Cromwell / Gerrard Winstanley
War, a time of unprecedented religious
experimentation born of de facto toleration
and freedom of the press. Like many other
religious radicals, Winstanley fervently
believed in the imminent second coming of
Christ. But he went much further, not only
attacking the traditional church hierarchy
but also rejecting the idea of an external
heaven and hell. He denied the orthodox
accounts of the resurrection of Christ and
the Fall of Man while endorsing the
universalist heresy which held that all
would ultimately be saved.
Winstanley’s radical spiritual ideas were
expressed in a language which repeatedly
combined the religious with the rustic. The
Fall had not only cursed man but also the
earth, causing it “to bring forth poisonous
vipers, toads and serpents, thorns and
briars”. And there were already profoundly
political elements to Winstanley’s religious
vision. The Fall itself was depicted as a
divine response to a human act of
covetousness – the taking of an apple.
Covetousness, for Winstanley, was the root
of evil, the spirit of oppression that he
already pointedly associated with ‘kingly’
power. In his pamphlet Truth Lifting Up
Its Head Above Scandals (16 4 8), t h e
political lesson was clear: “Lands and
Kingdoms are most commonly governed
more by the wisdom of the flesh, than
of the spirit.”
Early in 1649, Winstanley’s millenarian
vision of a new heaven and earth became
overtly politicised, though the catalyst was
itself an ecstatic religious experience. In his
pamphlet The New Law of Righteousness,
Winstanley reported that, while in a
trance, he had heard a voice tell him,
“worke together. Eat bread together.”
The substance of the vision was that the
common land was to be farmed by the
poor, who would withdraw their labour
from the land-owning classes. But, at this
stage, Winstanley did not see the New
Jerusalem as being created by human
efforts alone. Instead, the rising spirit of
Christ within all – which for Winstanley
was the millennium – would ensure
that the people were “all of one heart
and one mind”.
But by the time that Winstanley
published his next work in April 1649 – the
Diggers’ first manifesto, The True Levellers
Standard Advanced – this position too had
changed. On 1 April, Winstanley, along
with several others – including his
associate William Everard, a volatile
former New Model Army soldier now
turned prophet – began to dig the common
land on St George’s Hill, Walton, Surrey in
preparation for cultivating crops there. GETTY IMAGES, ALAMY, BRIDGEMAN IMAGESThe Levellers
Like Winstanley’s Diggers, the Levellers
advocated radical political change,
calling for a written constitution
incorporating inalienable civil rights,
equality before the law and a more
democratic electoral system. However,
unlike the Diggers, the leading Leveller
writers – John Lilburne, Richard
Overton – William Walwyn and John
Wildman, disavowed any intent to
threaten private property.
Winstanley’s alternative name for his
followers, ‘True Levellers’, demonstrated
both their commitment to the abolition
of the private ownership of land and to
make clear their rejection of using force
to achieve their goals. This was an
important distinction to make given
the harsh response to Leveller-inspired
army mutinies in May 1649.The Ranters
Historians remain divided as to whether
this sect of libertine radicals really
existed. The tabloid press of the day,
though, was convinced that England’s
morals were under assault from
drinking, swearing, fornicating ‘Ranters’
such as Abiezer Coppe and Laurence
Clarkson. For Winstanley too, the threat
posed by the Ranters was very real.
Through his associate, William Everard,
Winstanley had connections to John
Pordage, a radical mystic often accused
of Ranterism. The Diggers’ communal
settlements also generated accusations
that they advocated free love. These
slurs help explain the defence of the
traditional, patriarchal family found in
Winstanley’s Law of Freedom.The Quakers
(Society of Friends)
Winstanley was buried as a Quaker and
had clearly become an active figure
among London Friends before he died.
There are also references to a
Winstanley being involved with the
group in the 1650s and there are
similarities between early Quaker
beliefs and Winstanley’s ideas – an
emphasis upon the spirit over the word;
a rejection of a state church and
tithe-supported clergy; and a deep
concern for social justice. The early
Quakers were arguably, though, more
anti-authoritarian than Winstanley,
promoting their message by acts of civil
disobedience or ‘social testimony’.WINSTANLEY’S RADICAL PEERS
Other groups that challenged the establishmentColonel John Lilburne, leader of the
Levellers, reading the BibleA print showing a Quaker meeting
in the 18th centuryThe Ranters Declaration, c1650: it is
unclear whether this radical sect existed