thought fit to make his submission to the Government of the Commonwealth, recognising in the rising authority of Cromwell the hand of a real ruler who could prevent the country being torn to pieces by fanatics, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Presbyterian, and it can hardly be doubted that his conduct had a powerful influence in determining the course of Dr. Petty.
'Sir,' Cromwell had said in 1644, in a letter to Major-General Crawfurd, one of the Presbyterian commanders of the Scotch army under the Lesleys in the North, 'the State, in choosing men to serve it, takes no notice of their opinions. If they be willing faithfully to serve it, that satisfies.'[1] As time went on this conclusion seems to have become more and more impressed upon his mind. England, indeed, was still to be the kingdom of God; but the boundaries of God's kingdom were to be extended, and as many citizens as possible were to be allowed to live in peace within the precincts, so long as they did not engage in overt hostility to the Commonwealth and to the established civil and political order—conditions which in any case for the time being effectually excluded Roman Catholics and most of the Anglican churchmen from place and power.
Cromwell, though his own University connection was with Cambridge, had in 1651 been elected Chancellor of the University of Oxford. He steadily protected the two great seats of learning from the attacks of the fanatical party, especially during the brief existence of the assembly known as Barebone's Parliament, from July to December 1653, when the prospect for the Universities was serious. He had appointed two of his chaplains, John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, both men of learning and ability, to positions of importance, and it is probable that through them the name of Dr. Petty may have
- ↑ Carlyle's Cromwell, i. 201-220, ed. 1846.
English translation appeared in 1651 at the same time as the larger work, The Leviathan. On the views generally of Hobbes, and that he was in no sense the mere apologist of tyranny or absolute monarchy, see the remarks of John Austin, Jurisprudence, i. 249, note. On the juridical origin of the doctrine of the so-called Divine Right of Kings, see Maine, Ancient Law, p. 346.
