dissentients.* Moreover, the whole was an experiment subject to the approval of the king, with an "allowance" for a limited time only.† Before the term had expired, the course of public events disconcerted all the original measures of the party. The Westminster Assembly was dissolved, and a new order of things commenced.

The failure of the presbyterians is attributable to the resistance of the Erastians and Independents, but chiefly to that of the latter. The moderate Independents of the assembly, and the thorough Independents without, were agreed in opposing the pretensions of those who aspired to ecclesiastical domination. Widely as they differed respecting the theory of a religious establishment, and in their views of what was practicable at that time, they acted in concert, or at least, co-ordinately, in relation to the aims of the presbyterians. Probably there has never been a period in the history of Independency in this country, in which a similar division of the Independent body has not been observable, together with similar manifestations of union in practical matters.

Philip Nye, and the Independents of the assembly, rendered great service to their country, and to the cause of scriptural religion, by their eloquent exposition and defence of the congregational polity. Though few, they were never worsted in debate. Always in the minority, they were nevertheless acknowledged to have the best of the argument, by the independent thinkers of their day; and none can peruse the papers

*A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches," etc. 1659: Hanbury, iii, 530.

† Bartlet's" Model of the Primitive Congregational Way," etc. 1647. p. 135; Hanbury, iii. 244. Carlyle's Cromwell, I. 282, 311.

which they left behind them, in justification of their dissent from the majority of the assembly, without perceiving the force and superiority of their reasonings. They were continually gaining friends and adherents amongst the best educated minds in the metropolis; and while the party in parliament grew stronger from year to year, even such members as were not wholly convinced by their arguments, saw quite enough of reason in them, to induce them to withold their sanction from the exclusive pretensions of the presbyterians. It appears more than probable, also, that the opinions of the thorough Independents influenced them in the right direction, even though they failed to bring them exactly into a right position respecting the question of toleration. In the early period of the assembly, as we have already seen, their views were rather intolerant than otherwise; and when the assembly was dissolved, they were not the avowed advocates of perfect religious liberty. But during the interval, their opinions had undergone a considerable change. Towards the close of 1644, we find Dr. Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye asking for a toleration for their own party; but in November of the succeeding year, we find the same persons, together with Simpson and Burroughes, contending for a toleration of all religious parties not involved in fundamental errors.* Although the change of sentiment

* In September, 1644, Cromwell, Vane, and St. John, procured an order for a Committee of Accommodation, to consider the objections of the Independents to the resolutions of the assembly, and with a view to "relieving tender consciences." This committee was dissolved in the course of a few months, but revived in November, 1645. Goodwin and Nye only were on the first committee, but all four on the second.

was not perfect, it was sufficient to ally them to their more advanced brethren without, and served practically to strengthen the party in the eyes of the country. Sir Harry Vane was a kind of connecting link between the two classes of Independents. After his conversion to decidedly liberal views, he advocated them with great eloquence and fervour, both in the assembly, and in the House of Commons. He was the means of convincing some parties of the justice of the principles for which the Independents contended, and amongst the rest Rouse, whose metrical version of the Psalms, although adopted by the assembly, seemed less perfect in the judgment of the presbyterians from that time.

The chief cause, however, of the failure of the presbyterian party is to be traced to the complexion and success of the parliamentary army, under Fairfax and Cromwell, after it had been "new-modelled" in 1645. But we reserve this subject for the following chapter.

CHAPTER II.

THE INDEPENDENTS UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH

AND THE PROTECTORATE.

1649-1660.

IN the early period of the war, the army of the parliament, although nominally one under the Earl of Essex as commander-in-chief, acted in two great divisions, one of which was under Essex and Waller, and the other under Manchester and Cromwell. Besides these, the Scots' army under Leslie might be considered as only another portion of the general force. This tripartite division of a power which ought to have been one, was felt by many sagacious minds to be inconvenient. To make matters worse, it was found that the officers, more especially such as were members of parliament, divided the counsels of the army, and weakened its strength by their hesitancy, vacillation, and intrigue, in respect to the final object of the war. Such a condition of things was felt by many both in the House of Commons and the army to be distracting and perilous, and the result was a series of attempts to get rid of the evil. Without entering into particulars, it may be stated generally that the counsels of the more earnest prevailed. An ordinance, called "the self-denying ordinance," passed both houses, which compelled members of parliament to throw up their commissions, and was followed by

another ordinance for the new modelling of the army, which was thenceforth brought into one compact force under Fairfax as Lord General. This occurred in 1645. From this time the popular party triumphed. Oliver Cromwell became second in command, inspired the troops with his own valour and unity of purpose, and in the end scattered the royalists beyond the power of

recovery.

We have reserved for this place the consideration of the character and influence of the great hero of the age, and of those Independents who served under him with so much valour and success. Although their engagements were of a military nature, it devolves upon us to show how far their principles as Independents were connected with their achievements.

Unlike many of those who served on the side of the parliament, Oliver Cromwell engaged in the war with an earnest determination to carry it on with all vigour, and, if possible, to a successful issue, against Charles and his adherents. A great number, at the commencement of the struggle, were moved by views similar to those of the Coventry people described by Baxter, who "believed that the war was only to save the parliament and kingdom from papists and delinquents, and to remove the dividers, that the king might again return to his parliament; and that no changes might be made in religion, but by the laws which had his free consent."* It seems probable that Cromwell saw from the commencement the impracticability of conducting operations successfully on such grounds; detected the probable course of events; and laid those plans by which his views might be carried out. Although sympathizing with parliament

* Orme's Baxter, i. 55.