danger be past. Of all men, they should be an example, to the Lord's people, of faith, courage, and constancy. Unquestionably, if the blessed Cotton, Hooker, Davenport, Mather, Shepherd, Mitchell, were now living, they would, as is evident from their printed books, say, 'Do not sin in giving away the inheritance of your fathers.'

"Nor ought we submit without the consent of the body of the people. But the freemen and church-members throughout New England will never consent hereunto: therefore the government may not do it.

"The civil liberties of New England are part of the inheritance of their fathers; and shall we give that inheritance away? Is it objected that we shall be exposed to great sufferings? Better suffer than sin. It is better to trust the God of our fathers than to put confidence in princes. If we suffer because we dare not comply with the wills of men against the will of God, we suffer in a good cause, and shall be accounted martyrs in the next generation and at the great day." Sublime words! No language can reach a higher moral elevation. The act followed the words as the thunder follows the lightning. "The deputies consent not, but adhere to their former bills."

The charter fell; and there was left for the people no guaranty of their rights but their own inflexible integrity, and the sleepless vigilance of omnipotent justice.

Let us now turn to the rising State of New York. In 1683, the people in lawful assembly thus define their inalienable rights. Let us read the whole passage from which we have made important extracts for their proper places: "Supreme legislative power shall forever be and reside in the governor, council, and people met in general assembly. Every freeholder and freeman shall vote for representation without restraint. No freeman shall suffer but by judgment of his peers, and all trials shall be by a jury of twelve men. No tax shall be assessed, on any pretence whatever, but by the consent of the Assembly. No seaman or soldier shall be

quartered on the inhabitants against their will.

No martial

law shall exist. No person professing faith in God by Jesus Christ shall at any time be anyways disquieted, or questioned for any difference of opinion." Leisler and Milborn, too rash in their assertions of freedom, expired on the gallows; but even the royalist assembly which consented to their execution, finally re-affirmed the rights of freemen in the strong words of the grand old declaration quoted above.

Mark also the broad-minded statesmanship of the WestJersey Quakers. In response to the attempt of the Duke of York to "extort customs of the ships ascending to New Jersey," they say, "The customs imposed by the government of New York are not a burden only, but a wrong. By what right are we thus used? The King of England cannot take his subjects' goods without their consent. This is a homeborn right, declared to be law by diverse statutes." They were heard, and they deserved to be.

These people are very meek and harmless apparently; but let the minions of power tread upon them here in America, and they will soon feel the recoil of independent manhood. Byllinger assumes the right to nominate their lieutenantgovernor; and what do these Quakers do? Why, simply change their constitution, bring forward the free ballot, and elect their own governor. They are Americans, not serfs.

These may suffice as specimens of the conflict between liberty and prerogative, between the colonies and England, before the bloody war of the Revolution commenced. It was a contest of intellectual giants in the field of human rights. The victory seemed for a long time undetermined; but the greatest of all facts in the political history of the world was, that, in a struggle of more than a hundred and fifty years, not a right belonging to freemen could be wrenched from these feeble colonists by any power which despotism could command. This proves incontestably that God himself had assumed control of the great mind-battle progress on this continent.

in

STRUGGLES OF RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL LIBERTY IN AMERICA.

We may now recognize the fact, that collisions of mind were going on at the same time within the colonies. It might not be expected that the people would be equally clear in their apprehensions of personal and social rights, nor perfectly harmonious in their ideas of the best method of promoting them. They would not therefore advance simultaneously toward the result intended by Providence, and which rose up but dimly before them. It would rather be highly probable that there would be many and serious dif ferences among them, and that they would reveal alarming tendencies to anarchy on the one hand, and despotic rule on the other; while some of the great wrongs of their fatherland would seek to transfer themselves here, changing only the form and the objects of oppression.

We have seen that the irrepressible desire for "freedom to worship God" was the grand impulse which colonized New England, and that God made use of the stern conscience, the experimental piety, and severe discipline, of Calvinistic Puritanism, to establish irrevocably, as against the assumptions of English despotism, the right to worship God in spirit and in truth in the New World.

We have seen, however, that the Puritan spirit could not, without accessory force, carry forward Christian civilization quite to the point of universal toleration.

We shall now see that civil and religious liberty act vitally upon each other; that they are so intimately related, that one cannot be perfect without the other. We shall therefore see Puritanism in its transition state, struggling against its own reservations to realize the highest idea of true liberty. This contest will reveal the sharpest antagonisms, but steady advance toward the goal of true national liberty and unity.

66

In 1641, the great " model " of a free government ordained that "all the people of God who were orthodox in judg

ment, and not scandalous in life, had full liberty to gather themselves into a church estate, to exercise all the ordinances of God, and from time to time to elect and ordain all their officers, provided they be able, pious, and orthodox." The rights of conscience could not be ignored in this grand fundamental document. There must be "liberty," "full liberty;" but, alas! it was only for the "orthodox." Thus far, but, for the present, no farther.

Five years passed, and very clearly two distinct tendencies might be traced in the leading New-England colonies, - a disposition to an easier toleration of diverse opinions amongst Americans, and an increased strictness of judgment against the encroachments of England. In 1646, the tone is apologetic, and quite liberal. Jeremy Taylor even, in an argument for liberty, had said, "Anabaptism is as much to be rooted out as any thing that is the greatest pest and nuisance to the public interest." The Puritans say that certain wild and turbulent spirits, "whose conscience and religion seemed only to set forth themselves, and raise contentions in the country, did provoke us to provide for our safety by a law that all such should take notice how unwelcome they should be unto us, either coming or staying. But for such as differ from us only in judgment, and live peaceably amongst us, such have no cause to complain; for it hath never been as yet put in execution against any of them, although such are known to live amongst us."

But, on the other hand, it was said, "If the king, or any party from him, should attempt any thing against this commonwealth," it was the common duty "to spend estate and life and all, without scruple, in its defence." "If the Parliament itself should hereafter be of a malignant spirit, then, if the colony have strength sufficient, it may withstand any authority from them to its hurt." This was the precise spirit of the Revolution; and the attempt to conciliate nonconformist colonies aimed directly at the increase of strength in the incipient union, to provide for contingencies thus distinctly

seen more than a hundred years before the war of blood actually began.

Now "great questions about the authority of magistrates and the liberty of the people" come up. The "assistants" had become a little too exacting in the intervals of legislative sessions. "You will not be obeyed," said the people by the lips of Hawthorne. Parties began to reveal distinctness of organization. The popular party were jealous of the ministers; for they now favored the magistrates, which seemed to them the party of order. Eliot, however, the Apostle to the Indians, did not hesitate to show his dissent from his brethren, and very boldly came forward in defence of the people. He would have rotation in office, even against the mild and philanthropic Winthrop. The contests which followed revealed "a presbyterial spirit," of which thorough Puritanism was very much afraid. The voice of Winthrop was, as usual, soothing and instructive. "Civil liberty," he said, "is the proper end and object of authority; and we cannot subsist without it. It is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard not only of your goods, but, if need be, of your lives. Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority, but a distemper thereof.” He "retained the affectionate confidence of the colony."

66

Liberty of conscience now came again boldly to the front. It was impossible that it should be forever in abeyance, shut up, as it had been in Massachusetts, to the simple right to be Congregational Puritans. Why have not we a right, in this great, free country, to be Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Anabaptists, if we choose?" some courageous people would say. And the courts began to show liberal tendencies. Winthrop said the rule of hospitality required more moderation and indulgence; but the Calvinists sternly insisted that this tendency, if unrestrained, was sure "to eat out the power of godliness."

In Plymouth, the proposition was boldly made "for a full