respecting his inciting the soldiers to demand the king's death, and his being on the scaffold concealed under a mask at the time of the execution, with many others of a similar nature, are pure calumnies which could never be substantiated at his trial. His own testimony respecting such matters-testimony given in the immediate prospect of death, and when there was no motive for stating what was untrue—is worth more than all the assertions of his enemies. "I had access to the king," he writes, in a letter to his only daughter, "about my New England business. He used me civilly. I, in requital, offered my poor thoughts three times for his safety: I never had hand in contriving or acting his death, as I am scandalized; but the contrary to my mean power. I never was in any councils, or cabals, at any time; I hated it, and had no stowage for counsel; thinking all government should be open to all. I confess, I did what I did strenuously, though with a weak head, being overlaid with my own and other's troubles; never was angry with any of the king's party, nor with any of them for being so; thought the parliament authority lawful, but never studied it much; have not had my hand in any man's blood, but saved many in life and estate." *

After these facts, it is apparent that the judgment of party writers, respecting the character of Hugh Peters, has to be reversed. That he was faultless, it is not our intention to assert; nor was any one more ready than himself to admit his many imperfections. His

*"A Dying Father's Last Legacy to an only Child: or, Mr. Hugh Peters' Advice to his Daughter, written with his own hand, during his late imprisonment in the Tower of London, and given her a little before his death. 1660."

last legacy to his daughter is one of the most affecting records of that period, not merely on account of the circumstances in which it was written, and the pathetic advice it offers to an only child, from whom he was about to be removed by a violent death; but chiefly because of its humbling confessions of error and unworthiness, mingled with the most truthful and earnest asseverations of his innocence in respect to the many charges brought against him. *

We now turn from biographical details to those events which followed one another in strange and rapid succession after the death of Charles. The dreams of the republicans seemed to be assuming the form of reality. For a season all was the freshness and vigor of a new order of things. The kingly office and the House of Peers were both abolished, and the House of Commons, with an executive council of state, became supreme. This council was composed of the leading men of the day, with Bradshaw-who had pronounced sentence of death on the king-as president, and John Milton as secretary for foreign correspondence. The army, with Fairfax and Cromwell at its head, was in its most perfect state of discipline. The naval power of England, with Blake at the head of the fleet, and Vane of the administration, began to assume new lustre. The places of the twelve judges were filled by sternly upright men, with St. John as chief justice. The oaths of allegiance and supremacy were abolished, and a new one was adopted, called the Engagement, which required

* For further particulars respecting the life and character of Peters, see Brooks' Puritans, iii., 350-369; Hanbury, iii., 570

all who took it to promise fidelity to the Commonwealth of England.

But in a short time this seemingly auspicious state of things began to be disturbed. Parliament was supreme, only because it was backed by military power. Instead of dissolving itself and appealing to the country, it began to recruit its broken numbers by re-admitting excluded and retired members, and by filling up vacant seats on its own responsibility. The representation was not reformed, although this had been a prominent object in the "Declaration of the Army," and the "Agreement of the People,❞— documents that expressed the wishes of the main supporters of the recent movements. Besides this, the religious settlement of the nation was not attempted on correct principles. The ordinances in favour of presbyterianism remained in force; and although divested of all directly coercive power, the nominal ascendancy of that form of polity, under the peculiar circumstances of the nation, led to manifold evils. It is admitted, that very serious difficulties beset the parliament in legislating on the subject of religion; neither is there any ground for doubting the disinterested, and, on the whole, impartial manner in which it sought to act towards existing parties. So far from wreaking its vengeance upon the episcopalians, such of them as were not openly disaffected to the new government, were protected from injury; and provision was made out of the tithes for those who had been deprived. Even the suppressing the Book of Common Prayer was not without justification, seeing how its enforcement in previous years had made it an odious thing and a badge of royalism. And if popish ceremonies were forbidden, they were for

bidden on political rather than sectarian grounds, while catholics were treated with more lenity than in any former period since the establishment of protestantism.

Still the error committed in this direction at

this crisis was a grave one, and is difficult to account for. The majority of the members of parliament were in all probability presbyterians, or moderate episcopalians; but the leaders were Independents, and supported by a large body in the army. Probably, as is often the case under similar circumstances with a generous as well as triumphant party, the Independents were reluctant to take advantage of their success. They would not have their own system established; and although many of their most eminent members were opposed to all connexion between religion and the state, they did not as a party feel it prudent to attempt to undo what had been already done. The ascendancy granted by the parliamentary ordinances to the presbyterian system was in their opinion a nominal thing, that was scarcely worth contending against; and all that they greatly cared for was, to prevent any further encroachments which might make what at present was nominal, real and exclusive.

It may be questioned, whether an absolute separation between church and state could have been effected at this time. The state of parties was very peculiar. Episcopalians and presbyterians would alike have been shocked at a proposal of that nature, and Independents and baptists were not unanimous respecting the propriety of making it. The subject, practically considered, was a comparatively novel one with all parties, and even the most thorough separatists were scarcely prepared to say to what extent the

separation between things civil and religious should proceed. Thomas Goodwin, Nye, Bridge, and the Assembly Independents, would in all probability have opposed a religious settlement of the nation on modern anti-state-church principles. Burroughes wrote a little before his death in 1646, "as for subjection to the magistrate, there we are upon equal ground; if he will interpose, he may assist and second the sentence of judging even subverters of faith; of withdrawing communion from them in the one, as well as the sentence of giving men up to Satan in the other; and we must still be subject here to suffer what is inflicted, if we cannot do what is required. Only we do not go as far as some do in this one thing. Whereas they lay a law upon the conscience of magistrates, that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the church,-taking cognizance only of the fact that they have decreed, not inquiring into the nature of the things,-we dare not lay any such bond upon the magistrate's conscience; but say that he is to assist the church both upon the knowledge of what the church hath done, and the knowledge of the nature of the thing. Seeing every private man hath this power, to be judge of his own act; it were a great misery upon those who have power over men, to be denied this power."+ was this Burroughes' opinion merely. In the next sentence he affirms it to be that of "all those brethren with whom I have occasion to converse." Greenhill also writes, in that portion of his commentary on Ezekiel, the preface to which is dated September 18th,

* That is, presbyterians.

† Irenicum, p. 44. Hanbury, iii, 111.

Nor