Even after the University had, in some good measure, been brought within the terms of the Engagement, military visitors seem to have given trouble; for Oliver Cromwell caused the following order to be posted up at head quarters, addressed to all under his command, and to all whom it might concern:--"These are to charge and require you upon sight hereof not to quarter any officers or soldiers in any of the colleges, halls, or other houses belonging to the University of Cambridge, nor to offer any injury or violence to any of the students or members of any of the colleges or houses of the said University, as you shall answer the contrary at your peril. Given under my hand and seal the first of July, 1652."[270] [Sidenote: _Simpson--Dell._] The following year saw troublers of the peace far worse than any of Cromwell's troopers. Sydrach Simpson, one of the five brethren of the Westminster Assembly, who had been appointed Master of Pembroke Hall, in the room of Mr. Vines--a Presbyterian ejected for refusing the Engagement--had, at the commemoration of 1653, defended the University. He had said, in his oration, that they who had endeavoured to pull down schools were men formed to be enemies of religion, like Julian the Apostate--that all Divinity is swaddled in human learning--that Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel--that if the Spirit taught without means, men might as well be without ordinances as colleges--that knowledge is to be obtained not by inspiration, but study--that arts and tongues are the cups in which God drinks to us. After this fashion--in phraseology often very peculiar and yet expressing considerable wisdom--the Independent Master of Pembroke had appeared in defence of his University. Thereby he incurred the ire of William Dell,[271] Master of Caius--whose conduct in the army excited the displeasure of Richard Baxter, and who, for his very broad advocacy of toleration, incurred no small reproach from other Presbyterians. His opinions as to the manner of supporting religion approached much nearer to those of modern voluntaries than did the opinions of many persons at that time; but they were coupled with views of human learning, an educated ministry, and collegiate institutions, such as happily most modern voluntaries would disallow. Entertaining no hostility to learning on its own account, Dell protested against it as a qualification for instructing men in Christianity. He denied that it assisted in the understanding of Scripture. He maintained that the grace of God, and an inward experience of religion, were alone requisite for saving souls.[272] And the irrational declaration of this singular individual (who, however, it is only just to say, declared his willingness to sacrifice his office in support of his views) was coupled with the most vehement denunciation of University statutes, school divinity, and academic dress--of caps and scarlet robes, gloves,