IN the late 1640s, powerful pens denigrated “Presbyterians.” They did so, they would argue, to protect the religious and political liberties of individuals and the state. Although many Independents had previously joined with their fellow Nonconformists in pursuing common political goals of ecclesiastical and civil reform, some subsequently changed their view of Presbyterians. This alteration occurred, it seems, after The Solemn League and Covenant: after the reputation of the Scottish army was declining and pressure to settle the national church along Presbyterian lines was mounting. The ties holding together the coalition of the godly were about to break, but why? From the perspective of these Independents, covenant-espousing Presbyterians endangered the reforms accomplished by citizens, local parishes and councils, and Parliament by trying to enforce religious conformity and settle with the king; however, covenant-engagers claimed to adhere to the Solemn League and Covenant so that they could unify England, Scotland, and Ireland and establish peace. Defensive, individuals began to cast aspersions upon their former allies.

Misunderstanding continues to pervade scholarship on early modern nonconformity in general and Presbyterianism in particular. Much like the term “Puritan,” the word “Presbyterian” and derivations thereof were imprecisely employed in the early modern period; they bred confusion then and they continue to do so today. The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, for example, fails to distinguish moderate English Presbyterians from those (frequently Scottish coreligionists) espousing radical Melvillian reforms; it also fails to distinguish between religious and political Presbyterians in England.