The Glorious Rising of the Fifth Monarch: Debates on Church, State and Society between the Fifth Monarchists and their Opponents

Nicholas Oswald

1000694812

April 6th, 2016

In 1642 Henry Archer, a clergyman at Arnhem, published The Personall Reigne of Christ ​ Upon Earth, a book that would become the first coherent statement of the Fifth Monarchist ​ 1 movement. Drawing from the seventh chapter of the book of Daniel (Daniel 7:2-18), Archer argued that there had been four great monarchies of history, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman, which corresponded with four beasts in the prophet’s vision. The fourth beast in the vision had a “little horn” which would persecute the saints of God. Archer interpreted the little horn as the Papacy, and through a series of calculations determined that the period of the little horn’s dominance over the saints would last 1260 years, the period between 406 C.E. and

1666. After the little horn’s downfall, Archer argued that Jesus would return to earth, and inaugurate a period of a fifth great monarchy, where the saints would rule over the world for a

2 millennium, prior to the last judgement. In preparation for this momentous event, Archer encouraged his readers to focus on striving to make themselves worthy to join the saints. This modest advice was not always repeated by Archer’s successors, many of whom believed that the saints should not simply wait passively for the coming Fifth Monarchy, but should do their utmost to prepare England for King Jesus, even to the extent of casting down the impure authorities in power. Regarded by their contemporaries as dangerous fanatics, the Fifth

Monarchists were perhaps the most extreme fringe of the Radical Reformation in England. Fifth

Monarchists defended themselves by arguing that they were the true saints, suffering from cruel persecution and working to bring just and godly rule to a broken nation. In examining the writings of the Fifth Monarchists and their opponents, one gains a window into the fierce

th ideological controversy of mid-17 ​ century Britain. Though they defy easy generalisations, the ​

1 Philip George Rogers, The Fifth Monarchy Men (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 11. ​ ​ 2 Ibid, 12. Fifth Monarchists were able to craft a coherent political theology that put godly rule over what they considered an illegitimate and ungodly government. This essay aims to further understanding of the political and religious doctrines which inspired many English men and women with the hope of the imminent coming of King Jesus.

Debates on the State

ENGLAND'S a Ship with adverse weather cross'd,

With wind and waves, schisme and sedition toss'd.

The Chiliast, (heavens, what a ridle's he?)

Would hew down Kings, to heave up Monarchie.

He would consider all his Plots as vain,

3 Did he remember, but, by whom Kings reign;

- A Mene Tekel to Fifth Monarchy, An anonymous Anti-Fifth Monarchist song ​

Poems such as A Mene Tekel to Fifth Monarchy suggest the strange and otherworldly ​ ​ political doctrines of the Fifth Monarchists, perhaps providing a clue as to why there has been a comparative lack of scholarship on their writings. The Fifth Monarchists only play a minor role in

Christopher Hill’s canonical treatment of mid-17th century radicalism The World Turned Upside ​ 4 Down. Hill’s focus on proto-communist “parties” like the Diggers or Levellers reflects his interest ​ in the roots of modern forms of government. The Fifth Monarchists, on the other hand, have a reputation as violent theocrats, opposed just as much to parliaments as they were to kings.

Their unorthodox views were, thus, too radical for Hill’s Marxist revolutionary framework. Just as

3 Anonymous, A Mene Tekel to Fifth Monarchy, (London, 1665), 1. ​ ​ 4 Bernard Capp, “A Door of Hope Re-opened: The Fifth Monarchy, King Charles and King Jesus,” ​ ​ Journal of Religious History 32:1 (2008): 17. ​ the Fifth Monarchists resisted throne and altar as well as parliament, they also resisted historical categorization, which has, unfortunately, led to their marginalization in histories of the English

Revolution. Fifth Monarchists such as John Tillinghast would proclaim “We cannot contend for any Government whatsoever that is of Mans erecting, building and planting, where any thing of

5 this old Foundation may remain and be left”. The ‘old foundation’ referred to was the governments of the ‘fourth monarchy’, the states of Europe that had existed since the time of the Roman Empire. Fifth Monarchists such as Tillinghast associated contemporary states with violence and oppression, writing that to serve the princes of this world was to work to maintain

6 false prophets. To pay homage to worldly kings was equivalent to worshipping the Beast

7 foretold in the Book of Revelation. The Fifth Monarchist William Aspinwall writes of how the saints suffer and groan under the yoke of kings, hoping and praying that they may gain the

8 liberty of the Sons of God. Their contemporaries, Leveller and commonswealthman alike shared similar associations of monarchy with tyranny. Yet the Fifth Monarchists diverged drastically in that their proposed solution was not mere reform or reorganisation of government, but the literal rule of Jesus Christ over England and the entire world.

John Rogers was among the foremost writers and preachers of the Fifth Monarchist movement, and suffered imprisonment under the Protectorate for his inflexible convictions. In

Ohel, or Beth-Shemesh, he gave a theoretical justification for why the physical reign of Christ ​ was necessary. The nations of the world differed in their laws and governing principles, yet the

9 law of God was the same no matter where one lived. While earthly polities were based on

5 John Tombes, Saints no Smiters, or, Smiting Civil Powers not the Work of Saints, (London, ​ ​ 1664), 3. 6 Ibid, 10. 7 Ibid, 12. 8 William Aspinwall, A Brief Description of the Fifth Monarchy, or Kingdome, that shortly is to ​ Come into the World, (London, 1653), 13. ​ 9 John Rogers, Ohel or Beth-shemesh A Tabernacle for the Sun, (London, 1653), 5. ​ ​ self-interest, the law of Christ called on all people to set aside loyalty to self and to devote their

10 lives to higher principles. It was thus clear that no mortal government would be able to properly reflect this universal calling to follow the ways of God. The law of Christ was an enemy to all customs that were not of God, and the reign of Christ was necessary to dispel the tyrants of the

11 present world, whether they were secular rulers or priests and bishops. The universal law demanded a universal monarchy, and the only worthy universal monarch was Jesus, king of

Heaven and Earth. Fifth Monarchists believed this kingdom must be universal with Thomas

Venner arguing that once the Christ’s rule was established in England, they must “go on to

France, Spain, Germany, and Rome, to destroy the Beast and Whore . . . to bring not only these

12 but all the Nations to the Subjection of Christ that the Kingdome may be the Lords.” It is in this sense that their call for world-wide revolution might be compared to Marxist revolutionaries in the twentieth-century. Where Marx called for the workers to the world to “unite” in the name of social and economic solidarity, the Fifth Monarchists believed that a European-wide Christian revolution was the only thing that could prepare the world for Christ’s coming.

The Fifth Monarchists were utopian in their aspirations. John Tillinghast proclaimed that

“Jesus Christ is the only lawful and true begotten Heir, and lawful King and Potentate of these

13 three Nations, and of all the Nations of the Earth” and his physical coming, in which injustice would come to an end, was eagerly awaited. In the Fifth Monarchy all the old governments of the world would be overthrown and Christ would be given the sole legislative power. Christopher

Feake wrote that “The Lord Jesus is making great hast, to break in pieces all these Kingdoms

10 Ibid, 6. 11 Ibid, 7. 12 Capp, “A Door of Hope Re-opened," 21. ​ ​ 13 Tombes, Saints no Smiters, 4. ​ ​ 14 both new and old” and he thrilled to see “the Whore of Babylon, with the Kings of the earth... wearying themselves in new Counsels, tiring out their Spirits in obviating the feared and

15 suspected designes of the praying awakened Saints”. The Fifth Monarchists were using no metaphors when they predicted that within their lifetimes they would witness Jesus coming to smash the civil powers and become the sole monarch of the world. Monarchists like Tillinghast were literalist in their interpretation of Scripture. Their exegesis centered not on abstract interpretation but the revealed word of God as they saw and felt it.

It was this exegesis that led them to their belief in the return of Christ and his rule over

Christendom. While the sole legislative power was to reside with Christ, the saints of the world were to have a prominent role in the coming Fifth Monarchy. William Aspinwall, in A Brief ​ Description of the Fifth Monarchy, argues that the saints “shall be his Vicegerents during the ​ 16 time of this Monarchy.” In anticipation of the coming of Christ, the powers of this world must be torn down (whether through violence or through the inevitable will of God was not directly stated) and a council of holy men was to reign over England like the Judges of Israel. “The supream authority I conceive will rather be placed in others, who as the supream Councel of the

State or Nation, are to mannage the affairs of State, and to study how they may enlarge the

Kingdom of Christ, and demolish the Kingdom of Antichrist, or the relicks and remainders

17 thereof.” This Sanhedrin would last until the arrival of Christ, at which point he was to be given full power over the realm and the saints were to transition to the role of subordinate officers.

There was to be no more use for parliaments, even parliaments of saints, but in positions as judges and as church councilors the holy men of England would continue their role in

14 Christopher Feake, The New Non-Conformist, (London, 1654), 11. ​ ​ 15 Ibid, 26. 16 Aspinwall, A Brief Description of the Fifth Monarchy, 4. ​ ​ 17 Ibid. 18 implementing the orders of King Jesus. Many Fifth Monarchists had hoped that Barebones’

Parliament would serve as a parliament of the saints, which would last until the Second Coming.

Cromwell’s dissolution of the parliament and the founding of the Protectorate outraged members

19 of the movement who saw Cromwell as usurping the role of Jesus. Cromwell was nothing more than another horn of the beastly Fourth Monarchy. Other groups such as the

Commonwealth-men who opposed the Protectorate wished for constitutional safeguards to check the Protector’s arbitrary power. For Aspinwall, however, there was only one way to avoid

20 arbitrary rule, and that would entail the physical rule of Christ.

While the Fifth Monarchists looked forward to the imminent Second Coming, their political doctrines horrified their opponents. Fifth Monarchists defied easy categorization in an age that craved it. Aristotle having declared, “man a social animal”, divided all rule into three types: the one (monarchy), the few (aristocracy), and the many (democracy). Their political beliefs were thus viewed with suspicion. The Fifth Monarchists flouted these categories, encouraging a torrent of criticism. The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy, an anonymous pamphlet ​ ​ critical of the movement summarised many of these suspicions. Chief among them was the potentially tyrannical and unjust rule of the so-called saints over those who did not share their beliefs. According to the anonymous author, “That that the government of the world shall be invested into the hands of the Saints, of whom they think themselves to bee chief; which

21 doctrine how pernitious and destructive it hath been, former ages have sadly experienced.”

The author acknowledges that it would be a definite good to have rulers who honour and fear

18 Ibid, 10 19 Rachel Adcock, “‘Like to an anatomy before us’: Deborah Huish's Spiritual Experiences and the Attempt to Establish the Fifth Monarchy,” The Seventeenth Century 26:1 (2011): 52. ​ ​ 20 Aspinwall, A Brief Description of the Fifth Monarchy, 11-12. ​ ​ 21 Anonymous, The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy, (London, 1657), 9. ​ ​ God, yet to be ruled by a sect that believes themselves to be harbingers of the millennial rule of

22 Christ would open the door to persecution. Some writers made comparisons between the Fifth

Monarchists and the Anabaptists, whose reign of terror in Münster had sent shockwaves across ​ ​ ​ 23 the continent and shown how dangerous the fringes of the Radical Reformation could be.

While Fifth Monarchists attacked the governments of the world as oppressive and ungodly, opponents of the movement countered by stating that outright resistance to government is the doctrine of the devil, because it contravened Romans 13:1-7. Fifth Monarchist saints were thus

24 advancing Satan’s cause more than the governments they opposed.

On one end of the ideological spectrum, the Fifth Monarchists were connected to the quasi-anarchist radicals, the Anabaptists. In addition, they were also compared to the polar opposite of the Anabaptists - the Catholics. Protestant writers often associated Catholicism with the doctrine that the Pope was the superior of secular rulers and could order them overthrown as he saw fit. This led to fears that Catholics in England and elsewhere were conspiring to overthrow Protestant kings, as can be seen for instance throughout the seventeenth century in the Gunpowder Plot (1605) and the Popish Plot (1678-1681). The Fifth Monarchists, likewise, held that the overthrow of rulers who acted in contradiction of God’s law could be justified. Fifth

Monarchists and Catholics thus came to be considered as united in the doctrine that kings could

25 be overthrown if disobedient to a higher power. Royalist critics, such as the author of A ​ Judgment & Condemnation Of the Fifth-Monarchy-Men, were quick to compare the movement ​ to other Protestant dissenting groups as well. The Independents and Presbyterians, while admittedly not as dangerous, had undermined the foundations of legitimate government and

22 Ibid. 23 Anonymous, Water upon the Flame, (London, 1659), 11. ​ ​ 24 Anonymous, The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy, 9. ​ ​ 25 Ibid, 10. prepared the way for a yet more dangerous movement to take dissenting principles to their logical conclusions. Anabaptists, Papists, Presbyterians or Republicans; any group that was seen as being a danger to the stability of the state was compared to Fifth Monarchists by their opponents.

Nor were republicans and parliamentarians any more comfortable than Royalists with the

Fifth Monarchists. The movement was generally a little more charitable towards parliaments than it was towards kings. While many Fifth Monarchists had spent the Civil War as enthusiastic fighters for parliament, they felt that Cromwell and the other parliamentarians had betrayed them. Following the execution of Charles I and the growing power of Oliver Cromwell during the

Protectorate the Fifth Monarchists tended to argue that parliaments were just as dangerous to the liberty of the saints as King Charles had been. It is evident from the above that the Fifth

Monarchists’ political designs represented a radical rejection of all other English political theory.

The Downfall remarks “the great work wherein these super-confident men have most busied ​ and imployed both their wits and parts, hath been mainly to throw down whatsoever in the world

26 crosseth or opposeth their designes.” Parliamentarians could see in the Fifth Monarchists a theocratic and authoritarian strain that could accept no rule other than that of Christ and the saints. Anglicans could view the movement as crypto-Papist in its opposition to legitimate

Protestant kings and their insistence on the right of revolt. Royalists could relate the movement to Presbyterians or Republicans in its eagerness to tear up the established church and dethrone the reigning king. The Fifth Monarchist conception of the state, therefore, is unique in that it truly stands outside of any other established tradition of the time and engaged in a radical critique of all sides of the political struggles in the English Civil Wars.

26 Ibid, 3.

Debates on Scripture

Spirit and Voice hath made a league

Against Cromwel and his Crown

The which I am confident the Lord

Will ere long so strike down.

Spirit and Voice hath made a league against him

That hath such a Traytor been,

And acted such false treachery

27 Against the mighty King.

- Deborah Huish, Fifth Monarchist visionary.

Deborah Huish, among other Fifth Monarchist writers, drew upon unorthodox readings of the Bible in addition to personal prophecies and revelations in order to present Cromwell’s reign as a gross and tyrannical usurpation of Christ’s rightful rule. As mentioned in the introduction, the prophecy of the four beasts in the Book of Daniel provided the core of Fifth Monarchist scriptural exegesis. William Aspinwall writes of how the prediction of a cruel beast arriving to oppress the saints “was fulfilled in Charls, late King, or absolute soveraign of 3 Kingdoms, a fierce & arrogant Tyrant & persecuter of the Saints, whose dominion continued till the judgement

28 was set, to wit the Parliament, and High Court of Justice, who slew the Beast.” Just as Archer had connected the little horn with the Pope, so Aspinwall connected it with King Charles and thought that the king’s overthrow predicted the beginning of the reign of the saints. The disappointment that followed Cromwell’s dissolution of the Barebones Parliament led to new

27 Rachel Adcock, “‘Like to an anatomy before us’," 52. 28 Aspinwall, A Brief Description of the Fifth Monarchy, 1. ​ ​ prophetic writers, such as Hannah Trapnell, associating the beast with Cromwell, who was now

29 seen as the great persecutor who must meet his end ere the saints could begin their reign.

In addition to this, the Fifth Monarchists based their beliefs on the many allusions to the personal reign of the Messiah found throughout the Old Testament. John Rogers wrote of how the prophets predicted the coming of what he termed a “Gospel-Church-State” in which the

30 anointed of God would rule according to divine law. The Messiah had already inaugurated a spiritual kingdom, but to truly fulfill these prophecies a physical kingdom was necessary. William

Aspinwall agreed with this interpretation and held that if the rule of Christ was meant to be purely spiritual, the Holy Spirit would have said so plainly, rather than cloaking this truth in

31 ambiguous statements asserting a temporal kingdom. A Fifth Monarchist writing under the pseudonym N.S. put forward a theory even more at odds with orthodox Christian practice, namely that the Lord’s Prayer was a prediction of the Fifth Monarchy. He based this theory on the phrase “Thy Kingdom come, which word must needs be understood of this visible Kingdom.

First, from the words that are joyned to it, viz. That the Will of God might be done in Earth as it is in Heaven, which cannot so be till that Fifth Kingdom be set up over the Kingdoms of this

32 World.” He argued that the kingdom referred to could not be God’s eternal kingdom, as that had existed since the beginning of time, nor could it be Christ’s spiritual kingdom as that had existed since the resurrection. The only clear meaning of the phrase, N.S. argued, was that whenever Christians prayed the Lord’s Prayer, they were praying for the arrival of Jesus’ physical reign over the world. Another passage brought forward by N.S. was Luke 21:31, which

29 Philip George Rogers, The Fifth Monarchy Men, 47. ​ ​ 30 John Rogers, Ohel or Beth-shemesh, 3. ​ ​ 31 Aspinwall, A Brief Description of the Fifth Monarchy, 2. ​ ​ 32 N.S., An Epistle Written (Dated the 30th of the 11th month 1659,) and Sent from London into ​ the Countrey, (London, 1660), 2. ​ reads in the King James Version “So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.” While this prediction was held by most Christians to refer to the coming final judgment of God upon the world, N.S. thought the word ‘kingdom’ was no metaphor but a clear statement that Christ was coming to reign as a worldly king.

It is not hard to see that the Fifth Monarchist writings interpret the Bible in ways far outside the mainstream—giving their opponents ample ammunition to assail their arguments.

The Downfall remarks that it is one of the most favoured stratagems of the devil to put on a ​ ​ 33 pious disguise in order to deceive the faithful. “Among many other stratagems and devices which the Devil hath to delude people, one main if not chief designe of his, hath been to exalt his Kingdome by infusing strange and unheard of principles and opinions into the hearts and

34 minds of men.” Scriptural critiques of the Fifth Monarchist movement focus on how their doctrines contradict other passages of scripture or commonly held principles shared by most

Christian groups. One of the favourite passages used in opposition to the movement would be

John 18:36, the King James Version of which reads in part “My Kingdom is not of this world.”

Here was perhaps the most clear statement in opposition to the Fifth Monarchists, a direct statement by Jesus that his kingdom was not a temporal one. The author of Downfall uses this ​ ​ to claim that the predictions of a thousand year personal reign of Christ are anti-Christian, as

35 they directly contradict Jesus’ words.

In order to counter Fifth Monarchist interpretations of the Old Testament prophets, opponents of the movement asserted the mainstream interpretation that predictions of the

33 Anonymous, The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy, 1. ​ ​ 34 Ibid, 2. 35 Ibid, 4. Messiah’s kingship were fulfilled by Christ’s spiritual reign and did not require any physical monarchy. John Tombes, in Saints no Smiters, claims that Daniel’s predictions of the reign of ​ ​ the saints refer to the everlasting spiritual kingdom of Christ, which has been in existence since

36 the resurrection. The Downfall’s author concurs and argues that Jesus’ second coming will not ​ ​ involve his kingship, but his final judgment. No text according to the author specifically speaks of

37 Jesus’ physical kingship, but rather of his spiritual kingship that is eternal. Indeed, the doctrine that Christ would exchange his kingship in heaven for a kingship on earth is derogatory to his

38 honour. Why would he change an immortal crown for a mortal one? The Fifth Monarchists want to drag Jesus out of heaven and make him ruler of the mundane world in direct contradiction to his words in the Gospels. The author summarises this by remarking, “the

Kingdome of Christ is, an holy and heavenly Kingdome, not a carnal and earthly Kingdome, as

39 vain men fondly conceive, but an eternal Kingdome in the highest Heaven.”

The literalist position of many Fifth Monarchist exegeses provided the opposition with strong counter-arguments. The Fifth Monarchists were criticised for over-reliance on “A few dark

40 and obscure places of Scripture” rather than adhering to what was plain and easy to understand. Christ personally stated his kingdom was not of this world and, yet, the Fifth

Monarchists contradict his words by bringing up obscure and unclear prophetic passages from

Daniel or the Apocalypse of Saint John. Water upon the Flame encouraged Fifth Monarchists to ​ ​ become more willing to doubt or question their interpretations of certain passages, drawing on

Biblical passages to argue, “He that thinketh he knoweth any thing, knoweth nothing as he

36 Tombes, Saints no Smiters, 26. ​ ​ 37 Anonymous, The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy, 5. ​ ​ 38 Ibid, 6. 39 Ibid, 14. 40 Anonymous, Water upon the Flame, 2. ​ ​ 41 ought to know…Lean not to thine own understanding.” The author of Water upon the Flame ​ encouraged members of the movement to question whether they were really doing the work of

God, or “whether that Spirit that worketh mightily in you in these smighting resolutions, be not the same that wrought in Münster, and others, that at last issued in all manner of ungodlinesse,

42 and confusion”. Water upon the Flame, in essence, exhorted Fifth Monarchists to avoid ​ ​ obsessing over obscure passages of prophecy and instead to hold fast to what was clearly taught in the Gospel.

A final line of attack on Fifth Monarchist principles were references to Biblical exhortations to obey the powers that be as well as appeals to the practice of early Christians.

Tombes’ Saints no Smiters is a clear example of this, and he appeals to the Fifth Monarchists ​ ​ with passages such as Jesus’ instruction to “Render unto Caesar”. Jesus clearly told his

43 followers to give to the state what it justly asks for. Saint Paul’s similar statements in his epistles are also mentioned as evidence that opposition to the state is contrary to Christian

44 doctrine. He exhorts the Fifth Monarchists not to be like Turks or Papists and adhere to bloody

45 doctrines of violence, but to instead seek the kingdom of God through prayer. The Author of

The Downfall also uses this line of reasoning, claiming that the Fifth Monarchists violate the ​

46 long-understood commandment to respect the governments of the world. I​ sabel Yeamans captured the disorder of the 1650s when she wrote “The world is mad, and servants turn masters: and what will the end be? Kings and great men are undone: the Lawyer leaveth

47 prating, & fals to freting.” Critics of Fifth Monarchism feared radical social disorder should they

41 Ibid, 1. 42 Ibid, 11. 43 Tombes, Saints no Smiters, 16. ​ ​ 44 Ibid, 17. 45 Ibid, 1. 46 Anonymous, The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy, 7. ​ ​ 47 Isabel Yeamans, The Year of Wonders: or, the Glorious Rising of the Fifth Monarch, (London, ​ ​ take power, and given the ideology present in many Fifth Monarchist writings, their fears may have had some justification. The dreaded spectre of Fifth Monarchist violence has coloured much of the writing on the movement and is been one of the most enduring features of its legacy.

Debates on Violence

These Saint like Devils would bring in

the French or who they else could find,

To ruine King and Kingdome too,

for to revenge their bloody mind.

For in this Plot they did intend,

by fire and Sword to make their way,

Throughout the City to the Court,

48 and all they met for to destroy.

- Hell’s Master-piece Discovered, a Royalist song. ​

The above quoted song, written with reference to Thomas Venner’s first rebellion in

1657, exemplifies the violent tendencies in the Fifth Monarchist movement. It is certain that many Fifth Monarchists were convinced that violence was justified in order to overthrow the dark remnants of the Fourth Monarchy and bring in the kingship of Christ. Tillinghast spoke of how it

49 is the duty of saints to fight against ungodly civil powers. The saints for him would be the

1652), 4. 48 Anonymous, Hells Master-piece Discovered, (London, 1660), 1. ​ ​ 49 Tombes, Saints no Smiters, 8. ​ ​ principal instrument of creating the Fifth Monarchy, by destroying the powers opposed to it.

John Tombes remarks that the Fifth Monarchists believed all worldly powers to be anti-Christian, and would therefore have to resort to great violence in order to end the Fourth Monarchy’s reign

50 over the world. However, it would also be incorrect to assert that everyone who accepted Fifth

Monarchist philosophy was a violent radical. The prophetess Isabel Yeamans, for example was firmly convinced that she would see the end of the temporal monarchies of Europe in her lifetime, yet in The Year of Wonders she regards these momentous events as inevitable, and ​ ​ her book is free from any calls upon the saints to rise against the Babylonic powers possessing

England. Fifth Monarchists, as mentioned before were not a unified movement. Venner and his fellows were ever-ready to engage in revolt, while others like Henry Archer believed that the coming of Jesus would mean the end of the Fourth Monarchy in a largely peaceful manner.

The Fifth Monarchists often viewed themselves as the persecuted, rather than the persecutors. Christopher Feake in The New Non-Conformist compares the movement’s ​ ​ sufferings to Biblical events such as the martyrdom of Stephen or figures from Christian history

51 such as Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. Prominent figures in the movement such as

Thomas Harrison, a parliamentarian general who had converted to Fifth Monarchist doctrines,

52 were thrown in prison for their actions. It was not only the leaders of the movement that suffered imprisonment or violence, but many of the rank and file as well. On October 19, 1661 a

Fifth Monarchist preacher named John James was interrupted by a marshal in the middle of his

53 sermon and pulled down from the pulpit after it was reported that he was preaching sedition.

50 Ibid, 15-16. 51 Feake, The New Non-Conformist, n.p. ​ ​ 52 Thomas Harrison, A Declaration of Maj. Gen. Harrison Prisoner in the Tower of London, ​ ​ (London, 1660), 3. 53 Anonymous, The Speech and Declaration of John James, (London, 1661), 2. ​ ​ He was accused of advocating rebellion against the king and the government and for having been a supporter of Cromwell, though in true Fifth Monarchist fashion he retorted that he had as

54 much animosity towards Cromwell as against the royal government. The record of his trial mentions that among his main offences was strong opposition to the Church of England, it being

55 said, “he… would have eclipsed the Glory thereof, and laid its splendor in the Dust.” James was sentenced to execution. Stories like these were featured in Fifth Monarchist writings as a way of asserting connections with martyrs of the past. Like Feake’s comparisons of his compatriots to early Christians suffering under Diocletian’s persecution, these stories of martyrdom provided a way of connecting the movement with the martyrs of Christian history.

However, unlike some of the past church martyrs, the civil powers had reason to fear violence from Fifth Monarchists. The movement showed open hostility to kings or civil authorities and frequently cited Old Testament prophecies with anti-monarchical themes.

Tillinghast drew on stories of the people of Israel fighting against the King of Assyria to assert

56 that the saints of his age could resist worldly kings. Nor did parliaments fare better in their minds, with Tillinghast remarking that parliaments, being part of the old foundation of the Fourth

57 Monarchy, were a part of the great beast. Paul Grebner, another Fifth Monarchist writer remarked that the result of the Civil War was not to grant the English freedom “but in stead of

58 one Tyrant to advance a douzen over us.” This opposition to any form of government besides the theocratic rule of the saints caused the author of A Judgment & Condemnation Of the ​ Fifth-Monarchy-Men to protest “God has left men liberty of Creating Humane Ordinances, as the ​

54 Ibid, 5. 55 Ibid. 56 Tombes, Saints no Smiters, 14. ​ ​ 57 Ibid, 6. 58 Paul Grebner, A Brief Description of the Future History of Europe, (London, 1650), 3. ​ ​ State shall require. The [Fifth Monarchists], leave no such liberty, but would have the Judicial

59 Laws of the Jewish State severely observed.” The author of the Judgment goes on to remark that the greatest evil is often done through ignorance and that some “who professing themselves to be servants and subjects of Jesus, who is Prince of peace, do notwithstanding through mistaken zeal, expose and destroy both themselves and others, in breaking peace, and

60 making war!” In the eyes of their opponents, the Fifth Monarchists had broken from the true religion, becoming instead, “tyrannical Phanatticks, who seek to make a breach in our True

61 Catholic and Apostolique religion, and root up the foundation of our fundamental laws.”

Comparisons to the Anabaptists were not uncommon, and reinforced the idea that the Fifth

Monarchists were dangerous and not to be trusted.

Opponents were skeptical that granting toleration would lead to beneficial results. A satirical document entitled An Humble Petition on the Behalf of many Thousands of Quakers, ​ Fifth-Monarchy men, Anabaptists, &c purported to be an appeal by dissenting groups asking to ​ be tolerated by the Restoration government. The document records these supposed petitioners as defining tolerance in a rather unorthodox manner:

By Civil Liberties they mean, not only that they may enjoy their common Rights as

English men, but that they may have a Monopoly of all places of command or advantage

in the Nation, and that none, but such as they approve of, may have a share in them:

And by Religious Liberty, they understand not only a liberty from persecution

themselves, but a power to persecute others, to pull down Tithes, Ministers, and all such

59 Anonymous, A Judgment & Condemnation of the Fifth-Monarchy-men, (London, 1661), 8. ​ ​ 60 Ibid, 2. 61 Anonymous, The Last Farewel to the Rebellious Sect called the Fifth Monarchy-men, (London, ​ ​ 1661), 3. 62 as shall not suit with their Principles, and comply with their desires:

It is clear that the author does not have a strong familiarity with the Fifth Monarchist movement. While grouping the sect with some radical Baptists would be accurate, they had few ties with the Quakers. Nonetheless, this piece of satire represents how toleration of the Fifth

Monarchists never seemed a valid option to their opponents, no matter what government was in power. A group so opposed to the civil authorities and so frequently advocating what sounds like violent rebellion could never be looked upon as a respectable member of the religious community.

Bernard Capp states that “the Fifth Monarchist movement emerged as a reaction to

63 fading, not rising expectations.” It coalesced under the Protectorate in response to outrage over the dissolution of the Assembly of the Saints, and its most radical members rallied to the banner of Thomas Venner after the Restoration. While many dissenters who had supported parliament in the Civil War felt profound anguish over the return of their old enemies, Venner never lost confidence in his divine mission. He announced in A Door of Hope that the ​ ​ Restoration had been allowed by God in order “to punish and spue out of his mouth a

64 Lukewarm People,” and to test the resolve of the true saints. On January 6, 1661 Venner and about fifty followers launched an uprising in London, aiming to take control of the state and put it in the hands of the saints. When they met a man who declared that he supported King Charles,

65 they shot him on the spot. The trained bands were called up and skirmished for a few days

62 Anonymous, To the Supreme Authority of the Nation an Humble Petition on the Behalf of many ​ Thousands of Quakers, Fifth-Monarchy men, Anabaptists, &c., (London, 1660), 1. ​ 63 Bernard Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century English ​ Millenarianism (London, Faber & Faber, 1972), 58. ​ 64 Capp, “A Door of Hope Re-opened," 20. ​ ​ 65 Anonymous, Londons Allarum, (London, 1661), 4. ​ ​ with Venner’s rebels, eventually defeating and capturing the survivors. This rebellion was the last desperate attempt of the Fifth Monarchy men to overthrow the government. Venner was

66 hung, drawn and quartered along with twelve of his co-conspirators. After Venner’s execution, the remnants of the movement dwindled away, some joining other dissenting congregations such as the Baptists. With stability returning to England, and the hopes for the Second Coming and the rule of the saints apparently in vain, the apocalyptic fervour that had animated the movement began to die away.

The opponents of the Fifth Monarchists had the last word in the struggle, and contemporary understandings of the movement tend to reflect the most violent and uncompromising tendencies. Not all of the Fifth Monarchists by any means were as radical as

Venner, with some like Henry Archer encouraging their followers to wait patiently for the coming of King Jesus. Nonetheless, it is very easy to see how Fifth Monarchist doctrine could come to justify violence, with its apocalyptic rhetoric and denunciation of existing powers as illegitimate.

In this essay I have conducted a general overview of the Fifth Monarchy movement with attention to how they justified their actions and how opponents of the sect argued against it.

Despite their relative obscurity, the Fifth Monarchists reveal some of the most radical tendencies of mid 17th century religious-political ideology. While the Fifth Monarchists may not be as well studied and understood as the Levellers or Commonwealth-men, I have hoped to show that this is not so much the result of inferiority of their arguments or cogency of their ideas. Just as they resisted what they considered coercive political and social institutions in the seventeenth century, they also resisted historical categorization in our own. By understanding fifth monarchist thought, we gain a clearer picture of stakes on which revolutionaries placed their

66 Capp, “A Door of Hope Re-opened," 16. ​ ​ convictions, aspirations, and ultimately, their lives.

Works Cited

Adcock, Rachel. “‘Like to an anatomy before us’: Deborah Huish's Spiritual Experiences and the

Attempt to Establish the Fifth Monarchy.” The Seventeenth Century 26:1 (2011): 44-68. ​ ​ Anonymous. A Judgment & Condemnation of the Fifth-Monarchy-men. London, 1661. ​ ​ Anonymous. A Mene Tekel to Fifth Monarchy. London, 1665. ​ ​ Anonymous. Hells Master-piece Discovered. London, 1660. ​ ​ Anonymous. Londons Allarum. London, 1661. ​ ​ Anonymous. The Downfall of the Fifth Monarchy. London, 1657. ​ ​ Anonymous. The Last Farewel to the Rebellious Sect called the Fifth Monarchy-men. London, ​ ​ 1661.

Anonymous. The Speech and Declaration of John James. London, 1661. ​ ​ Anonymous. To the Supreme Authority of the Nation an Humble Petition on the Behalf of many ​ Thousands of Quakers, Fifth-Monarchy men, Anabaptists, &c. London, 1660. ​ Anonymous. Water upon the Flame. London, 1659. ​ ​ Aspinwall, William. A Brief Description of the Fifth Monarchy, or Kingdome, that shortly is to ​ Come into the World. London, 1653. ​ Capp, Bernard. “A Door of Hope Re-opened: The Fifth Monarchy, King Charles and King Jesus.” Journal of Religious History 32:1 (2008): 16-30. ​ ​ Capp, Bernard. The Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century English ​ Millenarianism. London: Faber & Faber, 1972. ​ Feake, Christopher. The New Non-Conformist. London, 1654. ​ ​ Grebner, Paul. A Brief Description of the Future History of Europe. London, 1650. ​ ​ Harrison, Thomas. A Declaration of Maj. Gen. Harrison Prisoner in the Tower of London, ​ ​ (London, 1660).

N.S. An Epistle Written (Dated the 30th of the 11th month 1659,) and Sent from London into the ​ Countrey. London, 1660. ​ Rogers, John. Ohel or Beth-shemesh A Tabernacle for the Sun. London, 1653. ​ ​ Rogers, Philip George. The Fifth Monarchy Men. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. ​ ​ Tombes, John. Saints no Smiters, or, Smiting Civil powers not the work of Saints. London, ​ ​ 1664.

Yeamans, Isabel. The Year of Wonders: or, the Glorious Rising of the Fifth Monarch. London, ​ ​ 1652.