What do you think?
Rate this book
John Owen, Richard Baxter and the Formation of Nonconformity by Tim Cooper
John Owen (1616a 1683) and Richard Baxter (1615a 1691) were both pivotal figures in shaping the nonconformist landscape of Restoration England. Yet despite having much in common, they found themselves taking opposite sides in several important debates, and their relationship was marked by acute strain and mutual dislike. By comparing and contrasting the parallel careers of these two men, this book not only distils the essence of their differing theology, it also offers a broader understanding of the formation of English nonconformity. Placing these two figures in the context of earlier events, experience and differences, it argues that Restoration nonconformity was hampered by their strained personal relationship, which had its roots in their contrasting experiences of the English Civil War. This study thus contributes to historiography that explores the continuities across seventeenth-century England, rather than seeing a divide at 1660. It illustrates the way in which personality and experience shaped the development of wider movements."
- GenresChurch History
Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
2 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 6, 2025
This engaging work is not a joint biography but the examination of a relationship between two of the most important figures in seventeenth century English nonconformity. Baxter is well known as a key figure in understanding the Interregnum period partly because of his voluminous personal correspondence. Owen on the other hand is much less revealing of his personal life, leaving behind comparatively less source material, thus attracting less attention from historians. In one of his many felicitous phrases, the author’s description of ‘the effusive Baxter and the elusive Owen’ (p. 6) captures the difference well. Using Baxter as a foil, Cooper delivers welcome new insights on Owen to light.
According to Cooper, differing experiences of the English civil war contributed to the shape of each man’s theology, with Owen minimising the role of human choice in salvation, and Baxter making allowance for it. Owen was unscathed by the war, being safely ensconced at Essex, and saw it as a great victory for the Gospel over Laudian-style Arminianism. Baxter on the other hand was personally affected by the warfare, living in close proximity to the fighting, and saw the conflict as damaging to the cause of Christ. This is an interesting theory, though Cooper is careful not to make too much of it, refusing to generalise as if their attitudes to the war could be seen as an example of more widespread attitudes. Their theological differences were often made even more distinct by evident personality clashes, making anything like agreement on religious settlement among nonconformists virtually impossible.
Cooper follows the lead of Ann Hughes in resisting hard-and-fast categories and neat identifiable turning points and political allegiances, instead emphasising the nuances, complexities and overlapping positions among the Puritans. The Interregnum period is generally seen in very negative terms as a failure. Cooper does not quibble with this but sees reasons for the failure in the troubled relationship between Baxter and Owen, rather than the radicals who have attracted more interest from historians, even though (with the exception of the Quakers) they were always small in number and influence.
The author does an admirable job describing Owen’s personality given the paucity of material available. A political animal who sought preferment, he could be angry and was not easily crossed. As for Baxter, he came across as ‘magisterial, haughty, arrogant, impervious to correction, blind to his own weakness, incapable of self-doubt and personally disdainful of others.’ (p. 125) Little wonder the two men collided.
Going beyond his earlier work (Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth Century England, 2001), the author examines factors in Baxter’s background and social location that served to make him an isolated and remote figure, lacking tact. These include his status as an only child, marriage only late in life with no children of his own, the absence of a university experience, and ill-health.
Cooper attempts to reconstruct Baxter’s memory of the downfall of Richard Cromwell in 1659 partly in light of Frederick Bartlett’s theory of memory construction. Psychologising the long dead can be futile guesswork, and Cooper is careful not to claim too much for his interpretations. Yet his claims are usually plausible or at least set forth compelling and fascinating possibilities. The idea that the conflict between Owen and Baxter was a species of sibling rivalry because each vied for attention from the same set of authorities is an interesting one. The contrast between the absence of personal correspondence from Owen and the surfeit of the same for Baxter is explained in terms of Baxter’s need to show that despite his geographical isolation and social inferiority to Owen, he nonetheless ‘belonged to a widespread and significant community.’ Owen in contrast was quite self-assured and, in any case, careful not to include anything in personal correspondence that might reflect badly on his subsequent power plays.
In spite of his sometimes-creative interpretations, the author shows great caution in handling his sources. For example, he does not rely on Baxter’s autobiography to assess Owen’s role in the attempted religious settlement of 1654 because, written ten years after the event, it is coloured by Baxter’s perception of Owen’s part in the later downfall of Richard Cromwell. Historians who have depended on Baxter’s account have often portrayed Owen as the villain, but Cooper argues that Baxter was stubborn and belligerent with a complete lack of the skills of diplomacy (or even of argument) needed for such ecumenical dialogue.
The two precise questions the book set out to answer are revisited in the conclusion. Why did Owen and Baxter not like each other; and what effect did their strained relationship have on English nonconformity? Cooper concludes in answer to the first question that the proximity of the two men was ironically the cause of their dislike for each other. They both wanted the same end but via different means and they saw ‘heresy’ in relatively slight differences. Nor were the differences between the two men merely intellectual; they flowed over into strong and passionate feelings in a context of mutual distrust. On the second question, both men were widely read and influential figures whose differences could not help but affect the broader religious movement of which they were a part. Understanding the reasons why Baxter and Owen fell out provides insights into the reasons Presbyterians and Congregationalists failed to provide a united front in Restoration nonconformity, since the differences between the two men were writ-large in the bigger picture. While conceding that the significance of these two giants may have been overstated by historians at the expense of lesser-known figures, Cooper yet maintains that the fault lines between them unavoidably and negatively influenced the formation of English nonconformity. This skillfully constructed and richly detailed study makes an important contribution not only to the study of its chosen period but also to the history of theological controversy and the powerful and fractious personalities that are often at its heart.
According to Cooper, differing experiences of the English civil war contributed to the shape of each man’s theology, with Owen minimising the role of human choice in salvation, and Baxter making allowance for it. Owen was unscathed by the war, being safely ensconced at Essex, and saw it as a great victory for the Gospel over Laudian-style Arminianism. Baxter on the other hand was personally affected by the warfare, living in close proximity to the fighting, and saw the conflict as damaging to the cause of Christ. This is an interesting theory, though Cooper is careful not to make too much of it, refusing to generalise as if their attitudes to the war could be seen as an example of more widespread attitudes. Their theological differences were often made even more distinct by evident personality clashes, making anything like agreement on religious settlement among nonconformists virtually impossible.
Cooper follows the lead of Ann Hughes in resisting hard-and-fast categories and neat identifiable turning points and political allegiances, instead emphasising the nuances, complexities and overlapping positions among the Puritans. The Interregnum period is generally seen in very negative terms as a failure. Cooper does not quibble with this but sees reasons for the failure in the troubled relationship between Baxter and Owen, rather than the radicals who have attracted more interest from historians, even though (with the exception of the Quakers) they were always small in number and influence.
The author does an admirable job describing Owen’s personality given the paucity of material available. A political animal who sought preferment, he could be angry and was not easily crossed. As for Baxter, he came across as ‘magisterial, haughty, arrogant, impervious to correction, blind to his own weakness, incapable of self-doubt and personally disdainful of others.’ (p. 125) Little wonder the two men collided.
Going beyond his earlier work (Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth Century England, 2001), the author examines factors in Baxter’s background and social location that served to make him an isolated and remote figure, lacking tact. These include his status as an only child, marriage only late in life with no children of his own, the absence of a university experience, and ill-health.
Cooper attempts to reconstruct Baxter’s memory of the downfall of Richard Cromwell in 1659 partly in light of Frederick Bartlett’s theory of memory construction. Psychologising the long dead can be futile guesswork, and Cooper is careful not to claim too much for his interpretations. Yet his claims are usually plausible or at least set forth compelling and fascinating possibilities. The idea that the conflict between Owen and Baxter was a species of sibling rivalry because each vied for attention from the same set of authorities is an interesting one. The contrast between the absence of personal correspondence from Owen and the surfeit of the same for Baxter is explained in terms of Baxter’s need to show that despite his geographical isolation and social inferiority to Owen, he nonetheless ‘belonged to a widespread and significant community.’ Owen in contrast was quite self-assured and, in any case, careful not to include anything in personal correspondence that might reflect badly on his subsequent power plays.
In spite of his sometimes-creative interpretations, the author shows great caution in handling his sources. For example, he does not rely on Baxter’s autobiography to assess Owen’s role in the attempted religious settlement of 1654 because, written ten years after the event, it is coloured by Baxter’s perception of Owen’s part in the later downfall of Richard Cromwell. Historians who have depended on Baxter’s account have often portrayed Owen as the villain, but Cooper argues that Baxter was stubborn and belligerent with a complete lack of the skills of diplomacy (or even of argument) needed for such ecumenical dialogue.
The two precise questions the book set out to answer are revisited in the conclusion. Why did Owen and Baxter not like each other; and what effect did their strained relationship have on English nonconformity? Cooper concludes in answer to the first question that the proximity of the two men was ironically the cause of their dislike for each other. They both wanted the same end but via different means and they saw ‘heresy’ in relatively slight differences. Nor were the differences between the two men merely intellectual; they flowed over into strong and passionate feelings in a context of mutual distrust. On the second question, both men were widely read and influential figures whose differences could not help but affect the broader religious movement of which they were a part. Understanding the reasons why Baxter and Owen fell out provides insights into the reasons Presbyterians and Congregationalists failed to provide a united front in Restoration nonconformity, since the differences between the two men were writ-large in the bigger picture. While conceding that the significance of these two giants may have been overstated by historians at the expense of lesser-known figures, Cooper yet maintains that the fault lines between them unavoidably and negatively influenced the formation of English nonconformity. This skillfully constructed and richly detailed study makes an important contribution not only to the study of its chosen period but also to the history of theological controversy and the powerful and fractious personalities that are often at its heart.
February 4, 2021
This is painstaking, balanced, and insightful work on what drove and kept these two men apart, and the impact that had over decades during their lives, and for the ongoing legacy of Nonconformity. This is a book for geeks, though - not a biography of either man, but an analysis of their broken relationship which requires significant background knowledge of and deep interest in the details of 1640s-through Restoration history, politics, and theology for it to be worth the effort.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews