Bulstrode Whitelocke’s Memorial of English Affairs:[37:1]

“Everard and Winstanley, the chief of those that digged at St. George’s Hill in Surrey, came to the General and made a large declaration to justify their proceedings.

“Everard said he was of the race of the Jews, that all the liberties of the people were lost by the coming in of William the Conqueror, and that ever since the people of God had lived under tyranny and oppression worse than that of our forefathers under the Egyptians.

“But now the time of deliverance was at hand, and God would bring his people out of this slavery, and restore them to their freedom in enjoying the fruits and benefits of the Earth.

“And that there had lately appeared to him a vision, which bad him arise and dig and plough the earth, and receive the fruits thereof.

“That their intent is to restore the Creation to its former condition. That as God had promised to make the barren land fruitful, so now what they did was to restore the ancient community of enjoying the fruits of the Earth, and to distribute the benefits thereof to the poor and needy, and to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked.

“That they intend not to meddle with any man’s property nor to break down any pales or enclosures, but only to meddle with what was common and untilled, and to make it fruitful for the use of man. That the time will suddenly be, when all men shall willingly come in and give up their lands and estates, and submit to this community.

“And for all those that will come in and work they should have meat, drink, and clothes, which is all that is necessary to the life of man; and that for money, there was not any need of it, nor of clothes more than to cover nakedness.

“That they will not defend themselves by arms, but will submit unto authority, and wait till the promised opportunity be offered, which they conceive to be at hand. And that as their forefathers lived in tents, so it would be suitable to their condition now to live in the same: and more to the like effect.

“While they were before the General, they stood with their hats on; and being demanded the reason thereof, they said, ‘Because he was but their fellow-creature.’ Being asked the meaning of that place, ‘Give honour to whom honour is due’; they said that their mouths should be stopped that gave them that offence.”

Whitelocke continues, “I have set down this the more largely because it was the beginning of the appearance of this opinion; and that we might the better understand and avoid these weak persuasions.”

“The germ of Quakerism and much else is curiously visible here,” is Carlyle’s shrewd comment on the above incident. But as to how far this account of the views of the Diggers is correct, we shall leave to the judgement of those who read the pages that are to follow. Though we may now believe that, save that he placed Norman in the place of the Saxon Lords, William the Conqueror introduced but few innovations into the laws and institutions of the country, the very opposite was the accepted opinion in the days of Winstanley and his associates.[38:1] It may also be well to mention here that, though Everard’s name appears, and first in order, amongst those who signed the pamphlet, The True Levellers Standard Advanced: or, The State of Community opened and presented to the Sons of Men, which bears date April 26th, 1649, and to which we shall presently refer, it does not appear in any of the later publications of the Diggers. Whether he died about this time or merely dropped out of the movement, we have not been able to ascertain.

However this may be, Lord Fairfax appears to have been somewhat impressed by his interview, to which the Diggers themselves always referred in most cordial terms; for on his way from Guildford to London the following month, he visited them at their work, of which visit we take the following account from the pages of a contemporary and evidently friendly news-sheet, dated May 31st, 1649:[39:1]

“The Speeches of Lord General Fairfax and the Officers of the Army to the Diggers at St. George’s Hill in Surrey, and the Diggers’ several answers and replies thereunto.

“As his Excellency the Lord General came from Gilford to London, he went to view the Diggers at St. George’s Hill in Surrey, with his Officers and Attendants. They found about twelve of them hard at work, and amongst them one Winstanley was the chief speaker. Several questions were propounded by the Officers, and the Lord General made a short speech by way of admonition to them, and this Winstanley returned sober answers, though they gave little satisfaction (if any at all) in regard of the strangeness of their action. It was urged that the Commons were as justly due to the Lords as any other lands. They answered that these were Crown Lands where they digged, and the King who possessed them by the Norman Conquest being dead, they were returned again to the Common People of England, who might improve them if they would take the pains; that for those who would come dig with them, they should have the benefit equal with them, and eat of their bread; but they would not force any, applying to all the golden rule, to do to others as we would be done unto. Some Officers wished they had no further plot in what they did, and that no more was intended than what they did pretend.

“As to the barrenness of the ground, which was objected as a discouragement, the Diggers answered they would use their endeavours, and leave the success to God, who had promised to make the barren ground fruitful. They carry themselves civilly and fairly in the country, and have the report of sober, honest men. Some barley is already come up, and other fruits formerly; but was pulled up by some of the envious inhabitants thereabouts, who are not so far convinced as to promise not to injure them for the future. The ground will probably in a short time yield them some fruit of their labour, how contemptible soever they do yet appear to be.”

Before following the further adventures of the Diggers, as revealed in the numerous pamphlets they left us, from which alone they can now be gathered, we deem it best to lay before our readers what we have been able to ascertain of Gerrard Winstanley’s previous life’s history and writings. Behind every movement that has ever influenced the thoughts of mankind, there is always some master-mind, a Lautze, a Gautama, a Jesus of Nazareth, a Wiclif, a John Wesley, a Darwin, a Tolstoy, or a Henry George; and it is in the comparatively unknown Gerrard Winstanley that we shall find the master-mind, the inspirer and director, of the Digger Movement. As Gardiner well says, “It is not only by the immediate accomplishment of its aim that the value of honest endeavour is to be tested.” And the reader’s interest in our work may be quickened if we so far forestall the pages that are to follow as to indicate that not only were Winstanley’s earlier theological writings the source whence the early Quakers, or the Children of Light, as they at first called themselves, drew many of their most characteristic tenets and doctrines, but that the fundamental principles which inspired and animated his political writings were in all respects identical with those that during the past quarter of a century have been so honourably associated with the name of Henry George. We are not here called upon to pronounce judgement on these principles; but in passing we shall endeavour to point out how far the demands and doctrines of the Land Reformers of the Seventeenth Century, as revealed in Winstanley’s writings, coincide with those of their successors in the Twentieth Century. In all cases we shall, as far as possible, let Gerrard Winstanley speak for himself.

[34:1] Clarke Papers, vol. ii. p. 209. Bulstrode Whitelocke, then already a member of the Council of State, in his Memorial of English Affairs (p. 396), under date April 17th, 1649, has an entry referring to and summarising this letter.

[34:2] That is to say, a week last Sunday, or last Sunday week.

[35:1] Loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 210.

[36:1] Loc. cit. vol. ii. pp. 211-212.

[37:1] P. 397.

[38:1] A glance at the titles of John Hare’s well-known pamphlets, the work of a learned, prosaic, diffuse, moderate, and loyal writer, suffices to show how widespread this jealousy and impatience of what he terms Normanism was. One runs as follows:—“St. Edwards Ghost or Anti Normanism: Being a pathetical Complaint and Motion, in the behalf of our English Nation, against the grand yet neglected grievance Normanism.” Another, “[Englands] Proper and Only Way to an Establishment in Honor, Freedom, Peace and Happiness: Or the Norman Yoke once more uncased, and the Necessity, Justice, and Present Seasonableness of breaking it in pieces demonstrated, in Eight most plain and true Propositions, with their proofs.” The pamphlets are interesting only as showing the prevalence of the idea that the dishonour of the English Nation, and the slavery and impoverishment of the masses of the English people, were due to Norman Laws and institutions introduced by William the Conqueror.

[39:1] British Museum, Press Mark, E. 530.

CHAPTER V
GERRARD WINSTANLEY

“Your word-divinity darkens knowledge. You talk of a body of Divinity, and of Anatomysing Divinity. O fine language! But when it comes to trial, it is but a husk without the kernel, words without life. The Spirit is in the hearts of the people whom you despise and tread under foot.”—Winstanley, The New Law of Righteousness (1649).

Gerrard Winstanley, whose strange entry on the stately stage of English History we have recorded in the previous chapter, was born at Wigan in the County of Lancashire, on October 10th, 1609.[41:1] He was, therefore, some ten years younger than his great contemporary Oliver Cromwell (born 1599), one year the junior of the immortal Milton (born 1608), and some fifteen years older than George Fox (born 1624). Of his earlier years we know nothing; but, to judge from many passages in his writings, he appears to have received a good middle-class education, and to have been brought up a dutiful follower of the Church as by law established. When arrived at man’s estate, he settled as a small trader in London, of which City he probably became a freeman; for in a pamphlet addressed to the City of London,[41:2] he claims to be “one of thy sons by freedom.” He then goes on to relate how, “by thy cheating sons in the thieving art of buying and selling, and by the burdens of and for the soldiery in the beginning of the war,” he “had been beaten out of both estate and trade,” and had been forced “to accept of the good-will of friends, crediting of me, to live a country life.”

Those who have passed through a similar experience, who have been driven from the comparatively comfortable middle-class life to the precarious and comfortless existence of the vast majority of the toiling masses, will readily realise that under such circumstances Winstanley’s mind would naturally be full of questionings such as might not have forced themselves on his attention under more prosperous conditions. What was the aim and object of that incessant struggle out of which he had just emerged “beaten out of both estate and trade”? What made it necessary? who really benefited by it? For whose benefit was the war being waged, the burden of which had fallen so heavily upon him? How was it going to advantage the masses of the people? Was it ever intended that it should benefit them? was it possible that it should do so? Could any such struggle be a means of delivering the great masses of the people, “the younger brothers,” out of the straits of poverty, with its attendant train of ignorance, misery, vice, and crime, to which they had hitherto been ruthlessly and hopelessly condemned? Was it, in truth, inevitable, was it inherent in the very nature of things, was it God’s intention that a privileged few, “the elder brothers,” should be lords and masters, and that the great majority of mankind should for ever remain the mere hewers of wood and drawers of water, the slaves and servants of an insignificant minority of their fellow-creatures? Were these things due to natural causes, to the inscrutable workings of a Divine Providence; or were they but the necessary though unforeseen fruits of mere man-made laws and institutions the existing generation had inherited from a by-gone and ignorant past? Such were the questions which vaguely and indistinctly may have passed, and, as we shall see, did pass, through the active, original, philosophic and deeply religious mind of Winstanley in the quiet solitude of his country life.

His life had drifted from its accustomed moorings; his troubles were greater than he could bear; and when he turned to Religion for guidance and consolation, alas! he found that the teachings he had imbibed in his childhood, and never questioned in his manhood, now failed him in his hour of need. Foiled, though not beaten, he turned to the pages of the Holy Scriptures themselves for guidance and information, for consolation and revelation. In these inspired writings, if anywhere, there surely must be found some expression, some revelation, of God’s intentions towards His children, some indication of His holy will, which, if men would wholly follow, would lead them down the path of righteousness to happiness and peace. And it was from these pages that Winstanley derived those religious and political convictions that find such eloquent and forcible expression in his writings, and which he made such heroic efforts to proclaim by word and deed to his fellow-men.

What seems to us to give a special charm to the study of Winstanley’s writings is that they reveal the gradual development of his acute and powerful mind. His earlier pamphlets betray the influence of the mysticism so prevalent in his days; his last utterance on theological questions, as we shall see, might have been penned by an advanced thinker of the present day, imbued with modern scientific views, and recognising the necessary relation and co-ordination of all the physical and psychical phenomena of the universe, “of the several bodies of the stars and planets in the heavens above, and the several bodies of the earth below, as plants, grass, fishes, beasts, birds, and mankind.”

As to how far Winstanley owes the views that find expression in his earlier pamphlets—which deal exclusively with cosmological or theological speculations—to others, or to the writings of earlier mystics, we have no means of knowing.[43:1] From them we gather, however, that he had learned or had come to regard the whole Biblical narrative as an allegory, of which he gives a most poetical interpretation. The Creation is mankind. The Garden of Eden is the mind of man, which he describes as originally filled with herbs and pleasant plants, “as love, joy, peace, humility, delight, and purity of life.” The serpent he holds to be self-love, the forbidden fruit to be “selfishness,” following the promptings of which “the whole garden becomes a stinking dunghill of weeds, and brings forth nothing but pride, envy, discontent, disobedience, and the whole actings of the spirit and power of darkness.” And he argues that—“If the creature should be honored in this condition, then God would be dishonored, because his command would be broken.... And if the creature were utterly lost ... then likewise God would suffer dishonor, because his work would be spoiled.” Hence he maintains that “the curse that was declared to Adam was temporary,” and that eventually the whole creation, the whole of mankind, shall be saved, and “the work of God shall be restored from this lost, dead, weedy and enslaved condition.”[44:1]

Winstanley, however, regarded the word “God” as too vague satisfactorily to denote the supreme spiritual power which pervades, upholds and governs the whole universe. He had, he tells us, “been held in darkness by that word, as I see many people are.”[44:2] And so that neither he nor others should “rest longer upon words without knowledge, but hereafter may look upon that spiritual power, and know what it is that rules them, which doth rule in and over all,” he felt himself impelled to conceive of and to refer to this spiritual power, which is God, as “Reason.” He contends that “though men may esteem the word Reason to be too mean a name to set forth the Father by, yet it is the highest name that can be given to Him. For it is Reason that made all things; and it is Reason that governs the whole Creation. If flesh were but subject thereunto, that is, to the Spirit of Reason within itself, it would never act unrighteously.... For this Spirit of Reason is not without a man, but within every man; hence he need not run after others to tell him or to teach him; for this Spirit is his maker, he dwells in him, and if the flesh were subject thereunto, he would daily find teaching therefrom, though he dwelt alone and saw the face of no other man.”[45:1] “This is the Spirit, or Father, which as he made the Globe and every creature, so he dwells in every creature, but supremely in man. He it is by whom everyone lives, and moves, and hath his being. Perfect man is the eye and face that sees and declares the Father: and he is perfect when he is taken up in the Spirit and lives in the light of Reason.”[45:1] “Reason is that living Power of Light that is in all things. It is the salt that savours all things. It is the fire that burns up dross, and so restores what is corrupted, and preserves what is pure. He is the Lord our Righteousness. It lies in the bottom of love, of justice, of wisdom: for if the Spirit Reason did not uphold and moderate these, they would be madness; nay, they could not be called by their names, for Reason guides them in order and leads them to their right end, which is not to preserve a part, but the whole Creation.”[45:2]

The reason of man, Winstanley regarded but as an emanation of the Divine Spirit Reason, as the one true Inward Light, which if men would only and wholly follow would lead them to live in peace and harmony, and in accordance with the Divine Spirit. “Man’s reasoning,” he says,[45:2] “is a creature which flows from that Spirit to this end, to draw up man into himself. It is but a candle lighted by that soul, and this light, shining through flesh, is darkened by the imagination of the flesh. So that many times men act contrary to reason, though they think they act according to Reason.... The Spirit Reason, which I call God, the Maker and Ruler of all things, is that spiritual power that guides all men’s reasoning in right order, and to a right end ... and knite every creature together into a oneness, making every creature to be an upholder of his fellows; and so everyone is an assistant to preserve the whole. And the nearer man’s reasoning comes to this, the more spiritual they are; the further off they be, the more selfish and fleshy they be.”

Winstanley took care to point out,[46:1] however, that “this word Reason is not the alone name of this spiritual power; but everyone may give him a name according to that spiritual power that they feel and see rules in them, carrying them forth in actions to preserve their fellow-creatures as well as themselves. Therefore some may call him King of Righteousness, or Prince of Peace; some may call him Love, and the like. But I can and I do call him Reason, because I see him to be that living, powerful light that is in righteousness, making righteousness to be righteousness, or justice to be justice, or love to be love. For without this moderator and ruler they would be madness; nay, the self-willedness of the flesh, and not what we call them.”[46:1]

But, he warns his readers,[46:2] “truly let me tell you, that you cannot say the Spirit, Reason, is your God, till you see and feel by experience that the Spirit doth govern your flesh. For if Envy be the Lord that rules your flesh, if Pride and Covetousness rule your flesh, then is Envy, Covetousness, or Pride your God. If you fear man so greatly that you dare not do righteously for fear of angering men, then slavish fear is your God. If rash anger govern your flesh, then is anger your God. Therefore deceive not yourselves, but let Reason work within you; and examine and see what your flesh is subject to. For whatever doth govern in you, that is your God.”

Winstanley’s characteristic theological doctrines were, then, the realisation of the function and importance of the Inward Light, of Reason, which he regarded as the necessary and all-sufficient guide for human conduct; his keen appreciation of silence as the necessary precursor of all real prayer, if not as in itself a form of worship; and his intense conviction of the ultimate salvation of the whole of mankind. To Winstanley, Reason is the Ruling Spirit of the whole Creation, is God, the Spirit of Righteousness, who is ever seated within the hearts of men combating the lusts of the flesh, the promptings of the brute animal nature of mankind. Disobedient man may know him not, because covetous flesh, the promptings of self-love, hath deceived him, and “so he looks abroad for a God, and so doth imagine or fancy a God in some particular place of glory beyond the skies; or else, if men do look for a God within them, yet are they led by the notions of King Flesh, and not of King Spirit.”[47:1] Reason, in short, is the spark of the Divine in man, the Spirit of Light that dwells within and may rule the mind and actions of every man. Conscience is but the promptings of Reason, inspiring men to right action, to deal justly and brotherly and to live in peaceful and harmonious association with their fellows. Self-love, covetousness, the desire of the flesh, is ever the enemy of Reason. And life is but a continuous struggle between these two powers for dominion in the Creation, over the hearts and actions of mankind. Self-love ruling the hearts of man, is the Adam that causes him to sin, not the crime of the man Adam who lived so many thousand years ago. And similarly it is the ruling of the spirit of Jesus Christ, the Inward Light, within the hearts of man, not the sufferings of a man Christ Jesus, which is the essential condition of individual and social salvation. “This is the lightning that shall spread from East to West. This is the Kingdom of Heaven within you, dwelling and ruling in your flesh. Therefore learn to know Jesus Christ as the Father knows him; that is, not after the flesh; but know that the Spirit within the flesh is that mighty man Christ Jesus. He within governs the flesh; he within laid down the flesh, when he was said to die; he within is to arise, not at a distance from man, but he will rise up in men, and manifest himself to be the light and life of every man and woman that is saved by him.”[47:2] By following the desires of the flesh, the promptings of selfish covetousness, we can never gain true happiness, which is Heaven, for the voice of Reason within us, of our conscience, or the Inward Light illumining the inner darkness, will [upbraid] us and cast us into Hell within us. True happiness, complete satisfaction, which is Heaven, can only be gained by following the dictates of Reason, by following the promptings of the Inward Light. Thus to Winstanley, as to Tolstoy, the Kingdom of Heaven, as well as the kingdom of hell, is within men’s minds, and “there is no other.”[48:1] Everything that happens, however, is ordained, or rather permitted, by God the Father, “the Ruling Spirit of the Whole Creation,” for His own ends. He controls the Spirits or Powers we call evil, as well as those we call good: all work in accordance with His commands, to further His ends. In Winstanley’s philosophy, unlike that of Luther, there was no room for an independent Devil. Though in our blindness we may attribute our sufferings to such a personage, yet whatever happens to a man is somehow or other for his own good, though in an unregenerate state we may not realise this. All suffering, in truth, does but tend to purify the soul from the lust of the flesh, to enable the Inward Light to overcome the inward darkness, to enable Reason to overcome Self-Love, good to overcome evil: and thus to lead men to God. In the end, in the day of Judgement, the good will triumph, Reason will cast out Covetousness, Universal Love will cast out Self Love, meekness will cast out pride, righteousness will cast out unrighteousness: and all men made perfect by the Inward Light, the Spirit of Christ within them, will rejoice in the knowledge and glory of God.

It is almost impossible to read Winstanley’s earlier theological pamphlets without being struck by the similarity in thought and doctrine with those to-day still held by the Society of Friends, or Quakers, whose original name amongst themselves, be it remembered, was the Children of Light. And it is interesting to note that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the opponents of the Quakers repeatedly taunted them with being disciples of Winstanley the Leveller.[49:1] Thus the Right Reverend Thomas Coomber, Dean of Durham, in a pamphlet significantly entitled Christianity no Enthusiasm: Or the several kinds of inspiration and Revelation pretended to by the Quakers tried and found destructive to Holy Scripture and True Religion, published in 1678, wrote as follows:

“First for their original, it may seem more difficult to discover, where Sects are not called after their Founder, but after some property, etc., it may be harder to trace them to their head. In 1652 their beginning is supposed, and then abouts they were so called and known. John Whitehead fixes it in the year 1648;[49:2] and Hubberthorne in 1660 told the King that they were then twelve years standing.[49:3] In that black year to these kingdoms (1648) their pretended light appeared.[50:1] ... But the very draughts and even body of Quakerism are to be found in the several works of Gerrard Winstanley, a zealous Leveller, wherein he tells us of the arising of new times and dispensations, and challengeth Revelation very much for what he writ.”

Coomber proceeds to quote from every one of Winstanley’s theological pamphlets, and then continues:

“That these are the Quaker principles is well enough known, allowing for some little alterations, as few Sect-Masters but have their doctrines varied by their Proselytes.... Now, considering these opinions, the year, the country[50:2] (as The Mystery of God is dedicated to his “beloved countrymen of the County of Lancaster”), the printer Giles Calvert, and that several Levellers settled into Quakers, we incline to take them for Winstanley’s Disciples and a branch of the Levellers. And what this man writes of—levelling men’s estates, of taking in of Commons, that none should have more ground than he was able to till and husband by his labour—proving unpracticable by reason of so many tough old laws which had fixed propriety; yet it is pursued by the Quakers as much as they well can, in thouing everybody, in denying Titles, Civil Respects, and terms of distinction among men, and at first they were for Community.”

If Winstanley’s writings be really the source whence the early Quakers, the Children of Light, drew their most characteristic tenets and doctrines, as we ourselves do not doubt, then surely his noble ambition has been satisfied: for through them he has, indeed, influenced the thought of his country, the thought of the whole world, which owes more than we even yet realise to their pure and altruistic teachings. However, leaving this most interesting question to be decided by our readers, each for himself, we shall now place the chief contents of these writings before them, using as far as possible Winstanley’s own words.

[41:1] Both Gerrard and Winstanley are common names in that part of Lancashire which lies between Wigan and Liverpool. In the Wigan Parish Register there is an entry under the above date—“Gerrard Winstanlie, son of Edward Winstanlie.” The first pamphlet he wrote, The Mystery of God concerning the whole Creation, is dedicated “To my beloved countrymen of the County of Lancaster.” In his time the term “countrymen” had a more contracted meaning than now, and implied a common nativity of a Shire or Parish: indeed it still has this meaning in some parts of Cheshire.

[41:2] A Watchword to the City of London.

[43:1] Between the years 1644-1662 the works of the German mystic Jakob Boehme were translated into English. All Winstanley’s theological pamphlets were published in the year 1648-1649, to which year the origin of the Quaker doctrines is generally attributed.

[44:1] See The Mystery of God concerning the whole Creation, Mankind. British Museum, Press Mark, 4377, a. 1. The whole pamphlet consists of some 69 closely printed pages.

[44:2] Truth lifting up its Head above Scandals. British Museum, Press Mark, 4372, a.a. 17.

[45:1] The Saint’s Paradise. British Museum, Press Mark, E. 2137.

[45:2] Truth lifting up its Head above Scandals.

[46:1] Truth lifting up its Head above Scandals.

[46:2] The Saint’s Paradise.

[47:1] The Saint’s Paradise.

[47:2] “That which the people called Quakers lay down as a main fundamental in religion, is this, that God, through Christ, hath placed a principle in every man, to inform him of his duty, and to enable him to do it; and that those who live up to this principle, are the people of God; and that those who live in disobedience to it, are not God’s people, whatever name they bear, or profession they may make of religion.... By this principle they understand something that is Divine, and though in man, not of man, but of God; it came from Him and leads to Him all those who will be led by it ... it is the spirit given to every man to profit withal.”—William Penn, Primitive Christianity Revived (1696). Quoted from J. S. Rowntree’s The Society of Friends; its Faith and Practice.

[48:1] Speaking of the early Quakers, Cotton Mather, after attributing the origin of this sect “to some fanatics here in our town of Salem,” describes the principles of “the old Foxian Quakerism” as follows: “There is in every man a certain excusing and condemning principle, which indeed is nothing but some remainder of the Divine Image left by the compassion of God upon the conscience of man after his fall.... They scoffed at our imagined God beyond the stars.” He also contends that “the new turn such ingenuous men as Mr. Penn” had given to Quakerism, had made of it “quite a new thing.” See his History of New England, book vii. chap. iv.

[49:1] The Rev. Thos. Bennet, on p. 4 of An Answer to the Dissenters’ Pleas for Separation, published in 1711, referring to the origin of the various sorts of dissenters, speaks of the time “when Winstanley published the principles of Quakerism, and enthusiasm broke out.” In a footnote he mentions The Saint’s Paradise.

[49:2] Gerard Croese in The General History of the Quakers, published 1696, says, “The Quakers themselves date their first rise from the forty-ninth year of the present century.”

[49:3] See An account of what passed between the King and Richard Hubberthorne, after the delivery of George Fox his letter to the King, which is to be found amongst Thomasson’s Pamphlets, British Museum.

[50:1] As our readers will notice, all Winstanley’s theological writings were written and published in 1648-1649. The Preface to Truth Lifting up its Head above Scandals is dated October 16th, 1648; The Saint’s Paradise bears no date, but was certainly written before The New Law of Righteousness, the Preface to which is dated January 26th, 1648 (1649). (At that time the New Year commenced on March 26th.)

[50:2] Coomber had already pointed out that Quakerism arose in the North of England, and mainly in Winstanley’s native county of Lancashire. His reference to Giles Calvert, the printer, is also most suggestive; for Calvert published almost all Winstanley’s pamphlets, and later was one of the first authorised publishers of the official publications of the Society of Friends. Calvert’s establishment seems to have been the source, as well as the depository, of much of the advanced literature of his times. In his Protest against Toleration of Printing Pamphlets against Non-Conformists, Baxter refers to it as follows: “Let all the Apothecaries of London have liberty to keep open shop. But O do not under that pretence let a man keep an open shop of poisons for all that will destroy themselves freely, as Giles Calvert doth for Soul-poisons.” Calvert was suspected of having provided the funds for one of the later risings of the Fifth Monarchy Men. He subsequently joined the Quakers.

CHAPTER VI
WINSTANLEY’S EXPOSITION OF THE QUAKER DOCTRINES (1648-1649)

“There is nothing more sweet and satisfactory to a man than this, to know and feel that spiritual power of righteousness to rule in him which he calls God.... Wait upon the Lord for teaching. You will never have rest in your soul till He speaks in you. Run after men for teaching, follow your forms with strictness, you will still be at a loss, and be more and more wrapped up in confusion and sorrow of heart. But when once your heart is made subject to Christ, the Law of Righteousness, looking up to Him for instruction, waiting with a meek and quiet spirit till He appear in you: then you shall have peace; then you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”—The New Law of Righteousness.

The Mystery of God concerning the whole Creation, Mankind, is the title of Winstanley’s first published pamphlet, to which we have already referred, and which was written early in the year 1648, probably in April or May. As already mentioned, it opens with a Dedicatory Epistle to “My beloved countrymen of the County of Lancaster,” in which he first apologises for venturing into print in the following suggestive words: “Dear countrymen, when some of you see my name subscribed to this ensuing discourse, you may wonder at it, and it may be despise me in your hearts ... but know that God’s works are not like men’s; He does not always take the wise, the learned, the rich of the world to manifest Himself in, and through them to others, but He chooses the despised, the unlearned, the poor, the nothings of the world, and fills them with the good tidings of Himself, whereas He sends the others empty away.” He further apprehends that his view, that “the curse that was declared to Adam was temporary,” and that ultimately the curse shall be removed off the whole Creation, and the whole of mankind shall be saved, will not be favourably received by those whom he is specially addressing. But he avows it a necessary truth, and concludes his appeal by saying that since the pamphlet was written he had met with “more Scripture to confirm it, so that it is not a spirit of private fancy, but it is agreeable to the Written Word.”

The pamphlet opens with Winstanley’s interpretation of the story of the fall of Adam, the outline of which we have already given. Subsequently he describes his own experiences: how he lay under bondage to the serpent self-love, and saw not his bondage; how God had manifested His love to him by causing him to see that the things in which he did take pleasure were, in truth, his death and his shame. He again repeats his contention that in due time God will not lose any of His work, but redeem “His own whole Creation to Himself.” Though this, he holds, will not be done all at once, but in several dispensations, “some whereof are passed, some in being, and some yet to come.” He quotes largely from the Scriptures, more especially from Revelation, in support of this view; and argues most vehemently against the objection that if this were true, if eventually all will be saved, then men need not trouble about their own individual salvation. He also protests against the doctrine of an everlasting Hell, as unconfirmed by the Holy Scriptures, as destructive of God’s work, and as incompatible with His great goodness.

The prevalence of the belief in dispensations, past, present, and future, may be gathered from the following extract from one of Cromwell’s speeches to the Army Council, November 1st, 1647: “Truly, as Lieut. Col. Goffe said, God hath in several ages used several dispensations, and yet some dispensations more eminently in one age than another. I am one of those whose heart God hath drawn out to wait for some extraordinary dispensations, according to those promises He hath set forth of things to be accomplished in the latter time, and I cannot but think that God is beginning of them.”[53:1]

The same idea reappears, in fact influences the whole of Winstanley’s second pamphlet, of some 127 closely printed duodecimo pages, as might almost be inferred from its title, The Breaking of the Day of God,[54:1] which is in itself a revelation of its main contents. The Dedicatory Epistle, which is dated May 20th, 1648, some twelve months prior to the outbreak of the Digger Movement, already recorded, is the most interesting and suggestive portion of this long, wearisome, and almost unreadable volume. It is addressed to—“The Despised Sons and Daughters of Zion, scattered up and down the Kingdom of England.” He first reminds them that “they are the object of the world’s hatred and reproach,” “branded as wicked ones,” “threatened with ruin and death,” “the object of every one’s laughter and reproach,” “sentenced to be put to death under the name of round-heads,” and so on. That they “are counted the troublers of Kingdoms and Parishes where they dwell, though the truth is that they are the only peaceable men in the Kingdom, who love the People’s peace, the Magistrate’s peace, and the Kingdom’s peace.” He continues—“But what’s the reason the world doth so storm at you, but because you are not of this world, nor cannot walk in the dark ways of the world. They hated your Lord Jesus Christ, and they hate you. They knew not Him, and they know not you. For if they had known Him, they would not have crucified Him; and if they did truly know the power of the God that dwells in you, they would not so despise you.” “But, well,” he goes on to say, “these things must be. It is your Father’s will that it shall be so; the world must lie under darkness for a time; that is God’s dispensation to them. And you that are the Children of Light must lie under the reproach and oppression of the world;[54:2] that is God’s dispensation to you. But it shall be but for a little time. What I have here to say is to bring you glad tidings that your redemption draws near.”

In the pamphlet itself Winstanley attempts to prove that the coming reign of Righteousness, and the overthrow of the Covetous, Self-Seeking Power, are entirely in accordance with the prophesies of the Scriptures, more especially with Revelation and John. In its final pages he vehemently protests against the continued union of Church and State, or rather against the continued upholding of the persecuting power of the Church by the secular authorities. “The misery of the age” he attributes to the fact that men are still striving “to uphold the usurped Ecclesiastical Power, which God never made,” and that in upholding this they are “so mad and ignorant” as “to count Magistracie no government unless the Beast reign cheek by chaw with it, as formerly in the days of ignorance.” This, however, he contends, should not be so, “for Magistracie in the Commonwealth must stand, it’s God’s ordinance. But this Ecclesiastical power in and over the Saints must fall.” “This Ecclesiastical power,” he contends, “hath been a great troubler of Magistracie ever since the deceived Magistracie set it up.” The function of Magistracie, “which is God’s Ordinance,” is “to be a terror to the wicked, and to protect them that do well; whereas by this Ecclesiastical power, established by deceived Magistracie, the sincere in heart that worship God in spirit and truth, according as God hath taught them and they understand, these are and have been troubled in Sessions, in Courts, and punished by fine and prisons. But the loose-hearted that will be of any religion that the most is of, these have their liberty without restraint. And so Magistracie hath acted quite backward, in punishing them that do well, and protecting in a hypocritical liberty them that do evil. O that our Magistrates would let Church-work alone to Christ, upon whose shoulders they shall find the government lies, and not upon theirs. And then, in the wisdom and strength of Christ, they would govern Commonwealths in justice, love, and righteousness more peaceably.”[55:1]

This pamphlet concludes with the following wise and beautiful thought:

“All that I shall say in conclusion is this: Wait patiently upon the Lord; let every man that loves God endeavour by the spirit of wisdom, meekness, and love to dry up Euphrates, even this spirit of bitterness, that like a great river hath overflowed the earth of mankind. For it is not revenge, prisons, fines, fightings, that will subdue a tumultuous spirit; but a soft answer, love and meekness, tenderness and justice, to do as we would be done unto: this will appease wrath. When this Sun of Righteousness and Love arises in Magistrates and people, one to another, then these tumultuous national storms will cease, and not till then. This Sun is risen in some; this Sun will rise higher, and must rise higher; and the bright shining of it will be England’s liberty.”

The next fruit of Winstanley’s prolific pen is a volume of some 134 closely printed pages, entitled The Saint’s Paradise: Or the Father’s Teaching the only Satisfaction to Waiting Souls,[56:1] from which in the previous chapter we have already quoted somewhat freely. The words on its title-page, “The inward testimony is the Soul’s strength,” indicate the characteristic teachings of this remarkable book, which are also admirably suggested by the two biblical quotations that also appear thereon. “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord” (Jer. xxxi. 34). “But the annointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same annointing teacheth you all things, and is truth” (1 John ii. 27).

As was his usual custom, Winstanley opens with a Dedicatory letter, addressed this time “To my Beloved Friends whose Souls hunger after sincere milk,” in which he relates his experience of the insufficiency of mere traditional, or book, or imparted knowledge, in the following words:

“I myself have known nothing but what I received in tradition from the mouths and pen of others. I worshipped a God, but I neither knew who he was nor where he was, so that I lived in the dark, being blinded by the imagination of my flesh.... I spoke of the name of God, and Lord, and Christ, but I knew not this Lord, God, and Christ. I prayed to a God, but I knew not where he was nor what he was, and so walking by imagination I worshipped the devil, and called him God. By reason whereof my comforts were often shaken to pieces, and at last it was shown to me, that while I builded upon any words or writings of other men, or while I looked after a God without me, I did but build upon the sand, and as yet I knew not the Rock.”

He then admonishes his friends that, though they may not as yet be aware of it, and though they will probably be offended with him for saying so, yet that, in reality, “this ignorant, unsettled condition is yours at this time.” However, he protests that nevertheless:

“I do not write anything as to be a teacher of you, for I know you have a teacher within yourselves (which is the Spirit) and when your flesh is made subject to him, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, so that you shall not need to run after men for instruction, for, your eyes being opened, you shall see the King of Righteousness sit upon the throne within yourselves, judging and condemning the unrighteousness of the flesh, filling your face with shame, and your soul with horror, though no man see or be acquainted with your actions or thoughts but yourselves, and justifying your righteous thoughts and actions, and leading you into all ways of truth.”

Winstanley then further explains that the Father, the Spirit of Righteousness, of Reason, pervades the whole Universe, and “dwells in every creature, but supremely in man,” and then continues:

“Truly, Friends, the King of Righteousness within you is a meek, patient, and quiet spirit, and full of love and sincerity.... And when you come to know, feel, and see that the Spirit of Righteousness governs your flesh, then you begin to know your God, to fear your God, to love your God, and to walk humbly before your God, and so to rejoice in Him. Therefore if you would have the peace of God, as you call it, you must know what God it is you serve, which is not a God without you, visible among bodies, but the Spirit within you, invisible in every body to the eye of flesh, yet discernible to the eye of the spirit. And when souls shall have communion with that spirit, then they have peace, and not till then.”

In the first chapter Winstanley emphasises the essential difference between the teachings of men and the teachings of God in the following words:

“The teachings of men and the teachings of God are much different. The former being but the light of the moon, which shines not of itself, but by the means and through the help of the sun. The latter is the light of the sun, which gives light to all, not by means and helps from others, but immediately from himself.

“Men’s teachings are twofold. First, when men speak to others what they have heard or read of the Scriptures, or books of other men’s writings, and have seen nothing from God Himself.... Secondly, others speak from their own experience, of what they have heard and seen from God, and of what great things God hath done for their souls.... It is very possible that a man may attain to a literal knowledge of the Scriptures, of the Prophets and Apostles, and may speak largely of the history thereof, and yet both they that speak and they that hear may be not only unacquainted with, but enemies to that Spirit of truth by which the Prophets and Apostles writ.[58:1] “For it is not the Apostles’ writings, but the spirit that dwelt in them, that did inspire their hearts, which gives life and peace to all.”

In the second chapter Winstanley consoles those whom he is specially addressing by expressing his conviction that though their enemies may think to kill all the Saints, and though God may suffer them to kill some, yet others of them will necessarily be preserved to keep alive their beliefs and to spread abroad their teachings, of the ultimate triumph of which he never seemed to doubt. However, in view of the perplexity of the times and of the dangers by which they were surrounded, he gave them the following somewhat worldly-wise advice—“For the appearance of God now is in the Saints that they worship the Father in spirit and truth in such a secret manner as the eye of the world cannot and does not always see”: a practice of which, as we have already noticed, the adherents of the Family of Love were accused in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

It is, however, in the fourth and fifth chapters that Winstanley concisely and eloquently summarises the fundamental articles of his religious faith. In them he again emphatically warns his fellows against looking to others for knowledge of Divine revelations, and strongly advises them to look into their own hearts. In support of this view he quotes the Scripture text—“Light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil” (John iii. 19), which he then proceeds to explain as follows:

“The world is mankind; and every particular man and woman is a perfect creation of himself, a perfect created world. If a particular branch of mankind desire to know what the nature of other men and women are, let him not look abroad, but into his own heart, and he shall see. So that I say, man is the world, a perfect creation, from whose poisoned flesh proceeds the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life: these are not of the Father. Now light is come into the world; that is, the Spirit of Right Understanding hath taken up his dwelling in this flesh. Hence man is called a reasonable creature, which is a name given to no other creature but man, because the Spirit of Reason appears acting in him, which if men did submit themselves unto, they would act righteously continually: and so man would become lord of all other creatures in righteousness.... But the masculine powers of the poisoned flesh stand it out against the King of Glory till He cast them into the lake of fire, into His own spirit, by which they are tried, and, being found but chaff and not able to endure, are burned and consumed to nothing in the flame.”

“No man or woman, however, need be troubled at this,” Winstanley contends, “for let every man cleanse himself of these wicked powers that rule in him, and there speedily will be a harmony of love in the great creation, even among all creatures. Therefore let no man look without himself, and say, other men will not obey this light that is come into mankind; but let him look into his own heart, and he shall find that the powers in his heart are those very men of the world that will not submit to that Light of Reason that is come into it.”[60:1]

Winstanley then proceeds to explain his conception of the resurrection of Christ, as follows:

“Friends, do not mistake the resurrection of Christ. You expect that he shall come in one single person, as he did when he came to suffer and die, and thereby to answer the types of Moses’ Law. Let me tell you that if you look for him under the notion of one single man after the flesh, to be your Saviour, you shall never, never taste salvation by him.... If you expect or look for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you must know that the Spirit within the flesh is the Jesus Christ, and you must see, feel, and know from himself his own resurrection within you, if you expect life and peace by him. For he is the Life of the World, that is, of every particular son and daughter of the Father ... for everyone hath the Light of the Father within himself, which is the mighty man Christ Jesus. And he is now rising and spreading himself in these his sons and daughters, and so rising from one to many persons till he enlighten the whole creation (mankind) in every branch of it, and cover this earth with knowledge as the waters cover the sea.... And this is to be saved by Jesus Christ; for that mighty man of spirit hath taken up his habitation within your body; and your body is his body, and now his spirit is your spirit, and so you are become one with him and with the Father. This is the faith of Christ, when your flesh is subject to the Spirit of Righteousness, as the flesh of Christ was subject. And this is to believe in Christ, when the actings and breathings of your soul are within the centre of the same spirit in which the man Jesus Christ lived, acted, and breathed.”

In accordance with this profound, philosophic, and truly spiritual view, Winstanley found it incumbent upon him to warn his fellows against another generally held belief, as follows:

“So that you do not look for a God now, as formerly you did, to be a place of glory beyond the sun, moon, and stars, nor imagine a Divine Being you know not where; but you see Him ruling within you; and not only in you, but you see and know Him to be the Spirit or Power that dwells in every man and woman, yea, in every creature, according to his orb, within the globe of the Creation. So that now you see and feel and taste the sweetness of the Spirit ruling in your flesh, who is the Lord and King of Glory in the whole Creation, and you have community with Him who is the Father of all things. Now you are enlightened; now you are saved, and rise higher and higher into life and peace, as this manifestation of the Father increases and spreads within you.”[61:1]

As was only to be expected, the publication of the above pamphlets brought Winstanley into disrepute with the orthodox Ministers of the Church, who accused him of denying God, Christ, Scripture, and the Ordinances of God. This accusation gave rise to Winstanley’s next pamphlet, of some 77 well-printed duodecimo pages, the preface to which is dated October 16th, 1648, and which bears the significant title— Truth lifting its Head above Scandals.[62:1] In this volume Winstanley indignantly denies such a charge, and makes use of the opportunity to restate his views even more clearly than he had previously done. The book opens with a dedicatory letter addressed “To the Scholars of Oxford and Cambridge, and to all that call themselves Ministers of the Gospel in City or Country,” in which he carries the war into his enemy’s camp in a forcible and masterly manner. He reminds them that they are not the only ones who have the right to judge of the meaning of the Scriptures, “For the people, having the Scriptures, may judge by them as well as you.” He then continues:

“If you say, ‘No, the people cannot judge, because they know not the original:’ I answer, Neither do you know the original. Though by your learning you may be able to translate a writing out of Hebrew or Greek into our mother-tongue, English, but to say this is the original Scripture you cannot: for those very copies which the Prophets and Apostles writ are not to be seen in your Universities.”

He forces home his argument in the following words:

“You say you have the just copies of their writings. You do not know that but as your Fathers have told you, which may be as well false as true, if you have no other better ground than tradition. You say that the interpretation of Scripture into our mother tongue is according to the mind of the spirit. You cannot tell that neither, unless you are able to say that those who did interpret those writings have had the same testimony of spirit as the pen-men of Scripture had. For it is the spirit within that must prove these copies to be true.”

He then turns the tables by accusing them of being “the very men that do deny God, Scriptures, and the Ordinances of God; and that turn the truths of the Spirit into a lie, by leaving the letter, and walking in their own inferences”; and also “by holding forth spiritual things by the imagination of the flesh, and not by the law and testimony of the Spirit within.” And he contends that, in truth, he and his fellows are “those men that do advance God, Christ, Scriptures, and Ordinances in the spirituality of them.”

In the opening chapter of the book itself, Winstanley, with more than his usual directness, plunges into the heart of his subject in the following suggestive words:

“I have said that whosoever worships God by hearsay, as others tell him, and knows not what God is from light within himself; or that thinks God is in the heavens above the skies, and so prays to that God which he imagines to be there and everywhere, but from any testimony within, he knows not how nor where: this man worships his own imagination, which is the Devil. But he who is a true worshipper must know who God is and how He is to be worshipped, from the Power of Light shining within him, if ever he have true peace.”

“Hence,” he continues, “a report is raised, and is frequent in the mouth of the teachers, that I deny God. Therefore, first, I shall give account of what I see and know Him to be; and let the understanding in heart judge me.”

Winstanley then endeavours to formulate his theistic views and beliefs in a series of questions and answers, from which we feel compelled to quote the following:

“Q. What is God?

“A. I answer, He is the incomprehensible Spirit Reason;[63:1] who as He willed the Creation should flow out of Him, so He governs the whole Creation in righteousness, peace, and moderation. And He is called the Father, because as the whole Creation comes out of Him, so He is the life of the whole Creation, by whom every creature doth subsist.

“Q. When can a man call the Father his God?

“A. When he feels and sees, by experience, that the Spirit which made the flesh doth govern and rule king in his flesh. And so can say, I rejoice to feel and see my flesh made subject to the Spirit of Righteousness.

“Q. But may not a man call Him God till he have this experience?

“A. No: for if he do, he lies, and there is no truth in him. For whatsoever rules as king in his flesh, that is his God....

“Q. But I hope that the Father is my Governor, and therefore may I not call Him God?

“A. Hope without ground is the hope of the hypocrite. Thou canst not call Him God till thou be able in pure experience to say thy flesh is subject to Him. For if thy knowledge be no more but imagination or thoughts, it is of the Devil, and not of the Father. Or if thy knowledge be merely from what thou hast read or heard from others, it is of the flesh, not of the spirit.

“Q. When then may I call him God, or the Mighty Governor, and not deceive myself?

“A. When thou art by that Spirit made to see Him rule and govern, not only in thee but in the whole creation.... Wait upon Him till He teach thee. All that read do not understand; the Spirit only sees truth, and lives in it.”

Winstanley subsequently explains his views at considerable length. True knowledge, he contends, comes from within, not from without. “The whole Scriptures,” he maintains, “are but a report of spiritual mysteries held forth to the eye of the flesh in words.” The Gospel he explains to be “the Father Himself, that is, the Word and glad tidings that speak peace inwardly to pure souls.” The writings of the Apostles and the Prophets he regards as “the report or declaration of the Gospel, which are to cease when the Lord Himself, who is the everlasting Gospel, doth manifest Himself to rule in the flesh of sons and daughters.” Concerning Baptism he says: “I have gone through the ordinance of dipping, which the letter of the Scripture doth warrant, yet I do not press anyone thereunto, but bid everyone to wait upon the Father, till He teach and persuade, and then their submitting will be sound. For I see now that it is not the material water, but the water of life; that is, the Spirit in which souls are to be dipped, and so drawn forth into the one Spirit; and all these outward customs and forms are to cease and pass away.”[65:1] As regards prayer, he contends that no one should pray “until the Power within thee gives words to thy mouth to utter, then speak, and thou canst not but speak.”[65:2]

It is, however, in a subsequent pamphlet, The New Law of Righteousness, that Winstanley more fully expounds this characteristic Quaker doctrine, and summarises his deeply philosophic views concerning silence as the necessary precursor of all true prayer, as follows:

“All these declare the half-hour’s silence that is to be in Heaven (Rev. viii. 1). For all mouths are to be stopped by the power of Reason’s law shining within the heart. And this abundance of talk that is amongst people by arguments, by disputes, by declaring expositions upon others’ word and writing, by long discourse, called preaching, shall all cease (Jer. xxxi. 34).

“Some shall not be able to speak, they shall be struck silent with shame by seeing themselves in a loss and in confusion. Neither shall they care to speak till they know by experience within themselves what to speak; but wait with a quiet silence upon the Lord, till He break forth within their hearts, and give them words and power to speak.... Men must leave off teaching one another, and the eyes of all shall look upward to the Father, to be taught of Him. And at this time silence shall be a man’s rest and liberty; it is the gathering time, the soul’s receiving time: it is the forerunner of pure language.... He that speaks from the original light within can truly say, I know what I say, and I know whom I worship.”

Somewhat later he continues:

“None shall need to turn over books and writings (for indeed all these shall cease too) to get knowledge. But everyone shall be taken off from seeking knowledge from without, and with an humble quiet heart shall wait upon the Lord, till He manifest Himself: for He is a great king, and worthy to be waited upon. His testimony within fills the heart with joy and singing. He first gives experiences; and then power to set forth these experiences. Hence you shall speak to the rejoicing one of another, and to the praise of Him who declares His power in you. But he that speaks his thoughts, studies, and imagination, and stands up to be a teacher of others, shall be judged for his unrighteousness, because he seeks to honor flesh, and does not honor the Lord.”

He then somewhat mystically continues:

“Behold the Annointing, that is to reach all things, is coming to create a new Heaven and a new Earth wherein Righteousness shall dwell, and there shall not be a vessel of humane earth but it shall be filled with Christ. If it were possible to have so many buckets as to contain the whole ocean, every one could be filled with the ocean, and being put all together it would make up the perfect ocean which filled them all. Even so Christ, which is the spreading power, is now beginning to fill every man and woman with Himself. He will dwell and rule in everyone; and the Law of Reason and Equity shall be Christ in them. Every single body is a star shining forth of Him, or rather a body in and out of whom He shines; and He is the ocean of power that fills all. And so the words are true, the Creation, mankind, shall be the fulness of Him that fills all in all. This is the Church, the great Congregation, that, when the mystery is completed, shall be the mystical body of Christ, all set at liberty from inward and outward straits and bondage. And this is called the holy breathing that made all new by Himself and for Himself.”

We think we have now dealt sufficiently with Winstanley’s exposition of the theistical doctrines subsequently adopted, and almost in their entirety, by the Society of Friends. In a later chapter (Chap. XVI.) we shall show how far he himself modified his earlier views. And in the succeeding chapter we shall briefly lay before our readers the practical and fundamental social changes Winstanley deemed demanded by the dictates of Reason, as forming the necessary first steps towards laying the foundations of “a new Earth and a new Heaven wherein Righteousness, or Justice, shall dwell.”

[53:1] Clarke Papers, vol. i. p. 379.

[54:1] British Museum, Press Mark, 4377, a. 2.

[54:2] In 1655, Giles Calvert published “A Declaration from the Children of Light (who are by the world scornfully called Quakers).” British Museum, Press Mark, E. 838.

[55:1] The full truth of these words comes home to us when we bear in mind that the law (De Comburendo Heretico) sanctioning the burning of heretics was only repealed in the reign of Charles the Second (in 1677), the Bishops of the day opposing its repeal almost to a man.

[56:1] King’s Pamphlets. British Museum, Press Mark, E. 2137.

[58:1] “The early Friends were men of prayer, and diligent searchers of the Holy Scriptures. Unable to find true rest in the various opinions and systems which in that day divided the Christian world, they believed that they found the Truth in a more full reception of Christ, not only as the living and ever-present Head of the Church in its aggregate capacity, but also as the life and light, the spiritual ruler, teacher and friend of every individual member.”—Book of Discipline of the Society of Friends. Quoted by J. S. Rowntree, Society of Friends: its Faith and Practice, p. 24. See also Barclay’s Apology for the true Christian Divinity, p. 1: Second Proposition.

[60:1] “It is the inward master (saith Augustine) that teacheth, it is Christ that teacheth, it is inspiration that teacheth: where this inspiration and unction is wanting, it is vain that words from without are beaten in.” And thereafter: “For he that created us, and redeemed us, and called us by faith, and dwelleth in us by his Spirit, unless he speaketh unto you inwardly, it is needless for us to cry out.”—From Barclay’s Apology, p. 13.

[61:1] “If instead of assuming the being of an awful deity, which men, though they cannot and dare not deny, are always unwilling, sometimes unable, to conceive, we were to show them a near, visible, inevitable, but all-beneficent deity, whose presence makes the earth itself a heaven, I think there would be fewer deaf children sitting in the market-place.”—John Ruskin, Modern Painters.

[62:1] British Museum, Press Mark, 4372, a.a. 17. Below the title appears the following words: “Professors of all forms, behold the Bridegroom is coming, your profession will be tried to purpose, your hypocricy shall be hid no longer. You shall feed no longer upon the Oil that was in other men’s Lamps (the Scriptures), for now it is required that everyone have Oil in his own Lamp, even the pure testimony of truth within himself. For he that wants this, though he have the report of it in his book, he shall not enter with the Bridegroom into the chamber of peace.”

[63:1] “The incomprehensible Spirit Reason!” It is interesting to note here that the “Tau” of the great Chinese philosopher, Lau-tsze,—the word he uses to denote the Absolute, which, consequently, he wisely leaves vague and undefined, and which apparently has no English word exactly equivalent to it,—suggests to his translator three English words—“the Way, Reason, and the Word.” The latter’s one objection to the word Reason as an equivalent is that to him it “seems to be more like a quality or attribute of some conscious being than Tau is.” See The Speculations of the old Philosopher Lau-tsze, by John Chalmers, M.A. Introduction.

[65:1] See Barclay’s Apology (Concerning Baptism), p. 7.

[65:2] “All true and acceptable worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving and drawing of his own Spirit, which is limited neither to places, times, nor persons. For though we be to worship him always, in that we are to fear before him; yet as to the outward signification thereof in prayers, praises, or preachings, we ought not to do it where and when we will, but where and when we are moved by the secret inspiration of his Spirit in our hearts, which God heareth and accepteth of, and is never wanting to move us thereunto when need is, of which he himself is the alone proper judge.”—Barclay’s Apology (Concerning Worship), p. 6.

CHAPTER VII
THE NEW LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

“The great Lawgiver in Commonwealth’s Government is the Spirit of Universal Righteousness dwelling in mankind, now rising up to teach everyone to do to another as he would have another do to him.... If any goes about to build up Commonwealth’s Government upon Kingly principles, they will both shame and loose themselves: for there is a plain difference between the two Governments.”—Winstanley, The Law of Freedom.

On January 26th, 1648 (1649), four days prior to the execution of Charles the First, the very day the King’s death-warrant lay at the Painted Chamber, Westminster, awaiting the signatures of some of the less resolute among his judges, Winstanley sat down to write the opening epistle of the pamphlet we have now to make known to our readers.[68:1] They were stirring and momentous times, of which, as it seems to us, this pamphlet is in every way worthy. It reveals a most momentous step in the development of Winstanley’s mind; for in it we see him move from the misty regions of cosmological, metaphysical, and theistical speculations to the somewhat firmer ground of social thought. From the time of its publication, Winstanley leaves the former almost untouched, concentrates his mind almost exclusively on the latter, pleads eloquently for the recognition of natural law in the social, or political world, and steps boldly forward to a life of action, animated and inspired by the conclusions concerning the necessary foundations of a social state based upon righteousness that his previous reflections and meditations, or the Inward Light to which he unhesitatingly submitted himself, had revealed unto him.

The only indication that Winstanley was in any way influenced by the exciting discussions which under the circumstances must have raged everywhere around him, is to be found in his condemnation of Capital Punishment, which may here find a fitting place. In accordance with his favourite method, he summarises his views in answer to a hypothetical question, as follows:

“But is not this the old rule, He that sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed?

“I answer, It is true, but not as usually it is observed. If any man can say, he can give life, then he hath the power to take away life. But if the power of life and death be only in the hand of the Lord, then surely he is a murderer of the Creation that taketh away the life of his fellow-creature, man, by any law whatsoever.... For if I kill you, I am a murderer; if a third come to kill me for murdering you, he is a murderer of me; and so murder hath been called Justice, when it is but the curse.... Therefore, O thou proud flesh that dares hang or kill thy fellow-creatures that are equal to thee in the Creation, know this, that none hath the power of life and death but the Spirit, and that all punishments that are to be inflicted amongst creatures called men are only such as to make the offender to know his Maker, and to live in the community of the Righteous Law of Love one with the other.”

The opening epistle is addressed—“To the Twelve Tribes of Israel that are circumcised in heart, and scattered through all the Nations of the Earth.” In it he admonishes them to be patient, for “this New Law of Righteousness and Peace which is raising up is David your King, which you have been seeking a long time”; that “He is now coming to reign, and the isles and nations of the Earth shall all come in unto Him”; that “He will rest everywhere, for this blessing will fill all places.” But he reminds them that “the swords and counsels of the flesh shall not be seen in this work; the arm of the Lord only shall bring these mighty things to pass in the day of His power.” “Therefore,” he continues, “all that I can say is this—Though the world, even the seed of the flesh, despise you, and call you by reproachful names at their pleasure, yet wait patiently upon your King; He is coming; He is rising; the Son is up, and His glory will fill the Earth.”

In the opening chapter of this pamphlet Winstanley still further elucidates his interpretation of the allegorical stories of the Creation and the Fall. How in the beginning man was created perfect, and “the whole Creation lived in man, and man lived in his Maker.” And how man fell from this high estate by following the promptings of self-love, covetousness, or the desires of the flesh, to which he attributes all the misery and suffering men bring upon themselves, and which he personifies as the First Adam. “All that this Adam doth,” he says, “is to advance himself to be the one power. He gets riches and government in his hands so that he may lift up himself and suppress the universal liberty, which is Christ.”

He then continues:

“And this is the beginning of particular interest, buying and selling the Earth from one particular hand to another, saying ‘This is mine,’ upholding this particular propriety by a law of government of his own making, and thereby restraining other fellow-creatures from seeking nourishment from their Mother Earth. So that though a man was bred up in a Land, yet he must not work for himself where he would, but for him who had bought part of the Land, or had come to it by inheritance of his deceased parents, and called it his own Land. So that he who had no Land was to work for small wages for those who called the Land theirs. Thereby some are lifted up in the chair of tyranny, and others trod under the footstool of misery, as if the Earth were made for a few, and not for all men.”

“As if the Earth were made for a few, and not for all men!” In these few pertinent and indignant words Winstanley strikes the keynote of all his subsequent writings, as that of those of many other later students of social problems, from John Locke,[71:1] who may be regarded as his immediate successor, to Thomas Spence, Patrick Edward Dove,[71:2] Thomas Paine,[71:3] and Henry George.

He then further emphasises his contention, in words similar to those that are to-day resounding throughout the advanced political centres of the world, as follows:

“And let all men say what they will, so long as such are Rulers as call the land theirs, upholding this particular propriety of Mine and Thine, the common people shall never have their liberty, nor the Land be ever freed from troubles, oppressions, and complainings, by reason whereof the Creator of all things is continually provoked. O thou proud, selfish, governing Adam, in this Land called England! know that the cries of the poor, whom thou layeth heavy oppressions upon, are heard.”

And in the closing passage of the chapter he formulates his social ideals in the following words:

“This is the unrighteous Adam, that dammed up the water springs of universal liberty, and brought the Creation under the curse of bondage, sorrow, and tears. But when the Earth becomes a Common Treasury, as it was in the beginning, and the King of Righteousness comes to rule in every one’s hearts, then He kills the first Adam—for Covetousness thereby is killed.

“A man shall have meat and drink and clothes by his labour in freedom, and what can he desire more in Earth? Pride and Envy likewise are killed thereby; for everyone shall look upon each other as equal in the Creation, every man, indeed, being a perfect Creation of himself. And so this second Adam, Christ the Restorer, stops or dams up the running of those stinking waters of self-interest, and causes the waters of life and liberty to run plentifully in and through the Creation, making the Earth one Store House, and every man and woman to live in the Law of Righteousness and Peace, members of one household.”

In a subsequent chapter (chap. vi.) he returns to this subject, and emphasises the differences of the views of the ethical-minded man and the ordinary conventional materialist, in the following suggestive passage:

“The man of the flesh judges it a righteous thing that some men who are cloathed with the objects of the Earth, and so called rich men, whether it be got by right or wrong, should be Magistrates to rule over the poor; and that the poor should be servants, nay, rather slaves, to the rich. But the spiritual man, which is Christ, doth judge according to the light of equity and reason, that all mankind ought to have a quiet subsistence and freedom to live upon Earth; and that there should be no bondman nor beggar in all his holy mountain.”

For, he contends:

“Mankind was made to live in the freedom of the spirit, not under the bondage of the flesh. For everyone was made to be a Lord over the creation of the Earth, cattle, fish, fowl, grass, trees, not anyone to be a bond-slave and a beggar under the Creation of his own kind. That so everyone, living in freedom and love in the strength of the Law of Righteousness in him, not under straits of poverty, nor bondage of tyranny one to another, might all rejoice together in righteousness, and so glorify their Maker. For surely this must dishonor the Maker of all men, that some men should be oppressing tyrants, imprisoning, whipping, hanging their fellow-creatures, men, for those very things which those very men themselves are guilty of. Let men’s eyes be opened, and it appears clear enough, that the punishers have and do break the Law of Equity and Reason more or as much as those who are punished by them.”

But, he adds rejoicingly, just

“As the powers and wisdom of the flesh hath filled the Earth with injustice, oppression, and complainings, by mowing the Earth into the hands of a few covetous unrighteous men, who assume a lordship over others, declaring themselves thereby to be men of the basest spirits. Even so, when the spreading of wisdom and truth fill the Earth, mankind, he will take off that bondage, and give a universal liberty, and there shall be no more complainings against oppression, poverty, or injustice.”

Winstanley, however, warns his readers that “this is not to be done by the hands of a few, or by unrighteous men that would pull down the tyrannical government out of other men’s hands and keep it in their own heart, as we feel this to be a burden of our age. But it is to be done by the universal spreading of the Divine Power, which is Christ in mankind, making them all to act in one spirit, and in and after one law of reason and equity.”

In the next chapter (chap. viii.) Winstanley describes his peculiar state of mind at the time he first arrived at his fundamental conclusions, which he evidently regarded as directly revealed to him, in the following mystic words:

“As I was in a trance not long since, divers matters were present to my sight, which here must not be related. Likewise I heard these words—Work together: Eat bread together: Declare this all abroad. Likewise I heard these words—Whosoever it is that labors in the earth—for any person or persons that lift up themselves as Lords and Rulers over others, and that doth not look upon themselves as equal to others in the Creation, the hand of the Lord shall be upon that laborer. I the Lord have spoke it and I will do it. Declare this all abroad.”

He then continues:

“After I was raised up I was made to remember very fresh what I had seen and heard, and did declare all things to them that were with me, and I was filled with abundance of quiet peace and secret joy. And since that time those words have been like very fruitful seed, that have brought forth increase in my heart, which I am much pressed in spirit to declare all abroad.”

He further explains the meaning of this revelation in the following words:

“The poor men by their labors in this time of the first Adam’s government, have made the buyers and sellers of land, or rich men, to become tyrants and oppressors over them. But in the time of Israel’s restoration, now beginning, when the King of Righteousness himself shall be Governor in every man, none then shall work for hire, neither shall any give hire, but everyone shall work in love, one with and for another, and eat bread together, as being members of one household, the Creation, in whom Reason rules king in perfect glory.”

Under these circumstances, he contends:

“No man shall have any more land than he can labor himself,[74:1] or have others to labor with him in love, working together, and eating bread together, as one of the tribes or families of Israel, neither giving hire nor taking hire.”

After having given forcible expression to his profound contempt for all mere lip-professions of brotherhood, sympathy, and love, with which those whose actions are least in accord with the dictates of righteousness, equity, and reason are so often the most profuse, and reminding these that—“The talking of love is no love; it is the acting of love in righteousness which the Spirit Reason, our Father, delights in”; he addressed the following stirring warning to his fellow-workers:

“Therefore you dust of the earth that are trod under foot, you poor people that make both scholars and rich men your oppressors by your labors, take notice of your privilege, the Law of Righteousness is now declared. If you labor the earth and work for others that live at ease and follow the ways of the flesh, eating the bread which you get by the sweat of your brow, not of their own, know this, that the hand of the Lord shall break out upon every such hireling laborer, and you shall perish with that covetous rich man that hath held and yet doth hold the Creation under the bondage of the curse.”

Winstanley then declares his intentions as to the future, which, as we shall see, he faithfully carried out, as follows:

“I have now obeyed the command of the Spirit that bid me declare all this abroad. I have declared it and I will declare it by word of mouth, I have now declared it with my pen. And when the Lord doth show unto me the place and manner, how He will have us that are called common people manure and work upon the common lands, I will then go forth and declare it by my action, to eat my bread by the sweat of my brow, without either giving or taking hire, looking upon the land as freely mine as another’s. I have now peace in the Spirit, and I have an inward persuasion that the spirit of the poor shall be drawn forth ere long to act materially this Law of Righteousness.”

Winstanley then proceeds to formulate the practical proposals, whereby he deemed the disinherited many might reclaim their inheritance, and that without infringing on the established rights or the property of the rich: proposals, be it remembered, which, if acted on, would have altered the whole future economic history of Great Britain. Before judging of their efficacy, we should bear in mind that at the time he was writing, before the era of Enclosure Acts, over a third of England was still common land. However, whatever opinion may be held on this point, there can be no denying the lucidity and incisiveness of his words: he says:

“But be it so that some will say, This is my land, and call such and such a parcel of land his own interest.... Therefore, if the rich still hold fast to this propriety of Mine and Thine, let them labor their own lands with their own hands. And let the common people, that say the earth is ours, not mine, let them labor together, and eat bread together upon the commons, mountains, and hills.”

Such, then, was the proposal by which Winstanley deemed the relative merits of Individualism and Communism, as a system of social union, might best be tested, and which he immediately proceeded to defend in the following words:

“For as the enclosures are called such a man’s land, and such a man’s land, so the Commons and Heath are called the common people’s. And let the world see who labor the Earth in righteousness, and those to whom the Lord gives the blessing, let them be the people that shall inherit the Earth. Whether they that hold a civil propriety, saying, This is mine, which is selfish, devilish, and destructive to the Creation; or those that hold a common right, saying, The Earth is ours, which lifts up the Creation from bondage.”

Further, he contends that if his proposals were acted on—

“None can say their right is taken from them. For let the rich work alone by themselves; and let the poor work together by themselves. The rich in their enclosures, saying, This is mine; and the poor upon the Commons, saying, This is ours, the Earth and its fruits are common. And who can be offended at the poor for doing this? None but covetous, proud, idle, pampered flesh, that would have the poor work still for this devil (particular interest) to maintain his greatness that he may live at ease.”