THE EMANCIPATION OF MASSACHUSETTSTHE DREAM AND THE REALITY

BYBROOKS ADAMS

PREFATORY NOTE TO FIRST EDITION. 

I am under the deepest obligations to the Hon. Mellen Chamberlain and Mr. Charles Deane. 

The generosity of my friend Mr. Frank Hamilton Cushing in putting at mydisposal the unpublished results of his researches among the Zuñis is inkeeping with the originality and power of his mind. Without his aid myattempt would have been impossible. I have also to thank Prof. Henry C. Chapman, J. A. Gordon, M. D. , Prof. William James, and Alpheus Hyatt, Esq. , for the kindness with which they assisted me. I feel that any meritthis volume may possess is due to these gentlemen; its faults are all myown. 

BROOKS ADAMS. QUINCY, _September_ 17, 1886. 

CONTENTS. 

PREFACE

CHAPTER I. THE COMMONWEALTH

CHAPTER II. THE ANTINOMIANS

CHAPTER III. THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM

CHAPTER IV. THE ANABAPTISTS

CHAPTER V. THE QUAKERS

CHAPTER VI. THE SCIRE FACIAS

CHAPTER VII. THE WITCHCRAFT

CHAPTER VIII. BRATTLE CHURCH

CHAPTER IX. HARVARD COLLEGE

CHAPTER X. THE LAWYERS

CHAPTER XL. THE REVOLUTION

PREFACE TO NEW EDITION. 

CHAPTER I

I wrote this little volume more than thirty years ago, since when I havehardly opened it. Therefore I now read it almost as if it were written byanother man, and I find to my relief that, on the whole, I think ratherbetter of it than I did when I published it. Indeed, as a criticism ofwhat were then the accepted views of Massachusetts history, as expoundedby her most authoritative historians, I see nothing in it to retract oreven to modify. I do, however, somewhat regret the rather acrimonious tonewhich I occasionally adopted when speaking of the more conservativesection of the clergy. Not that I think that the Mathers, for example, andtheir like, did not deserve all, or, indeed, more than all I ever said orthought of them, but because I conceive that equally effective stricturesmight have been conveyed in urbaner language; and, as I age, I shrink fromanything akin to invective, even in what amounts to controversy. 

Therefore I have now nothing to alter in the _Emancipation ofMassachusetts_, viewed as history, though I might soften its asperitiessomewhat, here and there; but when I come to consider it as philosophy, Iam startled to observe the gap which separates the present epoch from myearly middle life. 

The last generation was strongly Darwinian in the sense that it accepted, almost as a tenet of religious faith, the theory that human civilizationis a progressive evolution, moving on the whole steadily towardperfection, from a lower to a higher intellectual plane, and, as anecessary part of its progress, developing a higher degree of mentalvigor. I need hardly observe that all belief in democracy as a finalsolution of social ills, all confidence in education as a means toattaining to universal justice, and all hope of approximating to the ruleof moral right in the administration of law, was held to hinge on thisgreat fundamental dogma, which, it followed, it was almost impious todeny, or even to doubt. Thus, on the first page of my book, I observe, asif it were axiomatic, that, at a given moment, toward the opening of thesixteenth century, "Europe burst from her mediæval torpor into thesplendor of the Renaissance, " and further on I assume, as an equally self-evident axiom, that freedom of thought was the one great permanent advancewhich western civilization made by all the agony and bloodshed of theReformation. Apart altogether from the fact that I should doubt whether, in the year 1919, any intelligent and educated man would be inclined tomaintain that the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were, as contrastedwith the nineteenth, ages of intellectual torpor, what startles me inthese paragraphs is the self-satisfied assumption of the finality of myconclusions. I posit, as a fact not to be controverted, that our universeis an expression of an universal law, which the nineteenth century haddiscovered and could formulate. 

During the past thirty years I have given this subject my best attention, and now I am so far from assenting to this proposition that my mind tendsin the opposite direction. Each day I live I am less able to withstand thesuspicion that the universe, far from being an expression of laworiginating in a single primary cause, is a chaos which admits of reachingno equilibrium, and with which man is doomed eternally and hopelessly tocontend. For human society, to deserve the name of civilization, must bean embodiment of order, or must at least tend toward a social equilibrium. I take, as an illustration of my meaning, the development of the domesticrelations of our race. 

I assume it to be generally admitted, that possibly man's first andprobably his greatest advance toward order--and, therefore, towardcivilization--was the creation of the family as the social nucleus. AsNapoleon said, when the lawyers were drafting his Civil Code, "Make thefamily responsible to its head, and the head to me, and I will keep orderin France. " And yet although our dependence on the family system has beenrecognized in every age and in every land, there has been no restraint onpersonal liberty which has been more resented, by both men and womenalike, than has been this bond which, when perfect, constrains one man andone woman to live a joint life until death shall them part, for thepropagation, care, and defence of their children. 

The result is that no civilization has, as yet, ever succeeded, and nonepromises in the immediate future to succeed, in enforcing this primaryobligation, and we are thus led to consider the cause, inherent in ourcomplex nature, which makes it impossible for us to establish anequilibrium between mind and matter. A difficulty which never has beeneven partially overcome, which wrecked the Roman Empire and the ChristianChurch, which has wrecked all systems of law, and which has never beenmore lucidly defined than by Saint Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; butwhat I hate, that do I. . . . Now then it is no more I that do it, but sinthat dwelleth in me. . . . For the good that I would, I do not: but the evilwhich I would not, that I do. . . . For I delight in the law of God after theinward man: . . . But I see another law in my members, warring against thelaw of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which isin my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from thebody of this death?" [Footnote: Romans vii, 14-24. ]

And so it has been since a time transcending the limits of imagination. Here in a half-a-dozen sentences Saint Paul exposes the ceaseless conflictbetween mind and matter, whose union, though seemingly the essence oflife, creates a condition which we cannot comprehend and to which we couldnot hope to conform, even if we could comprehend it. In short, whichindicates chaos as being the probable core of an universe from which wemust evolve order, if ever we are to cope with violence, fraud, crime, war, and general brutality. Wheresoever we turn the prospect is the same. If we gaze upon the heavens we discern immeasurable spaces sprinkled withglobules of matter, to which our earth seems to be more or less akin, butall plunging, apparently, both furiously and aimlessly, from out of aninfinite past to an equally immeasurable future. 

Whence this material mass comes, or what its wild flight portends, weneither know nor could we, probably, comprehend even were its secretdivulged to us by a superior intelligence, always conceding that there besuch an intelligence, or any secret to disclose. These latter speculationslie, however, beyond the scope of my present purpose. It suffices ifscience permits me to postulate (a concession by science which I muchdoubt if it could make) that matter, as we know it, has the semblance ofbeing what we call a substance, charged with a something which we defineas energy, but which at all events simulates a vital principle resemblingheat, seeking to escape into space, where it cools. Thus the stars, havingblazed until their vital principle is absorbed in space, sink intorelative torpor, or, as the astronomers say, die. The trees and plantsdiffuse their energy in the infinite, and, at length, when nothing but ashell remains, rot. Lastly, our fleshly bodies, when the union betweenmind and matter is dissolved, crumble into dust. When the involuntarypartnership between mind and matter ceases through death, it is possible, or at least conceivable, that the impalpable soul, admitting that such athing exists, may survive in some medium where it may be free frommaterial shackles, but, while life endures, the flesh has wants which mustbe gratified, and which, therefore, take precedence of the yearnings ofthe soul, just as Saint Paul points out was the case with himself; andherein lies the inexorable conflict between the moral law and the law ofcompetition which favors the strong, and from whence comes all theabominations of selfishness, of violence, of cruelty and crime. 

Approached thus, perhaps no historical fragment is more suggestive thanthe exodus of the Jews from Egypt under Moses, who was the first greatoptimist, nor one which is seldomer read with an eye to the contrast whichit discloses between Moses the law-giver, the idealist, the religiousprophet, and the visionary; and Moses the political adventurer and thekeen and unscrupulous man of the world. And yet it is here at the point atwhich mind and matter clashed, that Moses merits most attention. For Mosesand the Mosaic civilization broke down at this point, which is, indeed, the chasm which has engulfed every progressive civilization since the dawnof time. And the value of the story as an illustration of scientifichistory is its familiarity, for no Christian child lives who has not beenbrought up on it. 

We have all forgotten when we first learned how the Jews came to migrateto Egypt during the years of the famine, when Joseph had become theminister of Pharaoh through his acuteness in reading dreams. Also how, after their settlement in the land of Goshen, --which is the Egyptianprovince lying at the end of the ancient caravan road, which Abrahamtravelled, leading from Palestine to the banks of the Nile, and which hadbeen the trade route, or path of least resistance, between Asia andAfrica, probably for ages before the earliest of human traditions, --theyprospered exceedingly. But at length they fell into a species of bondagewhich lasted several centuries, during which they multiplied so rapidlythat they finally raised in the Egyptian government a fear of theirdomination. Nor, considering subsequent events, was this apprehensionunreasonable. At all events the Egyptian government is represented, as ameasure of self-protection, as proposing to kill male Jewish babies inorder to reduce the Jewish military strength; and it was precisely at thisjuncture that Moses was born, Moses, indeed, escaped the fate whichmenaced him, but only by a narrow chance, and he was nourished by hismother in an atmosphere of hate which tinged his whole life, causing himalways to feel to the Egyptians as the slave feels to his master. Afterbirth the mother hid the child as long as possible, but when she couldconceal the infant no longer she platted a basket of reeds, smeared itwith pitch, and set it adrift in the Nile, where it was likely to befound, leaving her eldest daughter, named Miriam, to watch over it. Presently Pharaoh's daughter came, as was her habit, to the river tobathe, as Moses's mother expected that she would, and there she noticedthe "ark" floating among the bulrushes. She had it brought her, and, noticing Miriam, she caused the girl to engage her mother, whom Miriampointed out to her, as a nurse. Taking pity on the baby the kind-heartedprincess adopted it and brought it up as she would had it been her own, and, as the child grew, she came to love the boy, and had him educatedwith care, and this education must be kept in mind since the future ofMoses as a man turned upon it. For Moses was most peculiarly a creation ofhis age and of his environment; if, indeed, he may not be considered as anincarnation of Jewish thought gradually shaped during many centuries ofpriestly development. 

According to tradition, Moses from childhood was of great personal beauty, so much so that passers by would turn to look at him, and this earlypromise was fulfilled as he grew to be a man. Tall and dignified, withlong, shaggy hair and beard, of a reddish hue tinged with gray, he isdescribed as "wise as beautiful. " Educated by his foster-mother as apriest at Heliopolis, he was taught the whole range of Chaldean andAssyrian literature, as well as the Egyptian, and thus became acquaintedwith all the traditions of oriental magic: which, just at that period, wasin its fullest development. Consequently, Moses must have been familiarwith the ancient doctrines of Zoroaster. 

Men who stood thus, and had such an education, were called Wise Men, Magi, or Magicians, and had great influence, not so much as priests of a God, asenchanters who dealt with the supernatural as a profession. Daniel, forexample, belonged to this class. He was one of three captive Jews whomNebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, gave in charge to the master of hiseunuchs, to whom he should teach the learning and the tongue of theChaldeans. Daniel, very shortly, by his natural ability, brought himselfand his comrades into favor with the chief eunuch, who finally presentedthem to Nebuchadnezzar, who conversed with them and found them "ten timesbetter than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. "

The end of it was, of course, that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dream which heforgot when he awoke and he summoned "the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams, "but they could not unless he told it them. This vexed the king, whodeclared that unless they should tell him his dream with theinterpretation thereof, they should be cut in pieces. So the decree wentforth that all "the wise men" of Babylon should be slain, and they soughtDaniel and his fellows to slay them. Therefore, it appears that togetherwith its privileges and advantages the profession of magic was dangerousin those ages. Daniel, on this occasion, according to the tradition, succeeded in revealing and interpreting the dream; and, in return, Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel a great man, chief governor of the province ofBabylon. 

Precisely a similar tale is told of Joseph, who, having been sold by hisbrethren to Midianitish merchantmen with camels, bearing spices and balm, journeying along the ancient caravan road toward Egypt, was in turn soldby them to Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh's guard. 

And Joseph rose in Potiphar's service, and after many alternations offortune was brought before Pharaoh, as Daniel had been beforeNebuchadnezzar, and because he interpreted Pharaoh's dream acceptably, hewas made "ruler over all the land of Egypt" and so ultimately became theancestor whom Moses most venerated and whose bones he took with him whenhe set out upon the exodus. 

It is true also that Josephus has preserved an idle tale that Moses wasgiven command of an Egyptian army with which he made a successful campaignagainst the Ethiopians, but it is unworthy of credit and may be neglected. His bringing up was indeed the reverse of military. So much so thatprobably far the most important part of his education lay in acquiringthose arts which conduce to the deception of others, such deceptions asjugglers have always practised in snake-charming and the like, or ingaining control of another's senses by processes akin to hypnotism;--processes which have been used by the priestly class and their familiarsfrom the dawn of time. In especial there was one miracle performed by theMagi, on which not only they, but Moses himself, appear to have set greatstore, and on which Moses seemed always inclined to fall back, when hardpressed to assert his authority. They pretended to make fire descend ontotheir altars by means of magical ceremonies. [Footnote: Lenormant, _Chaldean Magic_, 226. ] Nevertheless, amidst all these ancient easterncivilizations, the strongest hold which the priests or sorcerers heldover, and the greatest influence which they exercised upon, others, lay in their relations to disease, for there they were supposed to bepotent. For example, in Chaldea, diseases were held to be the work ofdemons, to be feared in proportion as they were powerful and malignant, and to be restrained by incantations and exorcisms. Among these demons theone, perhaps most dreaded, was called Namtar, the genius of the plague. Moses was, of course, thoroughly familiar with all these branches oflearning, for the relations of Egypt were then and for many centuries hadbeen, intimate with Mesopotamia. Whatever aspect the philosophy may have, which Moses taught after middle life touching the theory of the religionin which he believed, Moses had from early childhood been nurtured inthese Mesopotamian beliefs and traditions, and to them--or, at least, toward them--he always tended to revert in moments of stress. Withoutbearing this fundamental premise in mind, Moses in active life can hardlybe understood, for it was on this foundation that his theories of causeand effect were based. 

As M. Lenormant has justly and truly observed, go back as far as we willin Egyptian religion, we find there, as a foundation, or first cause, theidea of a divine unity, --a single God, who had no beginning and was tohave no end of days, --the primary cause of all. [Footnote: _ChaldeanMagic_, 79. ] It is true that this idea of unity was early obscured byconfounding the energy with its manifestations. Consequently a polytheismwas engendered which embraced all nature. Gods and demons struggled forcontrol and in turn were struggled with. In Egypt, in Media, in Chaldea, in Persia, there were wise men, sorcerers, and magicians who sought to putthis science into practice, and among this fellowship Moses must alwaysrank foremost. Before, however, entering upon the consideration of Moses, as a necromancer, as a scientist, as a statesman, as a priest, or as acommander, we should first glance at the authorities which tell hishistory. 

Scholars are now pretty well agreed that Moses and Aaron were men whoactually lived and worked probably about the time attributed to them bytradition. That is to say, under the reign of Ramses II, of the NineteenthEgyptian dynasty who reigned, as it is computed, from 1348 to 1281 B. C. , and under whom the exodus occurred. Nevertheless, no very direct orconclusive evidence having as yet been discovered touching these eventsamong Egyptian documents, we are obliged, in the main, to draw ourinformation from the Hebrew record, which, for the most part, is containedin the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible. 

Possibly no historical documents have ever been subjected to a severer ormore minute criticism than have these books during the last two centuries. It is safe to say that no important passage and perhaps no paragraph hasescaped the most searching and patient analysis by the acutest and mosthighly trained of minds; but as yet, so far as the science of history isconcerned, the results have been disappointing. The order in which eventsoccurred may have been successfully questioned and the sequence of thestory rearranged hypothetically; but, in general, it has to be admittedthat the weight of all the evidence obtained from the monuments ofcontemporary peoples has been to confirm the reliability of the Biblicalnarrative. For example, no one longer doubts that Joseph was actually aHebrew, who rose, through merit, to the highest offices of state under anEgyptian monarch, and who conceived and successfully carried intoexecution a comprehensive agrarian policy which had the effect oftransferring the landed estates of the great feudal aristocracy to thecrown, and of completely changing Egyptian tenures. Nor does any onequestion, at this day, the reality of the power which the Biblical writersascribed to the Empire of the Hittites. Under such conditions the courseof the commentator is clear. He should treat the Jewish record asreliable, except where it frankly accepts the miracle as a demonstratedfact, and even then regard the miracle as an important and most suggestivepart of the great Jewish epic, which always has had, and always must have, a capital influence on human thought. 

The Pentateuch has, indeed, been demonstrated to be a compilation ofseveral chronicles arranged by different writers at different times, andblended into a unity under different degrees of pressure, but now, as thebook stands, it is as authentic a record as could be wished of theworkings of the Mosaic mind and of the minds of those of his followers whosupported him in his pilgrimage, and who made so much of his taskpossible, as he in fact accomplished. 

Moses, himself, but for the irascibility of his temper, might have livedand died, contented and unknown, within the shadow of the Egyptian court. The princess who befriended him as a baby would probably have been true tohim to the end, in which case he would have lived wealthy, contented, andhappy and would have died overfed and unknown. Destiny, however, hadplanned it otherwise. 

The Hebrews were harshly treated after the death of Joseph, and fell intoa quasi-bondage in which they were forced to labor, and this species oftyranny irritated Moses, who seems to have been brought up under hismother's influence. At all events, one day Moses chanced to see anEgyptian beating a Jew, which must have been a common enough sight, but asight which revolted him. Whereupon Moses, thinking himself alone, slewthe Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. Moses, however, was not alone. A day or so later he again happened to see two men fighting, whereupon heagain interfered, enjoining the one who was in the wrong to desist. Whereupon the man whom he checked turned fiercely on him and said, "Whomade thee a prince and a judge over us? Intendest thou to kill me, as thoukilledst the Egyptian?"

When Moses perceived by this act of treachery on the part of a countryman, whom he had befriended, that nothing remained to him but flight, hestarted in the direction of southern Arabia, toward what was called theLand of Midian, and which, at the moment, seems to have lain beyond thelimits of the Egyptian administrative system, although it had once beenone of its most prized metallurgical regions. Just at that time it wasoccupied by a race called the Kenites, who were more or less closelyrelated to the Amalekites, who were Bedouins and who relied for theirliving upon their flocks, as the Israelites had done in the time ofAbraham. Although Arabia Patrea was then, in the main, a stony waste, asit is now, it was not quite a desert. It was crossed by trade routes inmany directions along which merchants travelled to Egypt, as is describedin the story of Joseph, whose brethren seized him in Dothan, and as theysat by the side of the pit in which they had thrown him, they saw acompany of Ishmaelites who came from Gilead and who journeyed straightdown from Damascus to Gilead and from thence to Hebron, along the oldcaravan road, toward Egypt, with camels bearing spices and myrrh, as hadbeen their custom since long beyond human tradition, and which had beenthe road along which Abraham had travelled before them, and which wasstill watered by his wells. This was the famous track from Beersheba toHebron, where Hagar was abandoned with her baby Ishmael, and if theexperiences of Hagar do not prove that the wilderness of Shur wasaltogether impracticable for women and children it does at least show thatfor a mixed multitude without trustworthy guides or reliable sources ofsupply, the country was not one to be lightly attempted. 

It was into a region similar to this, only somewhat further to the south, that Moses penetrated after his homicide, travelling alone and as anunknown adventurer, dressed like an Egyptian, and having nothing of thenomad about him in his looks. As Moses approached Sinai, the country grewwilder and more lonely, and Moses one day sat himself down, by the side ofa well whither shepherds were wont to drive their flocks to water. Forshepherds came there, and also shepherdesses; among others were the sevendaughters of Jethro, the priest of Midian, who came to water theirfather's flocks. But the shepherds drove them away and took the water forthemselves. Whereupon Moses defended the girls and drew water for them andwatered their flocks. This naturally pleased the young women, and theytook Moses home with them to their father's tent, as Bedouins still woulddo. And when they came to their father, he asked how it chanced that theycame home so early that day. "And they said, an Egyptian delivered us outof the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, andwatered the flock. " And Jethro said, "Where is he? Why is it that ye haveleft the man? Call him that he may eat bread. "

"And Moses was content to dwell with" Jethro, who made him his chiefshepherd and gave him Zipporah, his daughter. And she bore him a son. Seemingly, time passed rapidly and happily in this peaceful, pastorallife, which, according to the tradition preserved by Saint Stephen, lastedforty years, but be the time long or short, it is clear that Moses lovedand respected Jethro and was in return valued by him. Nor could anythinghave been more natural, for Moses was a man who made a deep impression atfirst sight--an impression which time strengthened. Intellectually he musthave been at least as notable as in personal appearance, for his educationat Heliopolis set him apart from men whom Jethro would have been apt tomeet in his nomad life. But if Moses had strong attractions for Jethro, Jethro drew Moses toward himself at least as strongly in the position inwhich Moses then stood. Jethro, though a child of the desert, was thechief of a tribe or at least of a family, a man used to command, and toadminister the nomad law; for Jethro was the head of the Kenites, who wereakin to the Amalekites, with whom the Israelites were destined to wagemortal war. And for Moses this was a most important connection, for Mosesafter his exile never permitted his relations with his own people in Egyptto lapse. The possibility of a Jewish revolt, of which his own banishmentwas a precursor, was constantly in his mind. To Moses a Jewish exodus fromEgypt was always imminent. For centuries it had been a dream of the Jews. Indeed it was an article of faith with them. Joseph, as he sank in death, had called his descendants about him and made them solemnly swear to"carry his bones hence. " And to that end Joseph had caused his body to beembalmed and put in a coffin that all might be ready when the day came. Moses knew the tradition and felt himself bound by the oath and waited inMidian with confidence until the moment of performance should come. Presently it did come. Very probably before he either expected or couldhave wished it, and actually, as almost his first act of leadership, Mosesdid carry the bones of Joseph with him when he crossed the Red Sea. Mosesheld the tradition to be a certainty. He never conceived it to be a matterof possible doubt, nor probably was it so. There was in no one's mind aquestion touching Joseph's promise nor about his expectation of itsfulfilment. What Moses did is related in Exodus XIII, 19: "And Moses tookthe bones of Joseph with him; for he had straitly sworn the children ofIsrael, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bonesaway hence with you. "

In fine, Moses, in the solitude of the Arabian wilderness, in hiswanderings as the shepherd of Jethro, came to believe that his destiny waslinked with that of his countrymen in a revolution which was certain tooccur before they could accomplish the promise of Joseph and escape fromEgypt under the guidance of the god who had befriended and protected him. Moreover, Moses was by no means exclusively a religious enthusiast. He wasalso a scientific man, after the ideas of that age. Moses had a highdegree of education and he was familiar with the Egyptian and Chaldeantheory of a great and omnipotent prime motor, who had had no beginning andshould have no end. He was also aware that this theory was obscured by theintrusion into men's minds of a multitude of lesser causes, in the shapeof gods and demons, who mixed themselves in earthly affairs and on whosesympathy or malevolence the weal or woe of human life hinged. Ponderingdeeply on these things as he roamed, he persuaded himself that he hadsolved the riddle of the universe, by identifying the great first cause ofall with the deity who had been known to his ancestors, whose normal homewas in the promised land of Canaan, and who, beside being all-powerful, was also a moral being whose service must tend toward the welfare ofmankind. For Moses was by temperament a moralist in whom such abominationsas those practised in the worship of Moloch created horror. He knew thatthe god of Abraham would tolerate no such wickedness as this, because ofthe fate of Sodom on much less provocation, and he believed that were heto lead the Israelites, as he might lead them, he could propitiate such adeity, could he but by an initial success induce his congregation to obeythe commands of a god strong enough to reward them for leading a lifewhich should be acceptable to him. All depended, therefore, should theopportunity of leadership come to him, on his being able, in the firstplace, to satisfy himself that the god who presented himself to him wasverily the god of Abraham, who burned Sodom, and not some demon, whoseobject was to vex mankind: and, in the second place, assuming that hehimself were convinced of the identity of the god, that he could convincehis countrymen of the fact, and also of the absolute necessity ofobedience to the moral law which he should declare, since without absoluteobedience, they would certainly merit, and probably suffer, such a fate asbefell the inhabitants of Sodom, under the very eyes of Abraham, and inspite of his prayers for mercy. 

There was one other apprehension which may have troubled, and probably didtrouble, Moses. The god of the primitive man, and certainly of theBedouin, is usually a local deity whose power and whose activity islimited to some particular region, as, for instance, a mountain or aplain. Thus the god of Abraham might have inhabited and absolutely ruledthe plain of Mamre and been impotent elsewhere. But this, had Moses for amoment harbored such a notion, would have been dispelled when he thoughtof Joseph. Joseph, when his brethren threw him into the pit, must havebeen under the guardianship of the god of his fathers, and when he wasdrawn out, and sold in the ordinary course of the slave-trade, he wasbought by Potiphar, the captain of the guard. "And the Lord was withJoseph and he was a prosperous man. " Thenceforward, Joseph had a wonderfulcareer. He received in a dream a revelation of what the weather was to befor seven years to come. And by this dream he was able to formulate apolicy for establishing public graineries like those which were maintainedin Babylon, and by means of these graineries, ably administered, the crownwas enabled to acquire the estates of the great feudatories, and thus thewhole social system of Egypt was changed. And Joseph, from being a poorwaif, cast away by his brethren in the wilderness, became the foremost manin Egypt and the means of settling his compatriots in the province ofGotham, where they still lived when Moses fled from Egypt. Such facts hadmade a profound impression upon the mind of Moses, who very reasonablylooked upon Joseph as one of the most wonderful men who had ever lived, and one who could not have succeeded as he succeeded, without the divineinterposition. But if the god who did these things could work suchmiracles in Egypt, his power was not confined by local boundaries, and hispower could be trusted in the desert as safely as it could be on the plainof Mamre or elsewhere. The burning of Sodom was a miracle equally in pointto prove the stern morality of the god. And that also, was a fact, asincontestable, to the mind of Moses, as was the rising of the sun upon themorning of each day. He knew, as we know of the battle of Great Meadows, that one day his ancestor Abraham, when sitting in the door of his tenttoward noon, "in the plain of Mamre, " at a spot not far from Hebron andperfectly familiar to every traveller along the old caravan road hither, on looking up observed three men standing before him, one of whom herecognized as the "Lord. " Then it dawned on Abraham that the "Lord" hadnot come without a purpose, but had dropped in for dinner, and Abraham ranto meet them, "and bowed himself toward the ground. " And he said, "Let alittle water be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under thetree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts;after that you shall pass on. " "And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetchta calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted todress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they dideat. " Meanwhile, Abraham asked no questions, but waited until the objectof the visit should be disclosed. In due time he succeeded in his purpose. "And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, inthe tent. And he [the Lord] said, . . . Sarah thy wife shall have a son. . . . Now Abraham and Sarah were old, and well stricken in age. " At this timeAbraham was about one hundred years old, according to the tradition, andSarah was proportionately amused, and "laughed within herself. " This mirthvexed "the Lord, " who did not treat his words as a joke, but asked, "Isanything too hard for the Lord?" Then Sarah took refuge in a lie, anddenied that she had laughed. But the lie helped her not at all, for theLord insisted, "Nay, but thou didst laugh. " And this incident broke up theparty. The men rose and "looked toward Sodom": and Abraham strolled withthem, to show them the way. And then the "Lord" debated with himselfwhether to make a confidant of Abraham touching his resolution to destroySodom utterly. And finally he decided that he would, "because the cry ofSodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very grievous. "Whereupon Abraham intervened, and an argument ensued, and at length Godadmitted that he had been too hasty and promised to think the matter over. And finally, when "the Lord" had reduced the number of righteous for whomthe city should be saved to ten, Abraham allowed him to go "his way . . . And Abraham returned to his place. "

In the evening of the same day two angels came to Sodom, who met Lot atthe gate, and Lot took them to his house and made them a feast and theydid eat. Then it happened that the mob surrounded Lot's house and demandedthat the strangers should be delivered up to them. But Lot successfullydefended them. And in the morning the angels warned Lot to escape, but Lothesitated, though finally he did escape to Zoar. 

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire fromthe Lord out of heaven. "

"And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stoodbefore the Lord:

"And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of theplain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smokeof a furnace. "

We must always remember, in trying to reconstruct the past, that thesetraditions were not matters of possible doubt to Moses, or indeed to anyIsraelite. They were as well established facts to them as would be therecord of volcanic eruptions now. Therefore it would not have astonishedMoses more that the Lord should meet him on the slope of Horeb, than thatthe Lord should have met his ancestor Abraham on the plain of Mamre. Moses' doubts and perplexities lay in another direction. Moses did notquestion, as did his great ancestress, that his god could do all hepromised, if he had the will. His anxiety lay in his doubt as to God'ssteadiness of purpose supposing he promised; and this doubt was increasedby his lack of confidence in his own countrymen. The god of Abraham was arequiring deity with a high moral standard, and the Hebrews were at leastin part somewhat akin to a horde of semi-barbarous nomads, much morelikely to fall into offences resembling those of Sodom than to renderobedience to a code which would strictly conform to the requirements whichalone would ensure Moses support, supposing he accepted a task which, after all, without divine aid, might prove to be impossible to perform. 

When the proposition which Moses seems, more or less confidently, to haveexpected to be made to him by the Lord, came, it came very suddenly andvery emphatically. "Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 

"And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of themidst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. "

And Moses, not, apparently, very much excited, said, "I will now turnaside, and see this great sight. " But God called unto him out of the midstof the bush, and said, "Moses, Moses. " And he said, "Here am I. " Then thevoice commanded him to put off his shoes from off his feet, for the placehe stood on was holy ground. 

"Moreover, " said the voice, "I am the God of thy father, the God ofAbraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. " And Moses hid his face;for he was afraid to look upon God. 

And the Lord said, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people . . . Andhave heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know theirsorrows. 

"And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, andto bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto aland flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, andthe Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites. . . . 

"Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayestbring forth my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt. 

And Moses said unto God, "Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, andthat I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?. . . " AndMoses said unto God, "Behold, when I am come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you;and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?"

And God said unto Moses, "_I am That I Am_;" and he said, "Thus shaltthou say unto the children of Israel, _I Am_ hath sent me unto you. "

"And God said, moreover, unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the childrenof Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God ofIsaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my nameforever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. "

Then the denizen of the bush renewed his instructions and his promises, assuring Moses that he would bring him and his following out of the landof affliction of Egypt and into the land of the Canaanites, and theHittites, and the Amorites, and others, unto a land flowing with milk andhoney. In a word to Palestine. And he insisted to Moses that he shouldgain an entrance to Pharaoh, and that he should tell him that "the LordGod of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lordour God. "

Also God did not pretend to Moses that the King of Egypt would forthwithlet them go; whereupon he would work his wonders in Egypt and after thatPharaoh would let them go. 

Moreover, he promised, as an inducement to their avarice, that they shouldnot go empty away, for that the Lord God would give the Hebrews favor inthe sight of the Egyptians, "so that every woman should borrow of herneighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment, " and that they should spoil the Egyptians. But all this time God did not disclose his name; so Moses tried anotherway about. If he would not tell his name he might at least enable Moses towork some wonder which should bring conviction to those who saw it, evenif the god remained nameless. For Moses appreciated the difficulty of themission suggested to him. How was he, a stranger in Egypt, to gain theconfidence of that mixed and helpless multitude, whom he was trying topersuade to trust to his guidance in so apparently desperate an enterpriseas crossing a broad and waterless waste, in the face of a well-armed andvigorous foe. Moses apprehended that there was but one way in which hecould by possibility succeed. He might prevail by convincing theIsraelites that he was commissioned by the one deity whom they knew, whowas likely to have both the will and the power to aid them, and that wasthe god who had visited Abraham on the plain of Mamre, who had destroyedSodom for its iniquity, and who had helped Joseph to become the ruler ofEgypt. Joseph above all was the man who had made to his descendants thatsolemn promise on whose faith Moses was, at that very moment, basing hishopes of deliverance; for Joseph had assured the Israelites in the mostsolemn manner that the god who had aided him would surely visit them, andthat they should carry his bones away with them to the land he promised. That land was the land to which Moses wished to guide them. Now Moses wasfully determined to attempt no such project as this unless the being whospoke from the bush would first prove to him, Moses, that he was the godhe purported to be, and should beside give Moses credentials which shouldbe convincing, by which Moses could prove to the Jews in Egypt that he wasno impostor himself, nor had he been deceived by a demon. Therefore Moseswent on objecting as strongly as at first:

"And Moses answered and said, But behold they will not believe me, norhearken to my voice; for they will say, the Lord hath not appeared untothee. "

Then the being in the bush proceeded to submit his method of proof, whichwas of a truth feeble, and which Moses rejected as feeble. A form of proofwhich never fully convinced him, and which, in his judgment could not beexpected to convince others, especially men so educated and intelligent asthe Egyptians. For the Lord had nothing better to suggest than the ancienttrick of the snake-charmer, and even the possessor of the voice seemsimplicitly to have admitted that this could hardly be advanced as aconvincing miracle. So the Lord proposed two other tests: the first wasthat Moses should have his hand smitten with leprous sores and restoredimmediately by hiding it from sight in "his bosom. " And in the event thatthis test left his audience still sceptical, he was to dip Nile water outof the river, and turn it into blood on land. 

Moses at all these three proposals remained cold as before. And with goodreason, for Moses had been educated as a priest in Egypt, and he knew thatEgyptian "wise men" could do as well, and even better, if it came to amagical competition before Pharaoh. And Moses had evidently no relish fora contest in the presence of his countrymen as to the relative quality ofhis magic. Therefore, he objected once more on another ground: "I am noteloquent, neither heretofore nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant:but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. " This continued hesitancyput the Lord out of patience; who retorted sharply, "Who hath made man'smouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Havenot I the Lord?

"Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thoushalt say. "

Then Moses made his last effort. "0 my Lord, send, I pray thee, by thehand of him whom thou wilt send. " Which was another way of saying, Sendwhom you please, but leave me to tend Jethro's flock in Midian. 

"And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses; and he said, Is notAaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will beglad in his heart. 

"And he shall be, . . . To thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to himinstead of God. "

Then Moses, not seeming to care very much what Aaron might think about thematter, went to Jethro, and related what had happened to him on themountain, and asked for leave to go home to Egypt, and see how mattersstood there. And Jethro listened, and seems to have thought the experimentworth trying, for he answered, "Go in peace. "

"And the Lord said unto Moses, "--but where is not stated, probably inMidian, --"Go, return into Egypt, " which you may do safely, for all the menare dead which sought thy life. 

"And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and hereturned to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the rod of God in his hand. "

It was after this, apparently, that Aaron travelled to meet Moses inMidian, and Moses told Aaron what had occurred, and performed his tests, and, seemingly, convinced him; for then Moses and Aaron went together intoEgypt and called the elders of the children of Israel together, "and didthe signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed: and . . . Bowed their heads and worshipped. " Meanwhile God had not, as yet, revealedhis name. But as presently matters came to a crisis between Moses andPharaoh, he did so. He said to Moses, "I am the Lord:

"I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of GodAlmighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. . . . 

"Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord. . . . And I willbring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it toAbraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: Iam the Lord. 

"And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened notunto Moses, for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage. . . . 

"And Moses spake before the Lord, saying, Behold the children of Israelhave not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me?" And from thisform of complaint against his countrymen until his death Moses neverceased. 

Certain modern critics have persuaded themselves to reject this wholeBiblical narrative as the product of a later age and of a maturercivilization, contending that it would be childish to attribute thereasoning of the Pentateuch to primitive Bedouins like the patriarchs orlike the Jews who followed Moses into the desert. Setting aside at oncethe philological discussion as to whether the language of the Pentateuchcould have been used by Moses, and admitting for the sake of argument thatMoses did not either himself write, or dictate to another, any part of thedocuments in question, it would seem that the application of a littlecommon sense would show pretty conclusively that Moses throughout hiswhole administrative life acted upon a single scientific theory of theapplication of a supreme energy to the affairs of life, and upon thebelief that he had discovered what that energy was and understood how tocontrol it. 

His syllogism amounted to this:

Facts, which are admitted by all Hebrews, prove that the single dominantpower in the world is the being who revealed himself to our ancestors, andwho, in particular, guided Joseph into Egypt, protected him there, andraised him to an eminence never before or since reached by a Jew. It canalso be proved, by incontrovertible facts, that this being is a moralbeing, who can be placated by obedience and by attaining to a certainmoral standard in life, and by no other means. That this standard has beendisclosed to me, I can prove to you by sundry miraculous signs. Therefore, be obedient and obey the law which I shall promulgate "that ye may prosperin all that ye do. "

Indeed, the philosophy of Moses was of the sternly practical kind, resembling that of Benjamin Franklin. He did not promise his people, asdid the Egyptians, felicity in a future life. He confined himself toprosperity in this world. And to succeed in his end he set an attainablestandard. A standard no higher, certainly than that accepted by theEgyptians, as it is set forth in the 125th chapter of the Book of theDead, a standard to which the soul of any dead man had to attain before hecould be admitted into Paradise. Nor did Moses, as Dr. Budde among othersassumes, have to deal with a tribe of fierce and barbarous Bedouins, likethe Amalekites, to whom indeed the Hebrews were antagonistic and with whomthey waged incessant war. 

The Jews, for the most part, differed widely from such barbarians. Theyhad become sedentary at the time of the exodus, whatever they may havebeen when Abraham migrated from Babylon. They were accustomed in Egypt toliving in houses, they cultivated and cooked the cereals, and they fed onvegetables and bread. They did not live on flesh and milk as do theBedouins; and, indeed, the chief difficulty Moses encountered in theexodus was the ignorance of his followers of the habits of desert life, and their dislike of desert fare. They were forever pining for thedelights of civilization. "Would to God we had died by the hand of theLord in the land of Egypt, when we eat by the flesh-pots, and when we dideat bread to the full! for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger. " [Footnote: Ex. XVI, 3. ]

"We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick. " Thesewere the wants of sedentary and of civilized folk, not of barbarous nomadswho are content with goat's flesh and milk. And so it was with theirmorality and their conceptions of law. Moses was, indeed, a highlycivilized and highly educated man. No one would probably pretend thatMoses represented the average Jew of the exodus, but Moses understood hisaudience reasonably well, and would not have risked the success of hiswhole experiment by preaching to them a doctrine which was altogetherbeyond their understanding. If he told them that the favor of God couldonly be gained by obeying the laws he taught, it was because he thoughtsuch an appeal would be effective with a majority of them. 

Dr. Budde, who is a good example of the modern hypercritical school, takesvery nearly the opposite ground. His theory is that Moses was in search ofa war god, and that he discovered such a god, in the god of the Bedouintribe of the Kenites whose acquaintance he first made when dwelling withhis father-in-law Jethro at Sinai. The morality of such a god he insistscoincided with the morality which Moses may have at times countenanced, but which was quite foreign to the spirit of the decalogue. 

Doubtless this is, in a degree, true. The religion of the pure Bedouin wasvery often crude and shocking, not to say disgusting. But to argue thus isto ignore the fact that all Bedouins did not, in the age of Moses, standon the same intellectual or moral level, and it is also to ignore the gapthat separated Moses and his congregation intellectually and morally fromsuch Bedouins as the Amalekites. 

Dr. Budde, in his _Religion of Israel to the Exile_, insists that theKenite god, Jehovah, demanded "The sacred ban by which conquered citieswith all their living beings were devoted to destruction, the slaughter ofhuman beings at sacred spots, animal sacrifices at which the entireanimal, wholly or half raw, was devoured, without leaving a remnant, between sunset and sunrise, --these phenomena and many others of the samekind harmonise but ill with an aspiring ethical religion. "

He also goes on to say: "We are further referred to the legislation ofMoses, . . . Comprising civil and criminal, ceremonial and ecclesiastical, moral and social law in varying compass. This legislation, however, cannothave come from Moses. . . . Such legislation can only have arisen afterIsrael had lived a long time in the new home. "

To take these arguments in order, --for they must be so dealt with todevelop any reasonable theory of the Mosaic philosophy, --Moses, doubtless, was a ruthless conqueror, as his dealings with Sihon and Og sufficientlyprove. "So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king ofBashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to himremaining. . . . 

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon, king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city. " [Footnote:Deut. III, 3-6. ]

There is nothing extraordinary, or essentially barbarous, in this attitudeof Moses. The same theory of duty or convenience has been held in everyage and in every land, by men of the ecclesiastical temperament, at thevery moment at which the extremest doctrines of charity, mercy, and lovewere practised by their contemporaries, or even preached by themselves. For example:

At the beginning of the thirteenth century the two great convents of Clunyand Citeau, together, formed the heart of monasticism, and Cluny andCiteau were two of the richest and most powerful corporations in theworld, while the south of France had become, by reason of the easterntrade, the wealthiest and most intelligent district in Europe. It sufficesto say here that, just about this time, the people of Languedoc had madeup their minds, because of the failure of the Crusades, the cost of suchmagnificent establishments was not justified by their results, andaccordingly Count Raymond of Toulouse, in sympathy with his subjects, didseriously contemplate secularization. To the abbots of these greatconvents, it was clear that if this movement spread across the Rhone intoBurgundy, the Church would face losses which they could not contemplatewith equanimity. At this period one Arnold was Abbot of Citeau, universally recognized as perhaps the ablest and certainly one of the mostunscrupulous men in Europe. Hence the crusade against the Albigenses whichSimon de Montfort commanded and Arnold conducted. Arnold's first exploitwas the sack of the undefended town of Béziers, where he slaughteredtwenty thousand men, women, and children, without distinction of religiousbelief. When asked whether the orthodox might not at least be spared, hereplied, "Kill them all; God knows his own. "

This sack of Béziers occurred in 1209. Exactly contemporaneously SaintFrancis of Assisi was organizing his order whose purpose was to realizeChrist's kingdom upon earth, by the renunciation of worldly wealth and bythe practice of poverty, humility, and obedience. Soon after, Arnold wascreated Archbishop of Narbonne and became probably the greatest andrichest prelate in France, or in the world. This was in 1225. In 1226 thefirst friars settled in England. They multiplied rapidly because of theirrigorous discipline. Soon there were to be found among them some of themost eminent men in England. Their chief house stood in London in a spotcalled Stinking Lane, near the Shambles in Newgate, and there, amidstpoverty, hunger, cold, and filth, these men passed their lives in nursinghorrible lepers, so loathsome that they were rejected by all butthemselves, while Arnold lived in magnificence in his palace, upon thespoil of those whom he had immolated to his greed. 

In the case of Moses the contrast between precept and practice in the racefor wealth and fortune was not nearly so violent. Moses, it is true, according to Leviticus, declared it to be the will of the Lord that theIsraelites should love their neighbors as themselves, [Footnote: Lev. XIX, 18. ] while on the other hand in Deuteronomy he insisted that obedience wasthe chief end of life, and that if the Israelites were to thoroughly obeythe Lord's behests, they were to "consume all the people which the Lordthy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them:neither" should thou serve their gods, "for the Lord thy God is a jealousGod. " [Footnote: Deut. VII, 16. ] And the penalty for slackness was "lestthe anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy theefrom off the face of the earth. " [Footnote: Deut. VI, 15. ] There is, nevertheless, this much to be said in favor of the morality of Moses ascontrasted with that of thirteenth-century orthodox Christians likeArnold; Moses led a crusade against a foreign and hostile people, whileArnold slaughtered the Albigenses, who were his own flock, sheep to whomhe was the shepherd, communicants in his own church, and worshippers ofthe God whom he served. What concerns us, however, is that the samestimulant animated Moses and Arnold alike. The stimulant, pure and simple, of greed. On these points Moses was as outspokenly, one may say asbrutally, frank as was Arnold. In the desert Moses commanded his followersto exterminate the inhabitants of the kingdom of Bashan in order that theymight appropriate their possessions, which he enumerated, and Moses had noother argument to urge but the profitableness of it by which to secureobedience to his moral law. 

Arnold stood on precisely the same platform. He did not accuse CountRaymond of heresy or any other crime, nor did Pope Innocent III considerRaymond as morally guilty of a criminal offence, or worthy of punishment. Indeed, the pope would have protected the Count had it been possible, andsummoned him before the Fourth Lateran Council for that purpose. ButArnold told his audience that were Raymond allowed to escape there wouldbe an end of the Catholic faith in France. Or, in other words, monasticproperty would be secularized. Perhaps he was right. At all events, thisargument prevailed, and Raymond and his family and people were sacrificed. 

Moses promised his congregation that, if they would spare nothing theyshould enjoy abundance of good things, without working for them. He wasmuch more pitiless than such a man as King David thought it necessary tobe, but Moses was not a soldier like David. He could not promise to winvictories himself, he could but promise what he had in hand, and that wasthe spoil of those they massacred. Moses never had but one appeal to makefor obedience, one incentive to offer to obey. In this he was perfectlyhonest and perfectly logical. His congregation and he, finding Egyptuntenable, were engaged in a common land speculation to improve theircondition; a speculation in which Moses believed, but which could only bebrought to a successful end by obtaining control of the dominant energy ofthe world. This energy, he held, could be handled by no one but himself, and then only in case those who acted with him were absolutely obedient tohis commands, which, taken together, were equivalent to a magical exorcismor spell. Then only could they hope that the Lord of Abraham and Isaacwould give them "great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, Andhouses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedstnot. " [Footnote: Deut. VI, 10, 11. ]

Very obviously, if the theory which Moses propounded were sound the assetswhich he offered as an inducement for docility could be obtained, at socheap a rate, in no other way. All Moses' moral teaching amounted, therefore, to this--"It pays to be obedient and good. " No argument couldhave been better adapted to Babylonish society, and it seems to haveanswered nearly as well with the Israelites, which proves that they stoodon nearly the same intellectual plane. The chief difficulty with whichMoses had to contend was that his countrymen did not thoroughly believe inhim, nor in the efficacy of his motor. They always were tempted to tryexperiments with other motors which were operated by other prophets and byother peoples who were, apparently, as prosperous as they, or even moreso. His trouble was not that his followers were nomads unprepared for asedentary life or a moral law like his, or unable to appreciate the valueof the property of a people further advanced in civilization than theywere. The Amalekites would have responded to no such system of bribery asMoses offered the Israelites, who did respond with intelligence, if notalways with enthusiasm. 

The same is true of the Mosaic legislation which Dr. Budde curtlydismisses as impossible to have come from Moses, [Footnote: _Religion ofIsrael to the Exile_, 31. ] as presupposing a knowledge of a settledagricultural life, which "Israel did not reach until after Moses' death. "

All this is an assumption of fact unsupported by evidence; but quite thecontrary, as we can see by an examination of the law in question. Whatevermay have been the date of the establishment of the cities of refuge, Isuppose that it will not be seriously denied that the law of the covenantas laid down in Exodus XX, 1, Numbers XXXV, 6, is at least as old as theage of Moses, in principle, if not in words; and this legal principle isquite inconsistent with, if not directly antagonistic to, all theprejudices and regulations, moral, religious, or civil, of a pure nomadicsociety, since it presupposes a social condition which, if adopted, wouldbe fatal to a nomad society. 

The true nomad knows no criminal law save the law of the blood feud, whichis the law of revenge, and which prevailed among the Hebrews much earlier. In the early Saxon law it was expressed by the apothegm "_Factumreputabitur pro volunte_. " The act implies the intent. That is to say, the tribe is an enlarged family who, since they have no collective systemof sovereignty which gives them common protection by an organized police, and courts with power to enforce process, have no option but to protecteach other. Therefore, it is incumbent on each member of the tribe orfamily to avenge an injury to any other member, whether the injury beaccidental or otherwise; and to be himself the judge of what amounts to aninjury. Such a condition prevailed among the Hebrews at a very earlyperiod; "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: . . . At thehand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddethman's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. " [Footnote: Gen. IX, 1, 5, 6. ] These customs and the type of thought which sustain them are verytenacious and change slowly. Moses could not have altered the nomadiccustoms of thought and of blood revenge, had he tried, more than couldCanute. It would have been impossible. The advent of a civilizedconception of the law is the work of centuries as the history of Englandproves. 

We know not how long ago it was that the law of the blood feud was fullyrecognized in England, but it had already been shaken at the conquest, andits death-blow was given it by the Church, which had begun to tire of theresponsibility entailed by the trial by ordeal or miracle, and the obloquywhich it involved, at a relatively early date. For the purposes of theChurch and the uses of confession it was more convenient to regard crimeor tort, as did the Romans; as a mental condition, dependent altogetherupon the state of the mind or "animus. " Malice in the eye of the Churchwas the virus which poisoned the otherwise innocent act, and made thethought alone punishable. Indeed, this conception is one which has not yetbeen completely established even in the modern law. The first signs ofsuch a revolution in jurisprudence only began to appear in England someseven centuries ago. As Mr. Maitland has observed in his _History ofEnglish Law_, [Footnote: Vol. II, 476. ] "We receive a shock of surprisewhen we meet with a maxim which has troubled our modern lawyers, namely, _Reum nonfacit nisi mens rea_, in the middle of the _Leges Henrici_. " Thatis to say somewhere about the year 1118 A. D. This maxim was taken bodilyout of a sermon of Saint Augustine, which accounts for it, but at thattime the Church had another process to suggest by which she asserted herauthority. She threw the responsibility for detecting guilt, in cases ofdoubt, upon God. By the ordeal, if a homicide, for example, werecommitted, and the accused denied his guilt, he was summoned to appear, and then, after a solemn reference to God by the ecclesiastics in charge, he was caused either to carry a red-hot iron bar a certain distance or toplunge his arms in boiling water. If he were found, after a certain lengthof time, during which his arms were bandaged, to have been injured, he washeld to have been guilty. If he had escaped unhurt he was innocent. Gradually, however, the ordeal began to fall into ridicule. William Rufusgibed at it, for of fifty men sent to the ordeal of iron, under the sacredcharge of the clerks, all escaped, which certainly, as Mr. Maitlandintimates, looks as if the officiating ecclesiastics had an interest inthe result. [Footnote: _History of English Law_, II, 599, note 2. ] Atlength, by the Lateran Council of 1215, the Church put an end to theinstitution, but long afterward it found its upholders. For example, the_Mirror_, written in the reign of Edward I (circa 1285) complained, "It isan abuse that proofs and compurgations be not by the miracle of God whereother proof faileth. " Nor was the principle that "attempts" to commitindictable offences are crimes, established as law, until at least thetime of the Star Chamber, before its abolition in the seventeenth century. Though doubtless it is the law to-day. [Footnote: Stephen, _Digest of theCriminal Law_, 192. ] And this, although the means used may have beenimpossible. Moreover, the doctrine is still in process of enlargement. 

Very convincing conclusions may be drawn from these facts. The subject isobscure and difficult, but if the inception of the process of breakingdown the right of enforcing the blood feud be fixed provisionally towardthe middle of the tenth century, --and this date is early enough, --themovement of thought cannot be said to have attained anything like ultimateresults before at least the year 1321 when a case is cited wherein a manwas held guilty because he had attempted to kill his master, and the"_volunias in isto casu reputabitur pro facto_. "

Measuring by this standard five hundred years is a short enough period toestimate the time necessary for a community to pass from the stage whenthe blood feud is recognized as unquestioned law, to the status involvedin the administration of the cities of refuge, for in these cities notonly the mental condition is provided for as a legitimate defence, but thedefence of negligence is made admissible in a secular court. 

"These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, andfor the stranger, and for the sojourner among them; that every one thatkilleth any person unawares may flee thither. . . . 

"If he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait that he die;

"Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote himshall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of bloodshall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. 

"But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon himanything without laying of wait, "Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast itupon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:

"Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger ofblood according to these judgments:

"And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of therevenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city ofhis refuge, whither he was fled. ". . . [Footnote: Numbers XXXV, 15, 20-25. ]

Here we have a defendant in a case of homicide setting up the defence thatthe killing happened through an accident, but an accident not caused bycriminal negligence, and this defence is to be tried by the congregation, which is tantamount to trial by jury. It is not left to God, under theoversight of the Church; and this is precisely our own system at thepresent day. We now come to the inferences to be drawn from these facts. Supposing that the Israelites when they migrated to Egypt, in the time ofJoseph, were in the condition of pure nomads among whom the blood feud wasfully recognized as law, an interval of four or five hundred years, suchas they are supposed to have passed in Goshen would bring them to theexodus. Now, assuming that the Israelites during those four centuries, when they lived among civilized neighbors and under civilized law, made anintellectual movement corresponding in velocity to the movement theEnglish made after the conquest, they would have been, about the time whenthe cities of refuge were created, in the position described in Numbers, which is what we should expect assuming the Biblical tradition to be true. 

To us the important question is not whether a certain piece of thesupposed Mosaic legislation actually went into effect during the life ofMoses, for that is relatively immaterial, but whether the Biblicalnarrative is, on the whole, worthy of credence, and this correlation ofdates gives the strongest possible evidence in its favor. Very possibly, perhaps it may even be said certainly, the order in which events occurredmay have been transposed, but, taken as a whole, it is impossible toresist the inference that the Bible story is excellent history and that, due allowance being made for the prejudice of the various scribes whowrote the Pentateuch in favor of the miraculous, where Moses wasconcerned, the Biblical record is good and trustworthy history, and frankat that;--much superior to quantities of modern documents which we acceptwithout question. 

Of all the achievements of Moses' life none equals the exodus itself, either in brilliancy or success. How it was possible for Moses, with theassistance he had at command, to marshal and move a column of a million ora million and a half of men, women, and children, without discipline orcohesion, and encumbered with their baggage, beside their cattle, is aninsoluble mystery. "And the children of Israel did according to the wordof Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewelsof gold, and raiment: . . . And they spoiled the Egyptians. And the childrenof Israel journeyed from Ramses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand onfoot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up alsowith them; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle. " They started fromRamses and Succoth. 

The position of Ramses has been identified; that of Succoth is morequestionable. Ramses and Pithom were fortified places, built by theIsraelites for Ramses II, of the Nineteenth Dynasty, but apparentlySuccoth was the last halting-place before coming to the difficult groundwhich was overflowed by the sea. 

The crossing was made at night, but it is hard to understand how, evenunder the most favorable conditions of weather, such a vast and confusedmultitude of women and children could have made the march in darkness withan active enemy pursuing, without loss of life or material. Indeed, evenat that day the movement seemed to the actors so unparalleled that italways passed for a miracle, and its perfect success gave Moses morereputation with the Israelites and more practical influence over them thananything else he ever did, or indeed than all his other works together. "And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians: andthe people feared the Lord and believed the Lord and his servant Moses. "

"And Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron; and all the women wentafter her with timbrels and with dances. " Now Miriam was in general nonetoo loyal a follower of her younger brother, but that day, or rathernight, she did proclaim Moses as a conqueror; which was a great concessionfrom her, and meant much. And Moses exulted openly, as he had good causeto do, and gave vent to his exultation in a song which tradition has eversince attributed to him, and has asserted to have been sung by him and hiscongregation as they stood by the shore of the sea and watched the corpsesof the Egyptians lying in the sand. And, if ever man had, Moses then had, cause for exultation, for he had seemingly proved by the test of war, which is the ultimate test to which a man can subject such a theory ashis, that he had indeed discovered the motor which he sought, and, moreimportant still, that he knew how to handle it. Therefore, he was masterof supreme energy and held his right to command by the title of conquest. This was the culminating moment of his life; he never again reached suchexaltation. From this moment his slow and gradual decline began. 

And, indeed, great as had been the momentary success of Moses, hisposition was one of extreme difficulty, and probably he so understood it, otherwise there would be no way to account for his choosing the long, difficult, and perilous journey by Sinai, instead of approaching the"Promised Land" directly by way of Kadesh-Barnea, which was, in any event, to be his ultimate objective. It may well have been because Moses felthimself unable alone to cope with the difficulties confronting him that hedecided at any cost to seek Jethro in Midian, who seems to have been theonly able, honest, and experienced man within reach. Joshua, indeed, mightbe held to be an exception to this generalization, but Joshua, though agood soldier, was a man of somewhat narrow understanding, and quite unfitto grapple with questions involving jurisprudence and financialtopography. 

And at this juncture Moses must have felt his own deficiencies keenly. Asa captain he made no pretence to efficiency. The Amalekites were, as hewell knew, at this moment lying in wait for him, and forthwith herecognized that he had no alternative but to retire into the backgroundhimself and surrender the active command of the army to Joshua, a fatalconcession had Joshua been ambitious or unscrupulous. And this was but thebeginning. Before he could occupy Palestine he had to encounter andovercome numbers of equally formidable foes, a defeat by any one of whommight well be fatal. A man like Jethro, therefore, would be invaluable inguiding the caravan to spots favorable for action, from whence retreat toa place of safety would be open in case of a check. A reverse whichhappened on a later occasion gave Moses a shock he never forgot. 

Furthermore, though Moses lived many years with Jethro, as his chiefservant, he never seems to have travelled extensively in Arabia, and tohave been ignorant of the chief trade routes along which wells were dug, and of the oases where pasture was to be found; so that Moses was nearlyworthless as a guide, and this was a species of knowledge in which Jethro, according to Moses' own statement, excelled. Meanwhile, the lives of allhis followers depended on such knowledge. And Moses, when he reachedSinai, left no stone unturned to overcome Jethro's reluctance to join himand to instruct him on the march north. 

More important and pressing than all, Moses was ignorant of how, practically, to administer the law which he taught. His only idea was todo all in person, but this, with so large a following, was impossible. Andhere also his hope lay in Jethro. For when he got to Sinai, and Jethroremonstrated with him upon his methods, pointing out that they wereimpracticable, all Moses had to say in reply was that he sat all day tohear disputes and "I judge between one and another; and I do make themknow the statutes of God, and his laws. " Further than this he had nothingto propose. It was Jethro who explained to him a constructive policy. 

On the whole, upon this analysis, it appears that in all those executivedepartments in which Moses, by stress of the responsibilities which he hadassumed, was called upon, imperatively, to act, there was but one, that ofthe magician or wise man, in which, by temperament and training, he wasfitted to excel, and the functions of this profession drove him into tointolerably irksome and distressing position, yet a position from whichthroughout his life he found it impossible to escape. No one whoattentively weighs the evidence can, I apprehend, escape the convictionthat Moses was at bottom an honest man who would have conformed to themoral law he laid down in the name of the Lord had it been possible forhim to do so. Among these precepts none ranked higher than a regard fortruth and honesty. "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lieone to another. " [Footnote: Leviticus XIX, 11. ] And this text is but oneexample of a general drift of thought. 

Whether these particular words of Leviticus, or any similar phrases, wereever used by Moses is immaterial. No one can doubt that, in substance, they contained the gist of his moral doctrine and that he enforced themoral duty which they convey to the best of his power. And here the burdenlay, which crushed this man, from which he never thenceforward could, evenfor an instant, free himself, and which Saint Paul avers to be theheaviest burden man can bear. Moses, to fulfil what he conceived to be hisdestiny and which at least certainly was his ambition, was condemned tolead a life of deceit and to utter no word during his long subsequentmarch which was not positively or inferentially a lie. And the bitterestof his trials must have been the agony of anxiety in which he must havelived lest some error in judgment on his part, some slackness in measuringthe exact credulity of his audience, should cause his exposure and lead tohis being cast out of the camp as an impostor and hunted to death as afalse prophet: a fate which more than once nearly overtook him. Indeed, ashe aged and his nerves lost their elasticity under the tension, he becameobsessed with the fixed idea that God had renounced him and that somehorror would overtake him should he attempt to cross the Jordan and enterthe "Promised Land. " Defeated at Hormah, he dared not face another suchcheck and, therefore, dawdled away his time in the wilderness untilfurther dawdling became impossible. Then followed his mental collapsewhich is told in Deuteronomy, together with his suicide on Mount Nebo. Andthus he died because he could not gratify at once his lust for power andhis instinct to live an honest man. 

CHAPTER II. 

The interval during which Moses led the exodus falls, naturally, intothree parts of unequal length. The first consists of the months whichelapsed between the departure from Ramses and the arrival at Sinai. Thesecond comprises the halt at Sinai, while the third contains the story ofthe rest of his life, ending with Mount Nebo. 

His trials began forthwith. The march was hardly a week old before thecolumn was in quasi-revolt because he had known so little of the country, that he had led the caravan three days through a waterless wildernesswhere they feared to perish from thirst. And matters grew steadily worse. At Rephidim, "And the people murmured against Moses, and said, Whereforeis this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and ourchildren and our cattle with thirst?" Not impossibly Moses may still, atthis stage of his experiences, have believed in himself, in the God hepretended to serve, and in his mission. At least he made a feint of sodoing. Indeed, he had to. Not to have done so would have caused hisinstant downfall. He always had to do so, in every emergency of his life. A few days later he was at his wits' end. He cried unto the Lord, "Whatshall I do unto this people? They be almost ready to stone me. " In short, long before the congregation reached Sinai, and indeed before Moses hadfought his first battle with Amalek, the people had come to disbelieve inMoses and also to question whether there was such a god as he pretended. 

"And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of thechiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?"

"Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. " [Footnote: Exodusxvii, 7, 8. ]

Under such conditions it was vital to Moses to show resolution andcourage; but it was here that Moses, on the contrary, flinched; as heusually did flinch when it came to war, for Moses was no soldier. 

"And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men and go out, fight withAmalek: to-morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of Godin mine hand. "

And Moses actually had the assurance to do as he proposed, nor did he evenhave the endurance to stand. He made Aaron and Hur fetch a stone on whichhe should sit and then hold up his hands for him, pretending the whilethat when Moses held up his hands the Hebrews prevailed and when helowered them Amalek prevailed. Notwithstanding, Joshua won a victory. Butit may readily be believed that this performance of his functions as acaptain, did little to strengthen the credit of Moses among the fightingmen. Nor evidently was Moses satisfied with the figure that he cut, norwas he confident that Joshua approved of him, for the Lord directed Mosesto make excuses, promising to do better the next time, by assuring Joshuathat "I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. "This was the best apology Moses could make for his weakness. However, thetime had now come when Moses was to realize his plan of meeting Jethro. 

"And Jethro . . . Came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into thewilderness, where he encamped at the mount of God: . . . And Moses went outto meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and theyasked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent. 

"And Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done unto Pharaohand to the Egyptians for Israel's sake, and all the travail that had comeupon them by the way, and how the Lord had delivered them. . . . 

"And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of thehand of the Egyptians. . . . Now I know that the Lord is greater than allgods. . . . And Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread withMoses' father-in-law before God. "

It is from all this very plain that Jethro had a controlling influenceover Moses, and was the proximate cause of much that followed. For thenext morning Moses, as was his custom, "sat to judge the people: and thepeople stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. " And when Jethrosaw how Moses proceeded he remonstrated, "Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?"

And Moses replied: "Because the people come unto me to enquire of God. "

And Jethro protested, saying "The thing thou doest is not good. Thou wiltsurely wear away, both thou and this people that is with thee: for thisthing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyselfalone. 

"Hearken, . . . I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee; Bethou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes untoGod. "

Then it was that Moses perceived that he must have a divinely promulgatedcode. Accordingly, Moses made his preparations for a great dramaticeffect, and it is hard to see how he could have made them better. For, whatever failings he may have had in his other capacities as a leader, heunderstood his part as a magician. 

He told the people to be ready on the third day, for on the third day theLord would come down in the sight of all upon Mount Sinai. But, "Take heedto yourselves that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it:whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:

"There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shotthrough; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpetsoundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. "

It must be admitted that Moses either had wonderful luck, or that he hadwonderful judgment in weather, for, as it happened in the passage of theRed Sea, so it happened here. At the Red Sea he was aided by a gale ofwind which coincided with a low tide and made the passage practicable, andat Sinai he had a thunder-storm. 

"And it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there werethunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voiceof the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camptrembled. " Moses had undoubtedly sent some thoroughly trustworthy person, probably Joshua, up the mountain to blow a ram's horn and to light abonfire, and the effect seems to have been excellent. 

"And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descendedupon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. 

"And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder andlouder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. 

"And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mount; and theLord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up. " And thefirst thing that Moses did on behalf of the Lord was to "charge thepeople, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of themperish. "

And Moses replied to God's enquiry, "The people cannot come up to MountSinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount. 

"And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people breakthrough to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them. 

"So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them. "

Whether the decalogue, as we know it, was a code of law actually deliveredupon Sinai, which German critics very much dispute as being inconsistentwith the stage of civilization at which the Israelites had arrived, butwhich is altogether kindred to the Babylonish law with which Moses wasfamiliar, is immaterial for the present purpose. What is essential is thatbeside the decalogue itself there is a considerable body of law chieflyconcerned with the position of servants or slaves, the difference betweenassaults or torts committed with or without malice, theft, trespass, andthe regulation of the _lex talionis_. There are beside a variety ofother matters touched upon all of which may be found in the 21st, 22d, and23d chapters of Exodus. 

Up to this point in his show Moses had behaved with discretion and hadobtained a complete success. The next day he went on to demand anacceptance of his code, which he prepared to submit in form. But as apreliminary he made ready to take Aaron and his two sons, together withseventy elders of the congregation up the mountain, to be especiallyimpressed with a sacrifice and a feast which he had it in his mind toorganize. In the first place, "Moses . . . Rose up early in the morning, andbuilded an altar, . . . And sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto theLord. . . . 

"And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of thepeople: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and beobedient. "

Had Moses been content to end his ceremony here and to return to the campwith his book of the covenant duly accepted as law, all might have beenwell. But success seems to have intoxicated him, and he conceived an unduecontempt for the intelligence of his audience, being, apparently, convinced that there were no limits to their credulity, and that he coulddo with them as he pleased. 

It was not enough for him that he should have them accept an ordinary bookadmittedly written by himself. There was nothing overpoweringly impressivein that. What he wanted was a stone tablet on which his code should beengraved, as was the famous code of Hammurabi, which he probably knewwell, and this engraving must putatively be done by God himself, to giveit the proper solemnity. 

To have such a code as this engraved either by himself or by any workmanhe could take into the mountain with him, would be a work of time andwould entail his absence from the camp, and this was a very serious risk. But he was over-confident and determined to run it, rather than be baulkedof his purpose, "And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua; and Moses went up into themount of God. 

"And he said unto the elders, Tarry you here for us, until we come againunto you: and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: and if any man havematters to do, let him come unto them. And Moses went into the midst ofthe cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount fortydays and forty nights. "

But Moses had made the capital mistake of undervaluing the intelligence ofhis audience. They had, doubtless, been impressed when Moses, as ashowman, had presented his spectacle, for Moses had a commanding presenceand he had chosen a wonderful locality for his performance. But once hewas gone the effect of what he had done evaporated and they began to valuethe exhibition for what it really was. As men of common sense, said theyto one another, why should we linger here, if Moses has played this trickupon us? Why not go back to Egypt, where at least we can get something toeat? So they decided to bribe Aaron, who was venal and would do anythingfor money. 

"And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the manthat brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become ofhim. "

When Aaron heard this proposition he showed no objection to accept, provided the people made it worth his while to risk the wrath of Moses; sohe answered forthwith, "Break off the golden earrings, which are in theears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring themunto me. "

These were the ornaments of which the departing Israelites had spoiled theEgyptians and they must have been of very considerable value. At allevents, Aaron took them and melted them and made them into the image of acalf, such as he had been used to see in Egypt. The calf was probably madeof wood and laminated with gold. Sir G. Wilkinson thinks that the calf wasmade to represent Mnevis, with whose worship the Israelites had beenfamiliar in Egypt. Then Aaron proclaimed a feast for the next day in honorof this calf and said, "To-morrow is a feast to the Lord, " and they said, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land ofEgypt. "

"And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, andbrought peace offerings: and the people sat down to eat and to drink, androse up to play. "

It was not very long before Moses became suspicious that all was not rightin the camp, and he prepared to go down, taking the two tables oftestimony in his hands. These stone tablets were covered with writing onboth sides, which must have taken a long time to engrave considering thatMoses was on a bare mountainside with probably nobody to help but Joshua. Of course all that made this weary expedition worth the doing was that, asthe Bible says, "the tables were" to pass for "the work of God, and thewriting was the writing of God. " Accordingly, it is not surprising that asMoses "came nigh unto the camp, " and he "saw the calf, and the dancing":that his "anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, andbrake them beneath the mount. 

"And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, andground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the childrenof Israel drink of it. 

"And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hastbrought so great a sin upon them?

"And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest thepeople, that they are set on mischief. 

"For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as forthis Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wotnot what is become of him. 

"And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. Sothey gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out thiscalf. 

"And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made themnaked unto their shame among their enemies:)" that is to say, the peoplehad come to the feast unarmed, and without the slightest fear or suspicionof a possible attack; then Moses saw his opportunity and placed himself ina gate of the camp, and said: "Who is on the Lord's side? Let him comeunto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. 

"And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every manhis sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout thecamp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, andevery man his neighbour. 

"And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and therefell of the people that day about three thousand men. "

There are few acts in all recorded history, including the awful massacresof the Albigenses by Simon de Montfort and the Abbot Arnold, moreindefensible than this wholesale murder by Moses of several thousandpeople who had trusted him, and whom he had entrusted to the care of hisown brother, who participated in their crime, supposing that they hadcommitted any crime saving the crime of tiring of his dictatorship. 

The effect of this massacre was to put Moses, for the rest of his life, inthe hands of the Levites with Aaron at their head, for only by having abody of men stained with his own crimes and devoted to his fortunes couldMoses thenceforward hope to carry his adventure to a good end. Otherwisehe faced certain and ignominious failure. His preliminary task, therefore, was to devise for the Levites a reward which would content them. His firststep in this direction was to go back to the mountain and seek a newinspiration and a revelation more suited to the existing conditions thanthe revelation conveyed before the golden calf incident. 

Up to this time there is nothing in Jewish history to show that thepriesthood was developing into a privileged and hereditary caste. With theconsecration of Aaron as high priest the process began. Moses spentanother six weeks in seclusion on the mount. And as soon as he returned tothe camp he proclaimed how the people should build and furnish a sanctuaryin which the priesthood should perform its functions. These directionswere very elaborate and detailed, and part of the furnishings of thesanctuary consisted in the splendid and costly garments for Aaron and hissons "for glory and for beauty. "

"And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, andsanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. Andthou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: And thou shaltanoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may ministerunto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be aneverlasting priesthood, throughout their generations. 

"Thus did Moses: according to all that the Lord commanded him, so did he. "

It followed automatically that, with the creation of a great vestedinterest centred in an hereditary caste of priests, the pecuniary burdenon the people was correspondingly increased and that thenceforward Mosesbecame nothing but the representative of that vested interest: asreactionary and selfish as all such representatives must be. How selfishand how reactionary may readily be estimated by glancing at Numbers XVIII, where God's directions are given to Aaron touching what he was to claimfor himself, and what the Levites were to take as their wages for service. It was indeed liberal compensation. A good deal more than much of thecongregation thought such services worth. 

In the first place, Aaron and the Levites with him for their service "ofthe tabernacle" were to have "all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance. "But this was a small part of their compensation. There were besideperquisites, especially those connected with the sacrifices which thepeople were constrained to make on the most trifling occasions; as, forexample, whenever they became _unclean_, through some accident, asby touching a dead body:

"This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire:every oblation of their's, every meat offering of their's, and every sinoffering of their's, and every trespass offering of their's, which theyshall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and thy sons. 

"In the most holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it; itshall be holy unto thee. 

"And this is thine. . . . All the best of the oil, and all the best of thewine, and of the wheat, the first fruits of them which they shall offerunto the Lord, them have I given thee; . . . Every one that is clean inthine house shall eat of it. 

"Everything devoted in Israel shall be thine. . . . 

"All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israeloffer unto the Lord, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughterswith thee, by a statute forever: it is a covenant of salt forever beforethe Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee. "

Also, on the taking of a census, such as occurred at Sinai, Aaron receiveda most formidable perquisite. 

The Levites were not to be numbered; but there was to be a complicatedsystem of redemption at the rate of "five shekels by the poll, after theshekel of the sanctuary. "

"And Moses took the redemption money of them that were over and above themthat were redeemed by the Levites: Of the first-born of the children ofIsrael took he the money; a thousand three hundred and three score andfive shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; And Moses gave the moneyof them that were redeemed unto Aaron and to his sons. "

Assuming the shekel of those days to have weighed two hundred and twenty-four grains of silver, its value in our currency would have been aboutfifty-five cents, but its purchasing power, twelve hundred years beforeChrist, would have been, at the very most moderate estimate, at least tenfor one, which would have amounted to between six and seven thousanddollars in hard cash for no service whatever, which, considering that theIsraelites were a wandering nomadic horde in the wilderness, was, it mustbe admitted, a pretty heavy charge for the pleasure of observing theperformances of Aaron and his sons, in their gorgeous garments. 

Also, under any sedentary administration it followed that the high priestmust become the most considerable personage in the community, as well asone of the richest. And thus as payment for the loyalty to himself of theLevites during the massacre of the golden calf, Moses created a theocraticaristocracy headed by Aaron and his sons, and comprising the whole tribeof Levi, whose advancement in fortune could not fail to create discontent. It did so: a discontent which culminated very shortly after in therebellion of Korah, which brought on a condition of things at Kadesh whichcontributed to make the position of Moses intolerable. 

Moses was one of those administrators who were particularly reprobated bySaint Paul; Men who "do evil, " as in the slaughter of the feasters who setup the golden calf, "that good may come, " and "whose damnation, "therefore, "is just. " [Footnote: Romans III, 8. ]

And Moses wrought thus through ambition, because, though personallydisinterested, he could not endure having his will thwarted. Aaron hadnearly the converse of such a temperament. Aaron appears to have had fewor no convictions; it mattered little to him whether he worshipped Jehovahon Sinai or the golden calf at the foot of Sinai, provided he were paid athis own price. And he took care to exact a liberal price. Also theinference to be drawn from the way in which Moses behaved to him is thatMoses understood what manner of man he was. 

Jethro stood higher in the estimation of Moses, and Moses did his best tokeep Jethro with him, but, apparently, Jethro had watched Moses closelyand was not satisfied with his conduct of the exodus. On the eve ofdeparture from Sinai, just as the Israelites were breaking camp, Mosessought out Jethro and said to him; "We are journeying unto the place ofwhich the Lord said, I will give it you; come thou with us, and we will dothee good; for the Lord has spoken good concerning Israel. 

"And he said unto him, I will not go; but I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred. "

Not discouraged, Moses kept on urging: "Leave us not, I pray thee;forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thoumayest be to us instead of eyes. 

"And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what goodnessthe Lord shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee. " It has beeninferred from a passage in Judges, [Footnote: Judges I, 16. ] that Mosesinduced Jethro to reconsider his refusal and that he did accompany thecongregation in its march to Kadesh, but, on the whole, the text of theBible fails to bear out such inference, for there is no subsequent mentionof Jethro in the books which treat directly of the trials of the journey, although there would seem to have been abundant occasion for Moses to havecalled upon Jethro for aid had Jethro been present. In his apparentabsence the march began, under the leadership of the Lord and Moses, verymuch missing Jethro. 

They departed from the mount: "And the cloud of the Lord was upon them byday, " when they left the camp "to search out a resting-place. " Certainly, on this occasion, the Lord selected a poor spot for the purpose, quitedifferent from such an one as Jethro would have been expected to havepointed out; for the children of Israel began complaining mightily, somuch so that it displeased the Lord who sent fire into the uttermost partsof the camp, where it consumed them. 

"And the people cried unto Moses, and when Moses prayed unto the Lord, thefire was quenched. "

This suggestion of a divine fire under the control of Moses opens aninteresting speculation. 

The Magi, who were the priests of the Median religion, greatly developedthe practices of incantation and sorcery. Among these rites they"pretended to have the power of making fire descend on to their altars bymeans of magical ceremonies. " [Footnote: Lenormant, _Chaldean Magic_, 226, 238. ] Moses appears to have been very fond of this particularmiracle. It is mentioned as having been effective here at Taberah, and itwas the supposed weapon employed to suppress Korah's rebellion. Moses wasindeed a powerful enchanter. His relations with all the priestcraft ofcentral Asia were intimate, and if the Magi had secrets which were likelyto be of use to him in maintaining his position among the Jews, theinference is that he would certainly have used them to the utmost; as hedid the brazen serpent, the ram's horns at Sinai, and the like. But inspite of all his miracles Moses found his task too heavy, and he franklyconfessed that he wished himself dead. 

"Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families. . . And theanger of the Lord was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased. 

"And Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thyservant? . . . That thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?

"Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thoushouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing fatherbeareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto theirfathers?

"Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weepunto me saying, Give us flesh that we may eat. 

"I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy forme. 

"And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if Ihave found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness. "

Leaving aside for the moment all our childish preventions, and consideringthis evidence in the cold light of history, it becomes tolerably evidentthat Moses had now reached the turning-point in his career, the pointwhither he had inexorably tended since the day on which he bid good-bye toJethro to visit Egypt and attempt to gain control of the exodus, and thepoint to which all optimists must come who resolve to base a religious ora political movement on the manipulation of the supernatural. However pureand disinterested the motives of such persons may be at the outset, andhowever thoroughly they may believe in themselves and in their mission, sooner or later, to compass their purpose, they must resort to deceptionand thus become impostors who flourish on the credulity of their dupes. 

Moses, from the nature of the case, had to make such demands on thecredulity of his followers that even those who were bound to him by thestrongest ties of affection and self-interest were alienated, and thosewithout such commanding motives to submit to his claim to exact from themabsolute obedience, revolted, and demanded that he should be deposed. Thefirst serious trouble with which Moses had to contend came to a head atHazeroth, the second station after leaving Sinai. The supposed spot isstill used as a watering-place. There Miriam and Aaron attacked Mosesbecause they were jealous of his wife, whom they decried as an"Ethiopian. " And they said, "Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses?hath he not spoken also by us?" Instantly, it became evident to Moses thatif this denial of his superior intimacy with God were to be permitted, hissupremacy must end. Accordingly the Lord came down "in the pillar of thecloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron andMiriam: and they both came forth. " And the Lord explained that he had noobjection to a prophet; if any one among the congregation had an ambitionto be a prophet he would communicate with him in a dream; but there mustalways be a wide difference between such a man or woman and Moses withwhom he would "speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in darkspeeches. " And then God demanded irritably, "Wherefore, then, were ye notafraid to speak against my servant Moses?" "Afterward the cloud, "according to the Bible, departed and God with it. 

Ever since the dawn of time the infliction of or the cure of disease hasbeen the stronghold of the necromancer, the wise man, the magician, thesaint, the prophet and the priest, and Moses was no exception to the rule, only hitherto he had had no occasion to display his powers of this kind. Nevertheless, among the Hebrews of the exodus, the field for this form ofmiracle was large. Leprosy was very prevalent, so much so that in Egyptthe Jews were called a nation of lepers. And in the camp the regulationstouching them were strict and numerous. But the Jews were always a dirtyrace. 

In chapter XIII of Leviticus, elaborate directions are given as to how thepatient shall be brought before Aaron himself, or at least some other ofthe priests, who was to examine the sore and, if it proved to be aprobable case of leprosy, the patient was to be excluded from the camp fora week. At the end of that time the disease, if malignant, was supposed toshow signs of spreading, in which case there was no cure and the patientwas condemned to civil death. On the contrary, if no virulent symptomsdeveloped during the week, the patient was pronounced clean and returnedto ordinary life. 

The miracle in the case of Miriam was this: When the cloud departed fromoff the tabernacle, Miriam was found to be "leprous, white as snow, " justas Moses' hand was found to be white with leprosy after his conversationwith the Lord at the burning bush. Upon this Aaron, who had been as guiltyas Miriam, and was proportionately nervous, made a prayer to Moses: "Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have donefoolishly. . . . Let her not be as one dead. 

"And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseechthee. "

But the Lord replied: "If her father had but spit in her face, should shenot be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again. "

This was the Mosaic system of discipline. And it was serious for allparties concerned. Evidently it was very serious for Miriam, who had toleave her tent and be exiled to some spot in the desert, where she had toshift for herself. We all know the almost intolerable situation of thoseunfortunates who, in the East, are excluded from social intercourse, andsit without the gate, and are permitted to approach no one. But it wasalso a serious infliction for the congregation, since Miriam was apersonage of consequence, and had to be waited for. That is to say, amillion or two of people had to delay their pilgrimage until Moses haddetermined how much punishment Miriam deserved for her insubordination, and this was a question which lay altogether within the discretion ofMoses. In that age there were at least seven varieties of eruptions whichcould hardly, if at all, be distinguished, in their early stages, fromleprosy, and it was left to Moses to say whether or not Miriam had beenattacked by true leprosy or not. There was no one, apparently, to questionhis judgment, for, since Jethro had left the camp, there was no one tocontrovert the Mosaic opinion on matters such as these. Doubtless Moseswas content to give Aaron and Miriam a fright; but also Moses intended tomake them understand that they lay absolutely at his mercy. 

After this outbreak of discontent had been thus summarily suppressed andMiriam had been again received as "clean, " the caravan resumed its marchand entered into the wilderness of Paran, which adjoined Palestine, andfrom whence an invasion of Canaan, if one were to be attempted, would beorganized. Accordingly Moses appointed a reconnaissance, who in thelanguage of the Bible are called "spies, " to examine the country, reportits condition, and decide whether an attack were feasible. 

On this occasion Moses seems to have remembered the lesson he learned atSinai. He did not undertake to leave the camp himself for a long interval. He sent the men whom he supposed he could best trust, among whom wereJoshua and Caleb. These men, who corresponded to what, in a modern army, would be called the general-staff, were not sent to manufacture a reportwhich they might have reason to suppose would be pleasing to Moses, but tostate precisely what they saw and heard together with their conclusionsthereon, that they might aid their commander in an arduous campaign; andthis duty they seem, honestly enough, to have performed. But this was veryfar from satisfying Moses, who wanted to make a strenuous offensive, andyet sought some one else to take the responsibility therefor. 

The spies were absent six weeks and when they returned were divided inopinion. They all agreed that Canaan was a good land, and, in verity, flowing with milk and honey. But the people, most of them thought, weretoo strong to be successfully attacked. "The cities were walled and verygreat, " and moreover "we saw the children of Anak there. "

"The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south; and the Hittites, and theJebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanitesdwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. 

"And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up atonce, . . . For we are well able to overcome it. 

"But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up againstthe people; for they are stronger than we. 

"And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched, . . . Saying, . . . All the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. 

"And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, . . . And we were in our ownsight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight. "

Had Moses been gifted with military talent, or with any of the higherinstincts of the soldier, he would have arranged to have received thisreport in private and would then have acted as he thought best. Above allhe would have avoided anything like a council of war by the wholecongregation, for a vast popular meeting of that kind was certain tobecome unmanageable the moment a division appeared in their command, upona difficult question of policy. 

Moses did just the opposite. He convened the people to hear the report ofthe "spies. " And immediately the majority became dangerously depressed, not to say mutinous. 

"And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the peoplewept that night. 

"And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron:and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died inthe land of Egypt! Or would God we had died in this wilderness!. . . 

"And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us returninto Egypt. 

"Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of thecongregation of the children of Israel. "

But Joshua, who was a soldier, when Moses thus somewhat ignominiouslycollapsed, retained his presence of mind and his energy. He and Caleb"rent their clothes, " and reiterated their advice. 

"And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land. 

"If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and giveit us; a land which floweth with milk and honey. 

"Only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of theland; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them. . . Fear them not. 

"But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. "

By this time Moses seems to have recovered some composure. Enough, atleast, to repeat certain violent threats of the "Lord. "

Nothing is so impressive in all this history as the difference betweenMoses when called upon to take responsibility as a military commander, andMoses when, not to mince matters, he acted as a quack. On the one hand, hewas all vacillation, timidity, and irritability. On the other, alltemerity and effrontery. 

In this particular emergency, which touched his very life, Moses ventedhis disappointment and vexation in a number of interviews which hepretended to have had with the "Lord, " and which he retailed to thecongregation, just at the moment when they needed, as Joshua perceived, tobe steadied and encouraged. 

"How long, " vociferated the Lord, when Moses had got back his power ofspeech, "will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere theybelieve me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

"I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will makeof thee a greater nation and mightier than they. "

But when Moses had cooled a little and came to reflect upon what he hadmade the "Lord" say, he fell into his ordinary condition of hesitancy. Supposing some great disaster should happen to the Jews at Kadesh, whichlay not so very far from the Egyptian border, the Egyptians wouldcertainly hear of it, and in that case the Egyptian army might pursue andcapture Moses. Such a contingency was not to be contemplated, andaccordingly Moses began to make reservations. It must be remembered thatall these ostensible conversations with the "Lord" went on in public; thatis to say, Moses proffered his advice to the Lord aloud, and then retailedhis version of the answer he received. 

"Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations whichhave heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, "Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which hesware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. . . . 

"Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto thegreatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypteven until now. 

"And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word. "

Had Moses left the matter there it would not have been so bad, but hecould not contain his vexation, because his staff had not divined hiswishes. Those men, though they had done their strict duty only, must bepunished, so he thought, to maintain his ascendancy. 

Of the twelve "spies" whom Moses had sent into Canaan to report to him, ten had incurred his bitter animosity because they failed to render himsuch a report as would sustain him before the people in making thecampaign of invasion to which he felt himself pledged, and on the successof which his reputation depended. Of these ten men, Moses, to judge by thecharacter of his demands upon the Lord, thought it incumbent on him tomake an example, in order to sustain his own credit. 

To simply exclude these ten spies from Palestine, as he proposed to dowith the rest of the congregation, would hardly be enough, for the rest ofthe Hebrews were, at most, passive, but these ten had wilfully ignored thewill of Moses, or, as he expressed it, of the Lord. Therefore it was theLord's duty, as Moses saw it, to punish them. And this Moses proposed thatthe Lord should do in a prompt and awful manner: the lesson being pointedby the immunity of Joshua and Caleb, the two spies who had had the wit todivine the will of Moses. Therefore, all ten of these men died of theplague while the congregation lay encamped at Kadesh, though Joshua andCaleb remained immune. 

Moses, as the commanding general of an attacking army, took a coursediametrically opposed to that of Joshua, and calculated to be fatal tovictory. He vented his irritation in a series of diatribes which heattributed to the "Lord, " and which discouraged and confused his men atthe moment when their morale was essential to success. 

Therefore, the Lord, according to Moses, went on:

"But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory ofthe Lord. 

"Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which Idid in Egypt and in the wilderness, have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;

"Surely they shall not see the land which I swear unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:

"But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hathfollowed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went;. . . "

Having said all this, and, as far as might be, disorganized the army, Moses surrendered suddenly his point. He made the "Lord" go on to command:"Tomorrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the RedSea. " But, not even yet content, Moses assured them that this retreatshould profit them nothing. 

"And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, How long shall Ibear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heardthe murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me. "And the Lord continued:

"Say unto them, As truly as I live, . . . As ye have spoken in mine ears, sowill I do to you. 

"Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numberedof you, . . . From twenty years old and upward, which have murmured againstme, "Doubtless ye shall not come into the land. . . . 

"But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness. . . . 

"And the men which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and madeall the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander uponthe land, --

"Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died bythe plague before the Lord. 

"But Joshua . . . And Caleb, . . . Which were of the men that went to searchthe land, lived still. 

"And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel and thepeople mourned greatly. "

The congregation were now completely out of hand. They knew not what Moseswanted to do, nor did they comprehend what Moses was attempting to makethe Lord threaten: except that he had in mind some dire mischief. Accordingly, the people decided that the best thing for them was to goforward as Joshua and Caleb proposed. So, early in the morning, they wentup into the top of the mountain, saying, "We be here, and will go up untothe place which the Lord hath promised: for we have sinned. "

But Moses was more dissatisfied than ever. "Wherefore now do youtransgress the commandment of the Lord? But it shall not prosper. "Notwithstanding, "they presumed to go up unto the hilltop: neverthelessthe ark of the covenant of the Lord, and Moses, departed not out of thecamp. 

"Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites, which dwelt in thathill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah"; which wasat a very considerable distance, --perhaps not less than thirty miles, though the positions are not very well established. 

This is the story as told by the priestly chronicler, who, of course, saidthe best that could be said for Moses. But he makes a sorry tale of it. According to him, Moses, having been disappointed with the report made byhis officers on the advisability of an immediate offensive, committed theblunder of summoning the whole assembly of the people to listen to it, andthen, in the midst of the panic he had created, he lost his self-possession and finally his temper. Whereupon his soldiers, not knowingwhat to do or what he wanted, resolved to follow the advice of Joshua andadvance. 

But this angered Moses more than ever, who committed the unpardonablecrime in the eyes of the soldier; he abandoned his men in the presence ofthe enemy and by this desertion so weakened them that they sustained theworst defeat the Israelites suffered during the whole of their wanderingsin the wilderness. Such a disaster brought on a crisis. The only wonder isthat it had been so long delayed. Moses had had since the exodus awonderful opportunity to test the truth of his theories. He had assertedthat the universe was the expression of a single and supreme mind, whichoperated according to a fixed moral law. That he alone, of all men, understood this mind, and could explain and administer its law, and thatthis he could and would do were he to obtain absolute obedience to thecommands which he uttered. Were he only obeyed, he would win for hisfollowers victory in battle, and a wonderful land to which they shouldmarch under his guidance, which was the Promised Land, and thereafter allwas to be well with them. 

The disaster at Hormah had demonstrated that he was no general, and evenon that very day the people had proof before their eyes that he knewnothing of the desert, and that the Lord knew no more than he, since therewas no water at Kadesh, and to ask the congregation to encamp in such aspot was preposterous. Meanwhile Moses absorbed all the offices of honorand profit for his family. Aaron and his descendants monopolized thepriesthood, and this was a bitter grievance to other equally ambitiousLevites. In short, the Mosaic leadership was vulnerable on every hand. Attack on Moses was, therefore, inevitable, and it came from Korah, whowas leader of the opposition. 

Korah was a cousin of Moses, and one of the ablest and most influentialmen in the camp, to whom Dathan and Abiram and "two hundred and fifty"princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, joinedthemselves. "And they gathered themselves together against Moses andagainst Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing allthe congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them:wherefore then lift you up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?"

Koran's grievance was that he had been, although a Levite, excluded fromthe priesthood in favor of the demands of Aaron and his sons. 

"And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face. "

And yet something had to be done. Moses faced an extreme danger. His lifehung upon the issue. As between him and Korah he had to demonstrate whichwas the better sorcerer or magician, and he could only do this bychallenging Korah to the test of the ordeal: the familiar test of thesecond clause of the code of Hammurabi; "If the holy river makes that manto be innocent, and has saved him, he who laid the spell upon him shall beput to death. He who plunged into the holy river shall take to himself thehouse of him who wove the spell upon him. " [Footnote: Code of Lawspromulgated by Hammurabi, King of Babylon. Translated by C. H. W. Johns, M. A. , Section 2. ] And so with Elijah, to whom Ahaziah sent a captain offifty to arrest him. And Elijah said to the captain of fifty, "If I be aman of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thyfifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and hisfifty. " [Footnote: 2 Kings I, 10. ]

In a word, the ordeal was the common form of test by which the enchanter, the sorcerer, or the magician always was expected to prove himself. Mosesalready had tried the test by fire at least once, and probably oftener. Sonow Moses reproached Korah because he was jealous of Aaron; "and what isAaron, that ye murmur against him?. . . This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company; and put fire therein, and put incense in them beforethe Lord to-morrow; and . . . Whom the Lord doth choose, he shall be holy:ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi. "

But it was not only about the priesthood that Moses had trouble on hishands. He had undertaken, with the help of the Lord, to lead theIsraelites through the wilderness. But at every step of the way hisincompetence became more manifest. Even there, at that very camp ofKadesh, there was no water, and all the people clamored. And, therefore, Dathan and Abiram taunted him with failure, and with his injustice tothose who served him. And Moses had no reply, except that he denied havingabused his power. 

"And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab: which said, We will not come up:

"Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land thatfloweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thoumake thyself altogether a prince over us?

"Moreover, thou hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk andhoney, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards: wilt thou put outthe eyes of these men [probably alluding to the "spies"]? We will not comeup. "

This was evidently an exceedingly sore spot. Moses had boasted that, because the "spies" had rendered to the congregation what they believed tobe a true report instead of such a report as he had expected, the "Lord"had destroyed them by the plague. And it is pretty evident that thecongregation believed him. It could hardly have been by pure accident thatout of twelve men, the ten who had offended Moses should have died by theplague, and the other two alone should have escaped. Moses assumed to havethe power of destroying whom he pleased by the pestilence through prayerto the "Lord, " and he, indeed, probably had the power, in such a spot asan ancient Jewish Nomad camp, not indeed by prayer, but by the very humanmeans of communicating so virulent a poison as the plague: means which hevery well understood. 

Therefore it is not astonishing that this insinuation should have stungMoses to the quick. 

"And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the Lord, Respect not thou theiroffering: I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one ofthem. "

Then Moses turned to Korah, "Be thou and all thy company before the Lord, thou, and they, and Aaron, to-morrow:

"And take every man his censer, and put incense in them, and bring yebefore the Lord every man his censer, two hundred and fifty censers. "

And Korah, on the morrow, gathered all the congregation against them untothe door of the tabernacle. And the "Lord" then as usual intervened andadvised Moses to "separate yourselves from among this congregation, that Imay consume them in a moment. " And Moses did so. That is to say, he madean effort to divide the opposition, who, when united, he seems to haveappreciated, were too strong for him. 

What happened next is not known. That Moses partially succeeded in hisattempt at division is admitted, for he persuaded Dathan and Abiram andtheir following to "depart . . . From the tents of these wicked men, andtouch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins. "

Exactly what occurred after this is unknown. The chronicle, of course, avers that "the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and theirhouses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. "But it could not have been this or anything like it, for the descendantsof Korah, many generations after, were still doing service in the Temple, and at the time of the miracle the spectators were not intimidated by thesight, although all "Israel that were round about them fled at the cry ofthem: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. 

"And there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred andfifty men that offered incense. "

Notwithstanding all which, the congregation next day were as hostile andas threatening as ever. 

"On the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmuredagainst Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of theLord. . . . 

"And they fell upon their faces. "

In this crisis of his fate, when it seemed that nothing could save Mosesfrom a conflict with the mass of his followers, who had renounced him, Moses showed that audacity and fertility of resource, which had hithertoenabled him, and was destined until his death to enable him, to maintainhis position, at least as a prophet, among the Jewish people. 

The plague was always the most dreaded of visitations among the ancientJews: far more terrible than war. It was already working havoc in thecamp, as the death of the "spies" shows us. Moses always asserted hisability to control it, and at this instant, when, apparently, he and Aaronwere lying on their faces before the angry people, he conceived the ideathat he would put his theurgetic powers to the proof. Suddenly he calledto Aaron to "take a censer and put fire therein from off the altar, andput on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make anatonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plagueis begun. "

"And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of thecongregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: . . . Andmade an atonement for the people. 

"And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed. 

"Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and sevenhundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah. "

Even this was not enough. The discontent continued, and Moses went on tomeet it by the miracle of Aaron's rod. 

Moses took a rod from each tribe, twelve rods in all and on Aaron's rod hewrote the name of Levi, and Moses laid them out in the tabernacle. And thenext day Moses examined the rods and showed the congregation how Aaron'srod had budded. And Moses declared that Aaron's rod should be kept for atoken against the rebels: and that they must stop their murmurings "thatthey die not. "

This manipulation of the plague by Moses, upon what seems to have been asudden inspiration, was a stroke of genius in the way of quackery. He was, indeed, in this way almost portentous. It had a great and terrifyingeffect upon the people, who were completely subdued by it. Againstcorporeal enemies they might hope to prevail, but they were helplessagainst the plague. And they all cried out with one accord, "Behold wedie, we perish, we all perish. Whosoever cometh anything near unto thetabernacle of the Lord shall die: shall we be consumed with dying?"

As I have already pointed out, Moses was a very great theurgist, as manysaints and prophets have been. When in the actual presence of others heevidently had the power of creating a belief in himself which approachedthe miraculous, so far as disease was concerned. And he presumed on thispower and took correspondingly great risks. The case of the brazen serpentis an example. The story is--and there is no reason to doubt itssubstantial truth--that the Hebrews were attacked by venomous serpentsprobably in the neighborhood of Mount Hor, where Aaron died, and thereuponMoses set up a large brazen serpent on a pole, and declared that whoeverwould look upon the serpent should live. Also, apparently, it did producean effect upon those who believed: which, of course, is not anunprecedented phenomenon among faith healers. But what is interesting inthis historical anecdote is not that Moses performed certain faith curesby the suggestion of a serpent, but that the Israelites themselves, whenout of the presence of Moses, recognized that he had perpetrated on them avulgar fraud. For example, King Hezekiah destroyed this relic, which hadbeen preserved in the Temple, calling it "Nehushtan, " "a brazen thing, " asan expression of his contempt. And what is more remarkable still is thatalthough Hezekiah reigned four or five centuries after the exodus, yetscience had made no such advance in the interval as to justify thiscontempt. Hezekiah seems to have been every whit as credulous as were thepilgrims who looked on the brazen serpent and were healed. Hezekiah "wassick unto death, and Isaiah came to see him, and told him to set his housein order; for thou shalt die, and not live. . . . And Hezekiah wept sore. "

Then, like Moses, Isaiah had another revelation in which he was directedto return to Hezekiah, and tell him that he was to live fifteen yearslonger. And Isaiah told the attendants to take "a lump of figs. " "And theytook it and laid it on the boil, and he recovered. "

Afterward Hezekiah asked of Isaiah how he was to know that the Lord wouldkeep his word and give him fifteen additional years of life. Isaiah toldhim that the shadow should go back ten degrees on the dial. And Isaiah"cried unto the Lord, " and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward "bywhich it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz. " [Footnote: 2 Kings xx, 11. ]And yet this man Hezekiah, who could believe in this marvellous cure ofIsaiah, repudiated with scorn the brazen serpent as an insult tocredulity. The contrast between Moses, who hesitated not to take all risksin matters of disease with which he felt himself competent to cope, andhis timidity and hesitation in matters of war, is astounding. But it is acommon phenomenon with the worker of miracles and indicates the limit offaith at which the saint or prophet has always betrayed the impostor. Forexample: Saint Bernard, when he preached in 1146 the Second Crusade, mademiraculous cures by the thousand, so much so that there was danger ofbeing killed in the crowds which pressed upon him. And yet this samesaint, when chosen by the crusaders four years later, in 1150, to leadthem because of his power to constrain victory by the intervention of God, wrote, after the crusaders' defeat, in terror to the pope to protect him, because he was unfit to take such responsibility. 

But even with this reservation Moses could not gain the completeconfidence of the congregation and the insecurity of his position finallybroke him down. 

At this same place of Kadesh, Miriam died, "and the people chode withMoses because there was no water for the congregation. " [Footnote: Numbersxx, 8. ] Moses thereupon withdrew and, as usual, received a revelation. Andthe Lord directed him to take his rod, "and speak ye unto the rock beforetheir eyes; and it shall give forth his water. "

And Moses gathered the congregation and said unto them, "Hear now, yerebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?"

"And he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly. "

But Moses felt that he had offended God, "Because ye believed me not, tosanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall notbring this congregation into the land which I have given them. "

Moses had become an old man, and he felt himself unequal to the burden hehad assumed. He recognized that his theory of cause and effect had brokendown, and that the "Lord" whom at the outset he had firmly believed to bean actual and efficient power to be dominated by him, either could not orwould not support him in emergency. In short, he had learned that he wasan adventurer who must trust to himself. Hence, after Hormah he was achanged man. Nothing could induce him to lead the Jews across the Jordanto attack the peoples on the west bank, and though the congregation made acouple of campaigns against Sihon and Og, whose ruthlessness has alwaysbeen a stain on Moses, the probability is that Moses did not meddle muchwith the active command. Had he done so, the author of Deuteronomy wouldhave given the story in more detail and Moses more credit. All that isattributed to Moses is a division of the conquests made together withJoshua, and a fruitless prayer to the Lord that he might be permitted tocross the Jordan. 

Meanwhile life was ending for him. His elder sister Miriam died at Kadesh, and Aaron died somewhat later at Mount Hor, which is supposed to lie aboutas far to the east of Kadesh as Hormah is to the west, but there arecircumstances about the death of Aaron which point to Moses as having hadmore to do with it than of having been a mere passive spectator thereof. 

The whole congregation is represented as having "journeyed from Kadesh andcome unto Mount Hor . . . By the coast of the land of Edom, " and there the"Lord" spoke unto Moses and Aaron, and explained that Aaron was to be"gathered unto his people, . . . Because ye rebelled . . . At the water ofMeribah. " Therefore Moses was to "take Aaron and Eleazar his son, andbring them up unto Mount Hor: and strip Aaron of his garments, and putthem upon Eleazar, " . . . And that Aaron . . . Shall die there. 

"And they went up into Mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation. AndMoses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son;and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar camedown from the mount. " [Footnote: Numbers xx, 22-28. ]

Now it is incredible that all this happened as straightforwardly as thechronicle would have us believe. Aaron was an old man and probablyfailing, but his death was not imminent. On the contrary, he had strengthto climb Mount Hor with Moses, without aid, and there is no hint that hesuffered from any ailment likely to end his life suddenly. Moses took carethat he and Eleazar should be alone with Aaron so that there should be nowitness as to what occurred, and Moses alone knew what was expected. 

Moses had time to take off the priestly garments, which were the insigniaof office and to put them on Eleazar, and then, when all was ready, Aaronsimply ceased to breathe at the precise moment when it was convenient forMoses to have him die, for the policy of Moses evidently demanded thatAaron should live no longer. Under the conditions of the march Moses wasevidently preparing for his own death, and for a complete change in theadministration of affairs. Appreciating that his leadership had brokendown and that the system he had created was collapsing, he had dawdled aslong on the east side of the Jordan as the patience of the congregationwould permit. An advance had become inevitable, but Moses recognized hisown inability to lead it. The command had to be delegated to a younger manand that man was Joshua. Eleazar, on the other hand, was the onlyavailable candidate for the high priesthood, and Moses took theopportunity of making the investiture on Mount Hor. So Aaron passed away, a sacrifice to the optimism of Moses. Next came the turn of Moses himself. The whole story is told in Deuteronomy. Within, probably, something lessthan a year after Aaron's death the "Lord" made a like communication toMoses. 

"Get thee up . . . Unto Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that isover against Jericho;

"And die in the Mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thypeople; as Aaron, thy brother died in Mount Hor;

"Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at thewaters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin, because ye sanctifiedme not in the midst of the children of Israel. 

"And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, . . . And the Lord showed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan. 

"And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. . . . But no man knoweth of his sepulchreunto this day. 

"And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye wasnot dim, nor his natural force abated. "

The facts, as preserved by Josephus, appear to have been these: Mosesascended the mountain with only the elders, the high priest Eleazar, andJoshua. At the top of the mountain he dismissed the elders, and then, ashe was embracing Joshua and Eleazar and still speaking, a cloud coveredhim, and he disappeared in a ravine. In other words, he killed himself. 

Such is the story of Moses, a fragment of history interesting enough initself, but especially material to us not only because of the developmentof the thought dealt with in the following volumes, but of the inferenceswhich, at the present time, it permits us to draw touching our ownimmediate future. 

Moses was the first great optimist of whom any record remains, and one ofthe greatest. He was the prototype of all those who have followed. He wasa visionary. All optimists must be visionaries. Moses based the socialsystem which he tried to organize, not on observed facts, but on _apriori_ theories evolved out of his own mind, and he met with thefailure that all men of that cast of mind must meet with when he sought torealize his visions. His theory was that the universe about him was theexpression of an infinite mind which operated according to law. That thismind, or consciousness, was intelligent and capable of communicating withman. That it did, in fact, so communicate through him, as a medium, andthat other men had only to receive humbly and obey implicitly hisrevelations to arrive at a condition nearly approaching, if not absolutelyreaching, perfection, while they should enjoy happiness and prosperity inthe land in which they should be permitted, by an infinite andsupernatural power and wisdom, to dwell. All this is not alien to theattitude of scientific optimists at the present day, who anticipateprogressive perfection. 

Let us consider, for a moment, whither these _a priori_ theories led, when put in practice upon human beings, including himself. And, in thefirst place, it will probably be conceded that no optimist could have, orever hope to have, a fairer opportunity to try his experiment than hadMoses on that plastic Hebrew community which he undertook to lead throughArabia. Also it must be admitted that Moses, as an expounder of a moralcode, achieved success. The moral principles which he laid down have beenaccepted as sound from that day to this, and are still written up in ourchurches, as a standard for men and women, however slackly they may beobserved. But when we come to mark the methods by which Moses obtainedacceptance of his code by his contemporaries, and, above all, sought toconstrain obedience to himself and to it, we find the prospect unalluring. To begin with, Moses had only begun the exodus when he learned from hispractical father-in-law that the system he employed was fantastic andcertain to fail: his notion being that he should sit and judge causeshimself, as the mouthpiece of the infinite, and that therefore eachjudgment he gave would demand a separate miracle or imposture. This couldnot be contemplated. Therefore Moses was constrained to impose his code inwriting, once for all, by one gigantic fraud which he must perpetratehimself. This he tried at Sinai, unblushingly declaring that the stonetablets which he produced were "written with the finger of God";wherefore, as they must have been written by himself, or under hispersonal supervision, he brazenly and deliberately lied. His good faithwas obviously suspected, and this suspicion caused disastrous results. Tosupport his lie Moses caused three thousand unsuspecting and trusting mento be murdered in cold blood, whose only crime was that they would havepreferred another leadership to his, and because, had they been able toeffect their purpose, they would have disappointed his ambition. 

To follow Moses further in the course which optimism enforced upon himwould be tedious, as it would be to recapitulate the story which hasalready been told. It suffices to say shortly that, at every camp, he hadto sink to deeper depths of fraud, deception, lying, and crime in order tomaintain his credit. It might be that, as at Meribah, it was only claimingfor himself a miracle which he knew he could not work, and for claimingwhich, instead of giving the credit to God, he openly declared he deservedand must receive punishment; or it might be some impudent quackery, likethe brazen serpent, which at least was harmless; or it might have beencomplicated combinations which suggest a deeper shade; as, for example, the outbreak of the plague, after Korah's rebellion, which bears theaspect of a successful effort at intimidation to support his own waveringcredit. But the result was always the same. Moses had promised that thesupernatural power he pretended to control should sustain him and givevictory. Possibly, when he started on the exodus he verily believed thatsuch a power existed, was amenable and could be constrained to intervene. He found that he had been mistaken on all these heads, and when heaccepted these facts as final, nothing remained for him but suicide, ashas been related. It only remains to glance, for a single moment, at whatbefell, when he had gone, the society he had organized on the optimisticprinciple of the approach of human beings toward perfection. During theperiod of the Judges, when "there was no king in Israel, but every man didthat which was right in his own eyes, " [Footnote: Judges xvii, 6. ] anarchysupervened, indeed, but also the whole Mosaic system broke down because ofthe imbecility of the men on whom Moses relied to lift the people towardperfection. 

Eli, a descendant of Aaron, was high priest, and a judge, being thepredecessor of Samuel, the last of the judges. Now Eli had two sons who"were sons of Belial; they knew not the Lord. "

Eli, being very old, "heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and howthey lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle. . . . "And Eli argued with them; "notwithstanding they harkened not unto thevoice of their father. "

Samuel succeeded Eli. He was not a descendant of Aaron, but became ajudge, apparently, upon his own merits. But as a judge he did notconstrain his sons any better than Eli had his, for "they took bribes, andperverted judgment. " So the elders of Israel came to Samuel and said, "Give us a king to judge us. " "And Samuel prayed unto the Lord, " though hedisliked the idea. Yet the result was inevitable. The kingdom was set up, and the Mosaic society perished. Nothing was left of Mosaic optimism butthe tradition. Also there was the Mosaic morality, and what that amountedto may best, perhaps, be judged by David, who was the most perfect flowerof the perfection to which humanity was to attain under the Mosaic law, and has always stood for what was best in Mosaic optimism. David'smorality is perhaps best illustrated by the story of Uriah the Hittite. 

One day David saw Uriah's wife taking a bath on her housetop and took afancy to her. The story is all told in the Second of Samuel. How Davidsent for her, took her into the palace, and murdered Uriah by sending himto Joab who commanded the army, and instructing Joab to set Uriah in theforefront of the hottest battle, and "retire ye from him that he may besmitten and die. " And Uriah was killed. 

Then came the famous parable by Nathan of the ewe lamb. "And David's angerwas greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lordliveth, the man who hath done this thing shall surely die. 

"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. "

And Nathan threatened David with all kinds of disaster and even withdeath, and David was very repentant and "he fasted and lay all night uponthe earth. " But for all that, when assured that nothing worse was tohappen to him than the loss of the son Bathsheba had borne him, Davidcomforted Bathsheba. He by no means gave her up. On the contrary, "he wentin unto her . . . And she bare him a son, and he called his name Solomon:and the Lord loved him. "

Again the flesh had prevailed. And so it has always been with each newmovement which has been stimulated by an idealism inspired by a beliefthat the spirit was capable of generating an impulse which would overcomethe flesh and which could cause men to move toward perfection along anyother path than the least resistant. And this because man is an automaton, and can move no otherwise. In this point of view nothing can be moreinstructive than to compare the Roman with the Mosaic civilization, forthe Romans were a sternly practical people and worshipped force as Mosesworshipped an ideal. 

As Moses dreamed of realizing the divine consciousness on earth byintrospection and by prayer, so the Romans supposed that they could attainto prosperity and happiness on earth by the development of superiorphysical force and the destruction of all rivals. Cato the Censor was thetypical Roman landowner, the type of the class which built up the greatvested interest in land which always moved and dominated Rome. Heexpressed the Roman ideal in his famous declaration in the Senate, when hegave his vote for the Third Punic War; "_Delenda est Carthago_, " Carthagemust be destroyed. And Carthage was destroyed because to a Roman todestroy Carthage was a logical competitive necessity. Subsequently, theRomans took the next step in their social adjustment at home. They deifiedthe energy which had destroyed Carthage. The incarnation of physical forcebecame the head of the State;--the Emperor when living, the Divus, whendead. And this conception gained expression in the law. This godlikeenergy found vent in the Imperial will; "_Quod principi placuit, legishabet vigorem_. " [Footnote: Inst. L, 2, 6. ]

Nothing could be more antagonistic to the Mosaic philosophy, which invokedthe supernatural unity as authority for every police regulation. Moreover, the Romans carried out their principle relentlessly, to their owndestruction. That great vested interest which had absorbed the land ofItaly, and had erected the administrative entity which policed it, couldnot hold and cultivate its land profitably, in competition with otherlands such as Egypt, North Africa, or Assyria, which were worked by acheaper and more resistant people. Therefore the Roman landowners importedthis competitive population from their homes, having first seized them asslaves, and cultivated their own Italian fields with them after theeviction of the original native peasants, who could not survive on thescanty nutriment on which the eastern races throve. [Footnote: I havedealt with this subject at length in my _Law of Civilization andDecay_, chapter II, to which I must refer the reader. More fully stillin the French translation. "This unceasing emigration gradually changedthe character of the rural population, and a similar alteration took placein the army. As early as the time of Cæsar, Italy was exhausted; hislegions were mainly raised in Gaul, and as the native farmers sank intoserfdom or slavery, and then at last vanished, recruits were drawn moreand more from beyond the limits of the empire. " I cannot repeat myarguments here, but I am not aware that they have been seriouslycontroverted. ]

The Roman law, the _Romana lex_, was as gigantic, as original, and ascomprehensive a structure as was the empire which gave to it expression. Modern European law is but a dilution thereof. The Roman law attainedperfection, as I conceive, about the time of the Antonines, through thegreat jurists who then flourished. If one might name a particular momentat which so vast and complex a movement culminated, one would be temptedto suggest the reign of Hadrian, who appointed Salvius Julianus to draw upthe _edictum perpetuum_, or permanent edict, in the year 132 A. D. Thenceforward the magistrate had to use his discretion only when the edictof Julianus did not apply. 

I am not aware that any capital principle of municipal law has beenevolved since that time, and the astonishing power of the Roman mind canonly be appreciated when it is remembered that the whole of this colossalfabric was original. Modern European law has been only a servile copy. But, regard being had to the position of the emperor in relation to thepeople, and more especially in relation to the vast bureaucracy of Rome, which was the embodiment of the vested interest which was Rome itself, theadherence of Roman thought to the path of least resistance was absolute. "So far as the cravings of Stoicism found historical and politicalfulfilment, they did so in the sixty years of Hadrian and the Antonines, and so far again as an individual can embody the spirit of an age, itshighest and most representative impersonation is unquestionably to befound in the person of Marcus Antoninus. . . . Stoicism faced the wholeproblem of existence, and devoted as searching an investigation toprocesses of being and of thought, to physics and to dialectic, as to themoral problems presented by the emotions and the will. " [Footnote:_Marcus Aurelius Antoninus_, in English, by Gerald H. Rendall, Introduction, xxvii. ]

Such was stoicism, of which Marcus Aurelius was and still remains theforemost expression. He admitted that as emperor his first duty was tosacrifice himself for the public and he did his duty with a constancywhich ultimately cost him his life. Among these duties was the great dutyof naming his successor. The Roman Empire never became strictlyhereditary. It hinged, as perhaps no other equally developed system everhinged, upon the personality of the emperor, who incarnated theadministrative bureaucracy which gave effect to the _Pax Romana_ andthe _Romana lex_ from the Euphrates to the Atlantic and from Scotlandto the Tropic of Cancer. Of all men Marcus Aurelius was the mostconscientious and the most sincere, and he understood, as perhaps no otherman in like position ever understood, the responsibility which impinged onhim, to allow no private prevention to impose an unfit emperor upon theempire But Marcus had a son Commodus, who was nineteen when his fatherdied, and who had already developed traits which caused foreboding. Nevertheless, Marcus associated Commodus with himself in the empire whenCommodus was fourteen and Commodus attained to absolute power when Marcusdied. Subsequently, Commodus became the epitome of all that was basest andworst in a ruler. He was murdered by the treachery of Marcia, his favoriteconcubine, and the Senate decreed that "his body should be dragged with ahook into the stripping room of the gladiators, to satiate the publicfury. " [Footnote: _Decline and Fall_, chap. Iv. ]

From that day Rome entered upon the acute stage of her decline, and shedid so very largely because Marcus Aurelius, the ideal stoic, wasincapable of violating the great law of nature which impelled him tofollow not reason, but the path of least resistance in choosing asuccessor; or, in other words, the instinct of heredity. Moreover, thisinstinct and not reason is or has been, among the strongest which operateupon men, and makes them automata. It is the basis upon which the familyrests, and the family is the essence of social cohesion. Also thehereditary instinct has been the prime motor which has createdconstructive municipal jurisprudence and which has evolved religion. 

With the death of Marcus Aurelius individual competition may be judged tohave done its work, and presently, as the population changed its characterunder the stress thereof, a new phase opened: a phase which is marked, assuch phases usually are, by victory in war. Marcus Aurelius died in 180A. D. Substantially a century later, in 312, Constantine won the battle ofthe Milvian Bridge with his troops fighting under the Labarum, a standardbearing a cross with the device "_In hoc signo vinces_"; By this signconquer. Probably Constantine had himself scanty faith in the Labarum, buthe speculated upon it as a means to arouse enthusiasm in his men. Itserved his purpose, and finding the step he had taken on the wholesatisfactory, he followed it up by accepting baptism in 337 A. D. 

From this time forward the theory of the possibility of securing divine orsupernatural aid by various forms of incantation or prayer gained steadilyin power for about eight centuries, until at length it became a passionand gave birth to a school of optimism, the most overwhelming and the mostbrilliant which the world has ever known and which evolved an age whoseend we still await. 

The Germans of the fourth century were a very simple race, whocomprehended little of natural laws, and who therefore referred phenomenathey did not understand to supernatural intervention. This interventioncould only be controlled by priests, and thus the invasions caused a rapidrise in the influence of the sacred class. The power of everyecclesiastical organization has always rested on the miracle, and theclergy have always proved their divine commission as did Moses. This waseminently the case with the mediæval Church. At the outset Christianitywas socialistic, and its spread among the poor was apparently caused bythe pressure of servile competition; for the sect only became of enoughimportance to be persecuted under Nero, contemporaneously with the firstsigns of distress which appeared through the debasement of the denarius. But socialism was only a passing phase, and disappeared as the money valueof the miracle rose, and brought wealth to the Church. Under the EmperorDecius, about 250, the magistrates thought the Christians opulent enoughto use gold and silver vessels in their service, and by the fourth centurythe supernatural so possessed the popular mind that Constantine, as wehave seen, not only allowed himself to be converted by a miracle, but usedenchantment as an engine of war. 

The action of the Milvian Bridge, fought in 312, by which Constantineestablished himself at Rome, was probably the point whence nature began todiscriminate decisively against the vested interest of Western Europe. Capital had already abandoned Italy; Christianity was soon afterofficially recognized, and during the next century the priest began torank with the soldier as a force in war. 

Meanwhile, as the population sank into exhaustion, it yielded less andless revenue, the police deteriorated, and the guards became unable toprotect the frontier. In 376, the Goths, hard pressed by the Huns, came tothe Danube and implored to be taken as subjects by the emperor. Aftermature deliberation the Council of Valens granted the prayer, and somefive hundred thousand Germans were cantoned in Moesia. The intention ofthe government was to scatter this multitude through the provinces as_coloni, _ or to draft them into the legions; but the detachment detailedto handle them was too feeble, the Goths mutinied, cut the guard topieces, and having ravaged Thrace for two years, defeated and killedValens at Hadrianople. In another generation the disorganization of theRoman army had become complete, and Alaric gave it its death-blow in hiscampaign of 410. 

Alaric was not a Gothic king, but a barbarian deserter, who, in 392, wasin the service of Theodosius. Subsequently he sometimes held imperialcommands, and sometimes led bands of marauders on his own account, but wasalways in difficulty about his pay. Finally, in the revolution in whichStilicho was murdered, a corps of auxiliaries mutinied and chose him theirgeneral. Alleging that his arrears were unpaid, Alaric accepted thecommand, and with this army sacked Rome. 

During the campaign the attitude of the Christians was more interestingthan the strategy of the soldiers. Alaric was a robber, leading mutineers, and yet the orthodox historians did not condemn him. They did not condemnhim because the sacred class instinctively loved the barbarians whom theycould overawe, whereas they could make little impression on thematerialistic intellect of the old centralized society. Under the empirethe priests, like all other individuals, had to obey the power which paidthe police; and as long as a revenue could be drawn from the provinces, the Christian hierarchy were subordinate to the monied bureaucracy who hadthe means to coerce them. 

Yet only very slowly, as the empire disintegrated, did the theocratic ideatake shape. As late as the ninth century the pope prostrated himselfbefore Charlemagne, and did homage as to a Roman emperor. [Footnote: Perz, _Annales Lauressenses_, I, 188. ]

Saint Benedict founded Monte Cassino in 529, but centuries elapsed beforethe Benedictine order rose to power. The early convents were isolated andfeeble, and much at the mercy of the laity, who invaded and debauchedthem. Abbots, like bishops, were often soldiers, who lived within thewalls with their wives and children, their hawks, their hounds, and theirmen-at-arms; and it has been said that, in all France, Corbie and Fleuryalone kept always something of their early discipline. 

Only in the early years of the most lurid century of the Middle Ages, whendecentralization culminated, and the imagination began to gain its fullestintensity, did the period of monastic consolidation open with thefoundation of Cluny. In 910 William of Aquitaine draw a charter [Footnote:Bruel, _Recueil des Chartes de l'Abbaye de Cluny_, I, 124. ] which, sofar as possible, provided for the complete independence of his newcorporation. There was no episcopal visitation, and no interference withthe election of the abbot. The monks were put directly under theprotection of the pope, who was made their sole superior. John XIconfirmed this charter by his bull of 932, and authorized the affiliationof all converts who wished to share in the reform. [Footnote: _Bull. Clun. _ p. 2, col. 1. Also Luchaire, _Manuel des Institutions Françaises_, 93, 95, where the authorities are collected. ]

The growth of Cluny was marvellous; by the twelfth century two thousandhouses obeyed its rule, and its wealth was so great, and its buildings sovast, that in 1245 Innocent IV, the Emperor Baldwin, and Saint Louis wereall lodged together within its walls, and with them all the attendanttrains of prelates and nobles with their servants. 

In the eleventh century no other force of equal energy existed. The monkswere the most opulent, the ablest, and the best organized society inEurope, and their effect upon mankind was proportioned to their strength. They intuitively sought autocratic power, and during the centuries whennature favored them, they passed from triumph to triumph. They firstseized upon the papacy and made it self-perpetuating; they then gavebattle to the laity for the possession of the secular hierarchy, which hadbeen under temporal control since the very foundation of the Church. 

According to the picturesque legend, Bruno, Bishop of Toul, seduced by theflattery of courtiers and the allurements of ambition, accepted the tiarafrom the emperor, and set out upon his journey to Italy with a splendidretinue, and with his robe and crown. On his way he turned aside at Cluny, where Hildebrand was prior. Hildebrand, filled with the spirit of God, reproached him with having seized upon the seat of the vicar of Christ byforce, and accepted the holy office from the sacrilegious hand of alayman. He exhorted Bruno to cast away his pomp, and to cross the Alpshumbly as a pilgrim, assuring him that the priests and people of Romewould recognize him as their bishop, and elect him according to canonicalforms. Then he would taste the joys of a pure conscience, having enteredthe fold of Christ as a shepherd and not as a robber. Inspired by thesewords, Bruno dismissed his train, and left the convent gate as a pilgrim. He walked barefoot, and when after two months of pious meditations hestood before Saint Peter's, he spoke to the people and told them it wastheir privilege to elect the pope, and since he had come unwillingly hewould return again, were he not their choice. 

He was answered with acclamations, and on February 2, 1049, he wasenthroned as Leo IX. His first act was to make Hildebrand his minister. 

The legend tells of the triumph of Cluny as no historical facts could do. Ten years later, in the reign of Nicholas II, the theocracy made itselfself-perpetuating through the assumption of the election of the pope bythe college of cardinals, and in 1073 Hildebrand, the incarnation ofmonasticism, was crowned under the name of Gregory VII. 

With Hildebrand's election, war began. The Council of Rome, held in 1075, decreed that holy orders should not be recognized where investiture hadbeen granted by a layman, and that princes guilty of conferringinvestiture should be excommunicated. The Council of the next year, whichexcommunicated the emperor, also enunciated the famous propositions ofBaronius--the full expression of the theocratic idea. The priest had grownto be a god on earth. 

"So strong in this confidence, for the honour and defence of your Church, on behalf of the omnipotent God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, by your power and authority, I forbid the government of the German andItalian kingdoms, to King Henry, the son of the Emperor Henry, who, withunheard-of arrogance, has rebelled against your Church. I absolve allChristians from the oaths they have made or may make to him, and I forbidthat any one should obey him as king. " [Footnote: Migne, CXLVIII, 790. ]

Henry marched on Italy, but in all European history there has been nodrama more tremendous than the expiation of his sacrilege. To his soldiersthe world was a vast space, peopled by those fantastic beings which arestill seen on Gothic towers. These demons obeyed the monk of Rome, and hisarmy, melting from about the emperor under a nameless horror, left himhelpless. 

Gregory lay like a magician in the fortress of Canossa: but he had no needof carnal weapons, for when the emperor reached the Alps he was almostalone. Then his imagination also took fire, the panic seized him, and hesued for mercy. 

On August 7, 1106, Henry died at Liège, an outcast and a mendicant, andfor five long years his body lay at the church door, an accursed thingwhich no man dared to bury. 

Gregory prevailed because, to the understanding of the eleventh century, the evidence at hand indicated that he embodied in a high degree theinfinite energy. The eleventh century was intensely imaginative and theevidence which appealed to it was those phenomena of trance, hypnotism, and catalepsy which are as mysterious now as they were then, but whoseeffect was then to create an overpowering demand for miracle-workingsubstances. The sale of these substances gradually drew the larger portionof the wealth of the community into the hands of the clergy, and withwealth went temporal power. No vested interest in any progressivecommunity has probably ever been relatively stronger, for the Church foundno difficulty, when embarrassed, in establishing and operating a thoroughsystem for exterminating her critics. 

Under such a pressure modern civilization must have sunk into some form ofcaste had the mediæval mind resembled any antecedent mind, but the middleage, though superficially imaginative, was fundamentally materialistic, asthe history of the crusades showed. 

At Canossa the laity conceded as a probable hypothesis that the Churchcould miraculously control nature; but they insisted that if the Churchpossessed such power, she must use that power for the common good. Uponthis point they would not compromise, nor would they permit delay. Duringthe chaos of the ninth century turmoil and violence reached a stage atwhich the aspirations of most Christians ended with self-preservation; butwhen the discovery and working of the Harz silver had brought with it somesemblance of order, an intense yearning possessed both men and women toameliorate their lot. If relics could give protection against oppression, disease, famine, and death, then relics must be obtained, and, if thecross and the tomb were the most effective relics, then the cross and thetomb must be conquered at any cost. In the north of Europe especially, misery was so acute that the people gladly left their homes upon theslenderest promise of betterment, even following a vagrant like Peter theHermit, who was neither soldier nor priest. There is a passage in Williamof Tyre which has been often quoted to explain a frenzy which is otherwiseinexplicable, and in the old English of Caxton the words still glow withthe same agony which makes lurid the supplication of the litany, --"Frombattle and murder, and from sudden death, Good Lord deliver us":

"Of charyte men spack not, debates, discordes, and warres were nyheoueral, in suche wyse, that it seemed, that thende of the world was nyghe, by the signes that our lord sayth in the gospell, ffor pestylences andfamynes were grete on therthe, ferdfulness of heuen, tremblyng of therthein many places, and many other thinges there were that ought to fere thehertes of men. . . . 

"The prynces and the barons brente and destroyed the contrees of theyrneyghbours, yf ony man had saved ony thynge in theyr kepyng, theyr ownelordes toke them and put them in prison and in greuous tormentis, for totake fro them suche as they had, in suche qyse that the chyldren of themthat had ben riche men, men myght see them goo fro dore to dore, for tobegge and gete theyr brede, and some deye for hungre and mesease. "[Footnote: Godeffroy of Bologne, by William, Archbishop of Tyre, translated from the French by William Caxton, London, 1893, 21, 22. ]

Throughout the eleventh century the excitement touching the virtues of theholy places in Judea grew, until Gregory VII, about the time of Canossa, perceived that a paroxysm was at hand, and considered leading it, but onthe whole nothing is so suggestive of the latent scepticism of the age asthe irresolution of the popes at this supreme moment. The laity were thepilgrims and the agitators. The kings sought the relics and took thecross; the clergy hung back. Robert, Duke of Normandy, for example, thefather of William the Conqueror, died in 1035 from hardship at Nicæa whenreturning from Palestine, absorbed to the last in the relics which he hadcollected, but the popes stayed at home. Whatever they may have said inprivate, neither Hildebrand nor Victor nor Urban moved officially untilthey were swept forward by the torrent. They shunned responsibility for awar which they would have passionately promoted had they been sure ofvictory. The man who finally kindled the conflagration was a half-madfanatic, a stranger to the hierarchy. No one knew the family of Peter theHermit, or whence he came, but he certainly was not an ecclesiastic ingood standing. Inflamed by fasting and penance, Peter followed the throngof pilgrims to Jerusalem, and there, wrought upon by what he saw, hesought the patriarch. Peter asked the patriarch if nothing could be doneto protect the pilgrims, and to retrieve the Holy Places. The patriarchreplied, "Nothing, unless God will touch the heart of the western princes, and will send them to succor the Holy City. " The patriarch did not proposemeddling himself, nor did it occur to him that the pope should intervene. He took a rationalistic view of the Moslem military power. Peter, on thecontrary, was logical, arguing from eleventh-century premises. If he couldbut receive a divine mandate, he would raise an invincible army. Heprayed. His prayer was answered. One day while prostrated before thesepulchre he heard Christ charge him to announce in Europe that theappointed hour had come. Furnished with letters from the patriarch, Peterstraightway embarked for Rome to obtain Urban's sanction for his design. Urban listened and gave a consent which he could not prudently havewithheld, but he abstained from participating in the propaganda. In March, 1095, Urban called a Council at Piacenza, nominally to consider thedeliverance of Jerusalem, and this Council was attended by thirty thousandimpatient laymen, only waiting for the word to take the vow, but the popedid nothing. Even at Clermont eight months later, he showed a dispositionto deal with private war, or church discipline, or with anything in factrather than with the one engrossing question of the day, but this timethere was no escape. A vast multitude of determined men filled not onlyClermont but the adjacent towns and villages, even sleeping in the fields, although the weather was bitterly cold, who demanded to know the policy ofthe Church. Urban seems to have procrastinated as long as he safely could, but, at length, at the tenth session, he produced Peter on the platform, clad as a pilgrim, and, after Peter had spoken, he proclaimed the war. Urban declined, however, to command the army. The only effective forcewhich marched was a body of laymen, organized and led by laymen, who in1099 carried Jerusalem by an ordinary assault. In Jerusalem they found thecross and the sepulchre, and with these relics as the foundation of theirpower, the laity began an experiment which lasted eighty-eight years, ending in 1187 with the battle of Tiberias. At Tiberias the infidelsdefeated the Christians, captured their king and their cross, and shortlyafterward seized the tomb. 

If the eleventh-century mind had been as rigid as the Roman mind of thefirst century, mediæval civilization could hardly, after the collapse ofthe crusades, have failed to degenerate as Roman civilization degeneratedafter the defeat of Varus. Being more elastic, it began, under anincreased tension, to develop new phases of thought. The effort was indeedprodigious and the absolute movement possibly slow, but a change ofintellectual attitude may be detected almost contemporaneously with thefall of the Latin kingdom in Palestine. It is doubtless true that thethirteenth century was the century in which imaginative thought reachedits highest brilliancy, when Albertus Magnus and Saint Thomas Aquinastaught, when Saint Francis and Saint Clara lived, and when Thomas ofCelano wrote the _Dies Iræ_. It was then that Gothic architecture touchedits climax in the cathedrals of Chartres and Amiens, of Bourges and ofParis; it was then also that Blanche of Castile ruled in France and thatSaint Louis bought the crown of thorns, but it is equally true that thedeath of Saint Louis occurred in 1270, shortly after the thoroughorganization of the Inquisition by Innocent IV in 1252, and within twoyears or so of the production by Roger Bacon of his _Opus Majus_. 

The establishment of the Inquisition is decisive, because it proves thatsceptical thought had been spread far enough to goad the Church to generaland systematic repression, while the _Opus Majus_ is a scientificexposition of the method by which the sceptical mind is trained. 

Roger Bacon was born about 1214, and going early to Oxford fell under theinfluence of the most liberal teachers in Europe, at whose head stoodRobert Grosseteste, afterward Bishop of Lincoln. Bacon conceived aveneration for Grosseteste, and even for Adam de Marisco his disciple, andturning toward mathematics rather than toward metaphysics he eagerlyapplied himself, when he went to Paris, to astrology and alchemy, whichwere the progenitors of the modern exact sciences. In the thirteenthcentury a young man like Bacon could hardly stand alone, and Bacon joinedthe Franciscans, but before many years elapsed he embroiled himself withhis superiors. His friend, Grosseteste, died in 1253, the year afterInnocent IV issued the bull _Ad extirpanda_ establishing theInquisition, and Bacon felt the consequences. The general of his order, Saint Bonaventura, withdrew him from Oxford where he was prominent, andimmured him in a Parisian convent, treating him rigorously, as Baconintimated to Pope Clement IV. There he remained, silenced, for some tenyears, until the election of Clement IV, in 1265. Bacon at once wrote toClement complaining of his imprisonment, and deploring to the pope theplight into which scientific education had fallen. The pope replieddirecting Bacon to explain his views in a treatise, but did not order hisrelease. In response Bacon composed the _Opus Majus_. 

The _Opus Majus_ deals among other things with experimental science, and in the introductory chapter to the sixth part Bacon stated the theoryof inductive thought quite as lucidly as did Francis Bacon three and ahalf centuries later in the _Novum Organum_. [Footnote: Positis radicibussapientiae Latinorum penes Linguas et Mathematicam et Perspectivam, nuncvolo revolvere radices a parte Scientiae Experimentalis, quia sineexperientia nihil sufficienter scire protest. Duo enim simt modicognoscendi, scilicet per argumentum et experimentum. Argumentum concluditet facit nos concedere conclusionem, sed non certificat neque removetdubitationem ut quiescat animus in intuitu veritatis, nisi eam inveniatvia experientiae; quia multi habent argumenta ad scibilia, sed quia nonhabent experientiam, negligunt ea, nee vitant nociva nex persequuntuebona. J. H. Bridges, _The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon_ (Oxford, 1897), II, 167. ]

Clement died in 1268. The papacy remained vacant for a couple of years, but in 1271 Gregory X came in on a conservative reaction. Bacon passedmost of the rest of his life in prison, perhaps through his ownungovernable temper, and ostensibly his writings seem to have had littleor no effect on his contemporaries, yet it is certain that he was not anisolated specimen of a type of intelligence which suddenly bloomed duringthe Reformation. Bacon constantly spoke of his friends, but his friendsevidently did not share his temperament. The scientific man has seldomrelished martyrdom, and Galileo's experience as late as 1633 shows whatrisks men of science ran who even indirectly attacked the vested interestsof the Church. After the middle of the thirteenth century the danger wasreal enough to account for any degree of secretiveness, and a strikingcase of this timidity is related by Bacon himself. No one knows even thename of the man to whom Bacon referred as "Master Peter, " but according toBacon, "Master Peter" was the greatest and most original genius of theage, only he shunned publicity. The "Dominus experimentorum, " as Baconcalled him, lived in a safe retreat and devoted himself to mathematics, chemistry, and the mechanical arts with such success that, Bacon insisted, he could by his inventions have aided Saint Louis in his crusade more thanhis whole army. [Footnote: Émile Charles, _Roger Bacon. Sa vie et sesouvrages_, 17. ] Nor is this assertion altogether fantastic. Baconunderstood the formula for gunpowder, and if Saint Louis had been providedwith even a poor explosive he might have taken Cairo; not to speak of theterror which Greek fire always inspired. Saint Louis met his decisivedefeat in a naval battle fought in 1250, for the command of the Nile, bywhich he drew supplies from Damietta, and he met it, according to MatthewParis, because his ships could not withstand Greek fire. Gunpowder, evenin a very simple form, might have changed the fate of the war. 

Scepticism touching the value of relics as a means for controlling naturewas an effect of experiment, and, logically enough, scepticism advancedfastest among certain ecclesiastics who dealt in relics. For example, in1248 Saint Louis undertook to invade Egypt in defence of the cross. Possibly Saint Louis may have been affected by economic considerationsalso touching the eastern trade, but his ostensible object was a crusade. The risk was very great, the cost enormous, and the responsibility theking assumed of the most serious kind. Nothing that he could do was leftundone to ensure success. In 1249 he captured Damietta, and then stood inneed of every pound of money and of every man that Christendom couldraise; yet at this crisis the Church thought chiefly of making what itcould in cash out of the war, the inference being that the hierarchysuspected that even if Saint Louis prevailed and occupied Jerusalem, little would be gained from an ecclesiastical standpoint. At all events, Matthew Paris has left an account, in his chronicle of the year 1249, ofhow the pope and the Franciscans preached this crusade, which is one ofthe most suggestive passages in thirteenth-century literature:

"About the same time, by command of the pope, whom they obeyed implicitly, the Preacher and Minorite brethren diligently employed themselves inpreaching; and to increase the devotion of the Christians, they went withgreat solemnity to the places where their preaching was previouslyindicated, and granted many days of indulgence to those who came to hearthem. . . . Preaching on behalf of the cross, they bestowed that symbol onpeople of every age, sex and rank, whatever their property or worth, andeven on sick men and women, and those who were deprived of strength bysickness or old age; and on the next day, or even directly afterwards, receiving it back from them, they absolved them from their vow ofpilgrimage, for whatever sum they could obtain for the favour. What seemedunsuitable and absurd was, that not many days afterwards, Earl Richardcollected all this money in his treasury, by the agency of Master Bernard, an Italian clerk, who gathered in the fruit; whereby no slight scandalarose in the Church of God, and amongst the people in general, and thedevotion of the faithful evidently cooled. " [Footnote: Matthew Paris, _English History_, translated by the Rev. J. A, Giles, II, 309. ]

When the unfortunate Baldwin II became Emperor of the East in 1237, therelics of the passion were his best asset. In 1238, while Baldwin was inFrance trying to obtain aid, the French barons who carried on thegovernment at Constantinople in his absence were obliged to pledge thecrown of thorns to an Italian syndicate for 13, 134 perpera, which Gibbonconjectures to have been besants. Baldwin was notified of the pledge andurged to arrange for its redemption. He met with no difficulty. Heconfidently addressed himself to Saint Louis and Queen Blanche, and"Although the king felt keen displeasure at the deplorable condition ofConstantinople, he was well pleased, nevertheless, with the opportunity ofadorning France with the richest and most precious treasure in allChristendom. " More especially with "a relic, and a sacred object which wasnot on the commercial market. " [Footnote: Du Cange, _Histoire de L'empirede Constantinople sous les empereurs Français_, edition de Buchon, I, 259. ]

Louis, beside paying the loan and the cost of transportation which came totwo thousand French pounds (the mark being then coined into £2, 15 sousand 6 pence), made Baldwin a present of ten thousand pounds for acting asbroker. Baldwin was so well contented with this sale which he closed in1239, that a couple of years later he sent to Paris all the contents ofhis private chapel which had any value. Part of the treasure was afragment of what purported to be the cross, but the authenticity of thisrelic was doubtful; there was beside, however, the baby linen, the spear-head, the sponge, and the chain, beside several miscellaneous articleslike the rod of Moses. 

Louis built the Sainte Chapelle at a cost of twenty thousand marks as ashrine in which to deposit them. The Sainte Chapelle has usually ranked asthe most absolutely perfect specimen of mediaeval religious architecture. [Footnote: On this whole subject of the inter-relation of mediævaltheology with architecture and philosophy the reader is referred to_Mont-Saint-Michel et Chartres_, by Henry Adams, which is the mostphilosophical and thorough exposition of this subject which ever has beenattempted. ]

When Saint Louis bought the Crown of Thorns from Baldwin in 1239, thecommercial value of relics may, possibly, be said to have touched itshighest point, but, in fact, the adoration of them had culminated with thecollapse of the Second Crusade, and in another century and a half themarket had decisively broken and the Reformation had already begun, withthe advent of Wycliffe and the outbreak of Wat Tyler's Rebellion in 1381. For these social movements have always a common cause and reach apredetermined result. 

In the eleventh century the convent of Cluny, for example, had an enormousand a perfectly justified hold upon the popular imagination, because ofthe sanctity and unselfishness of its abbots. Saint Hugh won his sainthoodby a self-denial and effort which were impossible to ordinary men, butwith Louis IX the penitential life had already lost its attractions andmen like Arnold rapidly brought religion and religious thought intocontempt. The famous Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, born, probably, in1175, died in 1253. He presided over the diocese of Lincoln at the precisemoment when Saint Louis was building the Sainte Chapelle, but Grossetestein 1250 denounced in a sermon at Lyons the scandals of the papal courtwith a ferocity which hardly was surpassed at any later day. 

To attempt even an abstract of the thought of the English Reformationwould lead too far, however fascinating the subject might be. It mustsuffice to say briefly that theology had little or nothing to do with it. Wycliffe denounced the friars as lazy, profligate impostors, who wrungmoney from the poor which they afterwards squandered in ways offensive toGod, and he would have stultified himself had he admitted, in the samebreath, that these reprobates, when united, formed a divinely illuminatedcorporation, each member of which could and did work innumerable miraclesthrough the interposition of Christ. Ordinary miracles, indeed, could betested by the senses, but the essence of transubstantiation was that iteluded the senses. Thus nothing could be more convenient to the governmentthan to make this invisible and intangible necromancy a test in capitalcases for heresy-Hence Wycliffe had no alternative but to denytransubstantiation, for nothing could be more insulting to theintelligence than to adore a morsel of bread which a priest held in hishand. The pretension of the priests to make the flesh of Christ was, according to Wycliffe, an impudent fraud, and their pretension to possessthis power was only an excuse by which they enforced their claim tocollect fees, and what amounted to extortionate taxes, from the people. [Footnote: Nowhere, perhaps, does Wycliffe express himself more stronglyon this subject than in a little tract called _The Wicket_, writtenin English, which he issued for popular consumption about this time. ] But, in the main, no dogma, however incomprehensible, ever troubledProtestants, as a class. They easily accepted the Trinity, the doubleprocession, or the Holy Ghost itself, though no one had the slightestnotion what the Holy Ghost might be. Wycliffe roundly declared in thefirst paragraph of his confession [Footnote: Fasciculi Zizaniorum, 115. ]that the body of Christ which was crucified was truly and really in theconsecrated host, and Huss, who inherited the Wycliffian tradition, answered before the Council of Constance, "Verily, I do think that thebody of Christ is really and totally in the sacrament of the altar, whichwas born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, and rose again, and sittethon the right hand of God the Father Almighty. " [Footnote: Foxe, _Actsand Monuments_, III, 452. ] That which has rent society in twain and hascaused blood to flow like water, has never been abstract opinions, butthat economic competition either between states or classes, that lust forpower and wealth, which makes a vested interest. Thus by 1382 theeucharist had come to represent to the privileged classes power andwealth, and they would have repudiated Wycliffe even had they felt strongenough to support him. But they were threatened by an adversary equallyformidable with heresy in the person of the villeins whom the constantlyincreasing momentum of the time had raised into a position in which theyundertook to compete for the ownership of the land which they still tilledas technical serfs. 

CHAPTER III. 

Now the courts may say what they will in support of the vested interests, for to support vested interests is what lawyers are paid for and whatcourts are made for. Only, unhappily, in the process of argument courtsand lawyers have caused blood to flow copiously, for in spite of all thatcan be said to the contrary, men have practically proved that they do ownall the property they can defend, all the courts in Christendomnotwithstanding, and this is an issue of physical force and not at all ofwords or of parchments. And so it proved to be in England in thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries, alike in Church and State. It was amatter of rather slow development. After the conquest villeins couldneither in fact nor theory acquire or hold property as against their lord, and the class of landlords stretched upwards from the owner of a knight'sfee to the king on his throne, who was the chief landlord of all, but byso narrow a margin that he often had enough to do to maintain some vestigeof sovereignty. So, to help himself, it came to pass that the kingintrigued with the serfs against their restive masters, and the abler theking, the more he intrigued, like Henry I, until the villeins gained verysubstantial advantages. Thus it was that toward 1215, or pretty nearlycontemporaneously with the epoch when men like Grosseteste began to showrestlessness under the extortionate corruption of the Church, the villeinwas discovered to be able to defend his claim to some portion of theincrement in the value of the land which he tilled and which was due tohis labor: and this title the manorial courts recognized, because theycould not help it, as a sort of tenant right, calling it a customarytenancy by base service. A century later these services in kind had beenpretty frequently commuted into a fixed rent paid in money, and the serfhad become a freeman, and a rather formidable freeman, too. For it waslargely from among these technical serfs that Edward III recruited theinfantry who formed his line at Crécy in 1346, and the archers of Crécywere not exactly the sort of men who take kindly to eviction, to saynothing of slavery. As no one meddled much with the villeins before 1349, all went well until after Crécy, but in 1348 the Black Death ravagedEngland, and so many laborers died that the cost of farming property byhired hands exceeded the value of the rent which the villeins paid. Thenthe landlords, under the usual reactionary and dangerous legal advice, tried coercion. Their first experiment was the famous Statute of Laborers, which fixed wages at the rates which prevailed in 1347, but as thisstatute accomplished nothing the landlords repudiated their contracts, andundertook to force their villeins to render their ancient customaryservices. Though the lay landlords were often hard masters, theecclesiastics, especially the monks, were harder still, and theecclesiastics were served by lawyers of their own cloth, whose sharppractice became proverbial. Thus the law declined to recognize rights inproperty existing in fact, with the inevitable result of the peasantrising in 1381, known as Wat Tyler's Rebellion. Popular rage perfectlylogically ran highest against the monks and the lawyers. Both theArchbishop of Canterbury, Simon de Sudbury, the Lord Chancellor, and theChief Justice were killed, and the insurgents wished to kill, as Capgravehas related, "all the men that had learned ony law. " Finally the rebellionwas suppressed, chiefly by the duplicity of Richard II. Richard promisedthe people, by written charters, a permanent tenure as freemen atreasonable rents, and so induced them to go home with his charters intheir hands; but they were no sooner gone than vengeance began. ThoughRichard had been at the peasants' mercy, who might have killed him hadthey wished, punitive expeditions were sent in various directions. One wasled by Richard himself, who travelled with Tresilian, the new ChiefJustice, the man who afterward was himself hanged at Tyburn. Tresilianworked so well that he is said to have strung up a dozen villeins to asingle beam in Chelmsford because he had no time to have them executedregularly. Stubbs has estimated that seven thousand victims hardlysatisfied the landlords' sense of outraged justice. What concerns us, chiefly, is that this repression, however savage, failed altogether tobring tranquillity. After 1381 a full century of social chaos supervened, merging at times into actual civil war, until, in 1485, Henry Tudor camein after his victory at Bosworth, pledged to destroy the whole reactionaryclass which incarnated feudalism. For the feudal soldier was neitherflexible nor astute, and allowed himself to be caught between the upperand the nether millstone. While industrial and commercial capital had beenincreasing in the towns, capitalistic methods of farming had invaded thecountry, and, as police improved, private and predatory warfare, as abusiness, could no longer be made to pay. The importance of a feudal noblelay in the body of retainers who followed his banner, and therefore thefeudal tendency always was to overcharge the estate with militaryexpenditure. Hence, to protect themselves from creditors, the landlordspassed the Statute _De Donis_ [Footnote: 13 Edw. I, c. I (A. D. 1284). ] which made entails inalienable. Toward the end of the Wars of theRoses, however, the pressure for money, which could only be raised bypledging their land, became too strong for the feudal aristocracy. EdwardIV, who was a very able man, perceived, pretty early in his reign, thathis class could not maintain themselves unless their land were put upon acommercial basis. Therefore he encouraged the judges, in the collusivelitigation known to us as Taltarum's Case, decided in 1472, to set asidethe Statute _De Donis_, by the fiction of the Common Recovery. Theconcession, even so, came too late. The combination against them had growntoo strong for the soldiers to resist. Other classes evolved bycompetition wanted their property, and these made Henry Tudor king ofEngland to seize it for them. 

Henry's work was simple enough. After Bosworth, with a competent policeforce at hand to execute process, he had only to organize a politicalcourt, and to ruin by confiscatory fines all the families strong enough, or rash enough, to maintain garrisoned houses. So Henry remodelled theStar Chamber, in 1486, [Footnote: 3 Henry 7, C 1. ] to deal with themartial gentry, and before long a new type of intelligence possessed thekingdom. 

The feudal soldiers being disposed of, it remained to evict the monks, whowere thus left without their natural defenders. No matter of faith wasinvolved. Henry VIII boasted that in doctrine he was as orthodox as thepope. There was, however, an enormous monastic landed property to beredistributed This was confiscated, and appropriated, not to publicpurposes, but, as usually happens in revolutions, to the use of theastutest of the revolutionists. Among these, John Russell, afterward Earlof Bedford, stood preeminent. Russell had no particular pedigree orgenius, save the acquisitive genius, but he made himself useful to Henryin such judicial murders as that of Richard Whiting, Abbot of Glastonbury. He received in payment, among much else, Woburn Abbey, which has sinceremained the Bedford country seat, and Covent Garden or Convent Garden, one of the most valuable parcels of real estate in London. Covent Gardenthe present duke recently sold, anticipating, perhaps, some suchlegislation as ruined the monks and made his ancestor's fortune. As forthe monks whom Henry evicted, they wandered forth from their homesbeggars, and Henry hanged all of them whom he could catch as vagrants. Howmany perished as counterpoise for the peasant massacres and Lollardburnings of the foregoing two centuries can never be known, nor to us isit material. What is essential to mark, from the legal standpoint, is thatwhile this long and bloody revolution, of one hundred and fifty years, displaced a favored class and confiscated its property, it raised up intheir stead another class of land monopolists, rather more greedy andcertainly quite as cruel as those whom they superseded. Also, in spite ofall opposition, labor did make good its claim to participate more or lessfully in the ownership of the property it cultivated, for while theholding of the ancient villein grew to be well recognized in the royalcourts as a copyhold estate, villeinage itself disappeared. 

Yet, unless I profoundly err, in the revolution of the sixteenth century, the law somewhat conspicuously failed in its function of moderatingcompetition, for I am persuaded that competition of another kindsharpened, and shortly caused a second civil war bloodier than the Wars ofthe Roses. 

Fifteen years before the convents were seized, Sir Thomas More wrote_Utopia_, in whose opening chapter More has given an account of adinner at Cardinal Morton's, who, by the way, presided in the StarChamber. At this dinner one of the cardinal's guests reflected on thethievish propensities of Englishmen, who were to be found throughout thecountry hanged as felons, sometimes twenty together on a single gallows. More protested that this was not the fault of the poor who were hanged, but of rich land monopolists, who pastured sheep and left no fields fortillage. According to More, these capitalists plucked down houses and eventowns, leaving nothing but the church for a sheep-house, so that "by covinand fraud, or by violent oppression, . . . Or by wrongs and injuries, " thehusbandmen "be thrust out of their own, " and, "must needs depart away, poor, wretched souls, men, women, husbands, wives, fatherless children, widows. " The dissolution of the convents accelerated the process, and moreand more of the weaker yeomanry were ruined and evicted. It isdemonstrated that the pauperization of the feebler rural population wenton apace by the passage of poor-laws under Elizabeth, which, in the MiddleAges, had not been needed and, therefore, were unknown. This movement, described by More, was the beginning of the system of enclosing commonlands which afterward wrought havoc among the English yeomen, and which, Isuppose, contributed more than any other single cause to the GreatRebellion of the seventeenth century. In the mediæval village the ownersof small farms enjoyed certain rights in the common land of the community, affording them pasturage for their cattle and the like, rights withoutwhich small farming could not be made profitable. These commons the landmonopolists appropriated, sometimes giving some shadow of compensation, sometimes by undisguised force, but on the whole compensation amounted toso little that the enclosure of the commons must rank as confiscation. Also this seizure of property would doubtless have caused a convulsion aslasting as that which followed the insurrection of 1381, or as didactually occur in Ireland, had it not been for an unparalleledcontemporaneous territorial and industrial expansion. Thorold Rogersalways insisted that between 1563, the year of the passage of the Statuteof Apprentices, [Footnote: 5 Eliz. C. 4. ] and 1824, a regular conspiracyexisted between the lawyers "and the parties interested in its success . . . To cheat the English workman of his wages, . . . And to degrade him toirremediable poverty. " [Footnote: _Work and Wages_, 398. ] Certainlythe land monopolists resorted to strong measures to accumulate land, forsomething like six hundred and fifty Enclosure Acts were passed between1760, the opening of the Industrial Revolution, and 1774, the outbreak ofthe American War. But without insisting on Rogers's view, it is not deniedthat the weakest of the small yeomen sank into utter misery, becomingpaupers or worse. On the other hand, of those stronger some emigrated toAmerica, others, who were among the ablest and the boldest, sought fortuneas adventurers over the whole earth, and, like the grandfather of Chatham, brought home from India as smugglers or even as pirates, diamonds to besold to kings for their crowns, or, like Clive, became the greatestgenerals and administrators of the nation. Probably, however, by far themajority of those who were of average capacity found compensation for theconfiscated commons in domestic industry, owning their houses with lots ofland and the tools of their trade. Defoe has left a charming descriptionof the region about Halifax in Yorkshire, toward the year 1730, where hefound the whole population busy, prosperous, healthy, and, in the main, self-sufficing. He did not see a beggar or an idle person in the wholecountry. So, favored by circumstances, the landed oligarchy met with noeffective resistance after the death of Cromwell, and achieved whatamounted to being autocratic power in 1688. Their great triumph was theconversion of the House of Commons into their own personal property, aboutthe beginning of the eighteenth century, with all the guaranties of law. In the Middle Ages the chief towns of England had been summoned by theking to send burgesses to Westminster to grant him money, but as timeelapsed the Commons acquired influence and, in 1642, became dominant. Then, after the Restoration, the landlords conceived the idea ofappropriating the right of representation, as they had appropriated andwere appropriating the common lands. Lord John Russell one day observed inthe House of Commons that the burgesses were originally chosen from amongthe inhabitants of the towns they represented, but that, in the reign ofAnne, the landlords, to depress the shipping interest, opened the boroughrepresentation to all qualified persons without regard to domicile. [Footnote: 36 Hansard, Third Series, 548. ] Lord John was mistaken in hisdate, for the change occurred earlier, but he described correctly enoughthe persistent animus of the landlords. An important part of their policyturned on the so-called Determination Acts of 1696 and 1729, which definedthe franchises and which had the effect of confirming the titles ofpatrons to borough property, [Footnote: Porritt, _Unreformed House ofCommons_, I, 9, _et seq. _] thus making a seat in the House ofCommons an incorporeal hereditament fully recognized by law. On this pointso high an authority as Lord Eldon was emphatic. [Footnote: 12 Hansard, Third Series, 396. ] By the time of the American War the oligarchy hadbecome so narrow that one hundred and fifty-four peers and commonersreturned three hundred and seven members, or much more than a majority ofthe House as then organized. [Footnote: Grey's motion for Reform, 30_Parl. Hist. _ 795 (A. D. 1793)] With the privileged class reduced tothese contemptible numbers a catastrophe necessarily followed. Almostimpregnable as the position of the oligarchy appeared, it yet had itsvulnerable point. As Burke told the Duke of Portland, a duke's power didnot come from his title, but from his wealth, and the landlords' wealthrested on their ability to draw a double rent from their estates, one rentfor themselves, and another to provide for the farmer to whom they lettheir acres. Evidently British land could not bear this burden if broughtin competition with other equally good land that paid only a single rent, and from a pretty early period the landlords appear to have been alive tothis fact. Nevertheless, ocean freights afforded a fair protection, and aslong as the industrial population remained tolerably self-supporting, England rather tended to export than to import grain. But toward 1760advances in applied science profoundly modified the equilibrium of Englishsociety. The new inventions, stimulated by steam, could only be utilizedby costly machinery installed in large factories, which none butconsiderable capitalists could build, but once in operation the product ofthese factories undersold domestic labor, and ruined and evicted thepopulation of whole regions like Halifax. These unfortunate laborers werethrust in abject destitution into filthy and dark alleys in cities, wherethey herded in masses, in misery and crime. In consequence grain rose invalue, so much so that in 1766 prayers were offered touching its price. Thenceforward England imported largely from America, and in 1773Parliament was constrained to reduce the duty on wheat to a point lowerthan the gentry conceded again, until the total repeal of the Corn Laws in1846. [Footnote: John Morley, _The Life of Richard Cobden_, 167, note5. ] The situation was well understood in London. Burke, Governor Pownall, and others explained it in Parliament, while Chatham implored thelandlords not to alienate America, which they could not, he told them, conquer, but which gave them a necessary market, --a market as he aptlysaid, both of supply and demand. And Chatham was right, for America notonly supplied the grain to feed English labor, but bought from England atleast one third of all her surplus manufactures. 

This brings us to the eighteenth century, which directly concerns us, because the religious superstition, which had previously caused men toseek in a conscious supreme energy the effective motor in human affairs, had waned, and the problem presented was reduced to the operation of thatacceleration of movement by the progress of applied science which alwayshas been, and always must be, the prime cause of the quickening ofeconomic competition either as between communities or as betweenindividuals. And this is the capital phenomenon of civilization. For it isnow generally admitted that war is nothing but economic competition in itsacutest form. When competition reaches a certain intensity it kindles intowar or revolution, precisely as when iron is raised to a certain heat itkindles into flame. And, for the purposes of illustration, possibly thebest method of showing how competition was quickened, and how it affectedadjacent communities during the eighteenth century, is to take navigation, not only because navigation was much improved during the first threequarters of that period, but because both England and France competed forcontrol in America by means of ships. It suffices to mention, verysuccinctly, a few of the more salient advances which were then made. 

Toward 1761 John Harrison produced the chronometer, by which longitudecould be determined at sea, making the ship independent in all parts ofthe world. At the same time more ingenious rigging increased her power ofworking to windward. With such advantages Captain Cook became a mightydiscoverer both in the southern and western oceans, charted New Zealandand much else, and more important than all, in 1759 he surveyed the SaintLawrence and piloted ships up the river, of which he had established thechannel. Speaking of Cook naturally leads to the solution of the problemof the transportation of men, sailors, soldiers, and emigrants, on longvoyages, thereby making population fluid. Cook, in his famous report, readbefore the Royal Society in March, 1776, after his second voyage, established forever the hygienic principles by observing which a ship'scompany may safely be kept at sea for any length of time. Previously therehad always been a very high mortality from scurvy and kindred diseases, which had, of course, operated as a very serious check to human movement. On land the same class of phenomena were even more marked. In England theIndustrial Revolution is usually held to date from 1760, and, by commonconsent, the Industrial Revolution is attributed altogether to appliedscience, or, in other words, to mechanical inventions. In 1760 the flying-shuttle appeared, and coal began to replace wood for smelting. In 1764Hargreaves invented the spinning-jenny; in 1779 Crompton contrived themule; and in 1768 Watt brought the steam-engine to maturity. In 1761 thefirst boat-load of coals sailed over the Barton viaduct, which JamesBrindley built for the Duke of Bridgewater's canal, to connect Worsleywith Manchester, thus laying the foundation of British inland navigation, which before the end of the century had covered England; while JohnMetcalf, the blind road-builder, began his lifework in 1765. He wasdestined to improve English highways, which up to that time had beenmostly impossible for wheeled traffic. In France the same advance went on. Arthur Young described the impression made on him in 1789 by themagnificence of the French roads which had been built since theadministration of Colbert, as well as by the canal which connected theMediterranean with the Atlantic. 

In the midst of this activity Washington grew up. Washington was a bornsoldier, engineer, and surveyor with the topographical instinct peculiarto that temperament. As early as 1748 he was chosen by Lord Fairfax, whorecognized his ability, though only sixteen years old, to survey his vastestate west of the Blue Ridge, which was then a wilderness. He spent threeyears in this work and did it well. In 1753 Governor Dinwiddie sentWashington on a mission to the French commander on the Ohio, to warn himto cease trespassing on English territory, a mission which Washingtonfulfilled, under considerable hardship and some peril, with eminentsuccess. Thus early, for he was then only twenty-two, Washington gainedthat thorough understanding of the North American river system whichenabled him, many years afterward, to construct the Republic of the UnitedStates upon the lines of least resistant intercommunication. AndWashington's conception of the problem and his solution thereof were, insubstance, this:

The American continent, west of the mountains and south of the GreatLakes, is traversed in all directions by the Mississippi and itstributaries, but we may confine our attention to two systems ofwatercourses, the one to the west, forming by the Wisconsin and the mainarm of the Mississippi, a thoroughfare from Lake Michigan to the Gulf; andthe other by French Creek and the Allegheny, broken only by one easyportage, affording a perfect means of access to the Ohio, a river whichhas always operated as the line of cleavage between our northern andsouthern States. The French starting from Quebec floated from Lake Eriedown the Allegheny to Pittsburgh, the English ascended the Potomac toCumberland, and thence, following the most practicable watercourses, advanced on the French position at the junction of the Allegheny and theMonongahela. There Washington met and fought them in 1754, and ever afterWashington maintained that the only method by which a stable union amongthe colonies could be secured was by a main trunk system of transportationalong the line of the Ohio and the Potomac. This was to be his canal whichshould bind north and south, east and west, together by a common interest, and which should carry the produce of the west, north, and south, to theAtlantic coast, where it should be discharged at the head of deep-waternavigation, and which should thus stimulate industry adjacent to the spothe chose for the Federal City, or, in our language, for the City ofWashington. Thus the capital of the United States was to become thecapital of a true nation, not as a political compromise, but because itlay at the central point of a community made cohesive by a socialcirculation which should build it up, in his own words, into a capital, ornational heart, if not "as large as London, yet of a magnitude inferior tofew others in Europe. " [Footnote: Washington to Mrs. Fairfax, 16 May, 1798; Sparks, xi, 233. ] Maryland and Virginia abounded, as Washington wellknew, in coal and iron. His canal passing through this region wouldstimulate industry, and these States would thus become the focus ofexchanges. Manufacturing is incompatible with slavery, hence slavery wouldgradually and peacefully disappear, and the extremities of the Union wouldbe drawn together at what he described as "the great emporium of theUnited States. " To crown all, a national university was to make thisemporium powerful in collective thought. 

Doubtless Grenville and Townshend had not considered the American problemas maturely as had Washington, but nevertheless, most well-informedpersons now agree that Englishmen in 1763 were quite alive to theadvantages which would accrue to Great Britain, by holding in absolutecontrol a rich but incoherent body of colonies whose administrative centrelay in England, and were as anxious that London should serve as the heartof America as Washington was that America should have its heart on thePotomac. 

Accordingly, England attempted to isolate Massachusetts and pressed anattack on her with energy, before the whole thirteen colonies should beable to draw to a unity. On the other hand, Washington, and most sensibleAmericans, resisted this attack as resolutely as might be under suchdisadvantages, not wishing for independence, but hoping for somecompromise like that which Great Britain has since effected with herremaining colonies. The situation, however, admitted of no peacefuladjustment, chiefly because the imbecility of American administrationinduced by her incapacity for collective thought, was so manifest, thatEnglishmen could not believe that such a society could wage a successfulwar. Nor could America have done so alone. She owed her ultimate victoryaltogether to Washington and France. 

It would occupy too much space for me to undertake to analyze, evensuperficially, the process by which, after the Seven Years' War, competition between America and England reached an intensity which kindledthe American Revolution, but, shortly stated, the economic tension arosethus: As England was then organized, the estates of the English landlordshad to pay two rents, one to the landlord himself, the other to the farmerwho leased his land, and this it could not do were it brought into directcompetition with equally good land which paid but one profit, and whichwas not burdened by an excessive cost of transportation in reaching itsmarket. As freights between England and America fell because of improvedshipping and the greater safety of the seas, England had to haveprotection for her food and she proposed to get it thus: If competingContinental exports could be excluded from America, and, at the same time, Americans could be prevented from manufacturing for themselves, thecolonists might be constrained to take what they needed from England, atprices which would enable labor to buy food at a rate which would yieldthe double profit, and thus America could be made to pay the cost ofsupporting the landlords. As Cobden afterward observed, the fortunes ofEngland have turned on American competition. A part of these fortunes wererepresented by the Parliamentary boroughs which the landlords owned andwhich were confiscated by the Reform Bill, and these boroughs were held byLord Eldon to be incorporeal hereditaments: as truly a part of the privateproperty of the gentry who owned them as church advowsons, or the like. And the gentry held to their law-making power which gave them such aprivilege with a tenacity which precipitated two wars before they yielded;but this was naught compared to the social convulsion which rent France, when a population which had been for centuries restrained from freedomestic movement, burst its bonds and insisted on levelling the barrierswhich had immobilized it. 

The story of the French Revolution is too familiar to need recapitulationhere: indeed, I have already dealt with it in my _Social Revolutions_; butthe effects of that convulsion are only now beginning to appear, and theseeffects, without the shadow of a doubt, have been in their ultimatedevelopment the occasion of that great war whose conclusion we stillawait. 

France, in 1792, having passed into a revolution which threatened thevested interests of Prussia, was attacked by Prussia, who was defeated atValmy. Presently, France retaliated, under Napoleon, invaded Prussia, crushed her army at Jena, in 1807, dismembered the kingdom and imposed onher many hardships. To obtain their freedom the Prussians found it needfulto reorganize their social system from top to bottom, for this socialsystem had descended from Frederic William, the Great Elector ofBrandenburg (1640-1688), and from Frederic the Great (1740-1786), and waseffete and incapable of meeting the French onset, which amounted, insubstance, to a quickened competition. Accordingly, the new Prussianconstitution, conceived by Stein, put the community upon a relativelydemocratic and highly developed educational basis. By the EmancipatingEdict of 1807, the peasantry came into possession of their land, while, chiefly through the impulsion of Scharnhorst, who was the first chief ofstaff of the modern army, the country adopted universal military service, which proved to be popular throughout all ranks. Previous to Scharnhorst, under Frederic the Great, the qualification of an officer had been birth. Scharnhorst defined it as education, gallantry, and intelligence. Similarly, Gneisenau's conception of a possible Prussian supremacy lay inits army, its science, and its administration. But the civil service wasintended to incarnate science, and was the product of the modernizeduniversity, exemplified in the University of Berlin organized by Williamvon Humboldt. Herein lay the initial advantage which Germany gained overEngland, an advantage which she long maintained. And the advantage lay inthis: Germany conceived a system of technical education matured and put inoperation by the State. Hence, so far as in human affairs such things arepossible, the intelligence of Germans was liberated from the incubus ofvested interests, who always seek to use education to advance themselves. It was so in England. The English entrusted education to the Church, andthe Church was, by the necessity of its being, reactionary and hostile toscience, whereas the army, in the main, was treated in England as a socialfunction, and the officers, speaking generally, were not technicallyspecially educated at all. Hence, in foreign countries, but especially inGermany which was destined to be ultimately England's great competitor, England laid herself open to rather more than a suspicion of weakness, andindeed, when it came to a test, England found herself standing, forseveral years of war, at a considerable disadvantage because of the lackof education in those departments wherein Germany had, by the attack ofFrance, been forced to make herself proficient. This any one may see forhimself by reading the addresses of Fichte to the German nation, deliveredin 1807 and 1808, when Berlin was still occupied by the French. In fine, it was with Prussia a question of competition, brought to its ultimatetension by war. Prussia had no alternative as a conquered land but toradically accelerate her momentum, or perish. And so, at the present day, it may not improbably be with us. Competition must grow intenser. 

With England the situation in 1800 was very different. It was lessstrenuous. Nothing is more notable in England than to observe how, afterthe Industrial Revolution began, there was practically no means by which apoor man could get an education, save by educating himself. For instance, in February 1815, four months before Waterloo, George Stephenson took outa patent for the locomotive engine which was to revolutionize the world. But George Stephenson was a common laborer in the mines, who had no stateinstruction available, nor had he even any private institution at hand inwhich the workmen whom he employed in practical construction could betaught. He and his son Robert, had to organize instruction for themselvesand their employees independently. So it was even with a man like Faraday, who began life as an errand boy, and later on who actually went abroad asa sort of valet to Sir Humphry Davy. Davy himself was a self-made man. Inshort, England, as a community, did little or nothing by education forthose who had no means, and but little to draw any one toward science. Itwas at this precise moment that Germany was cast into the furnace ofmodern competition with England, who had, because of a series of causes, chiefly geographical, topographical, and mineralogical, about a centurythe start of her. Against this advantage Germany had to rely exclusivelyupon civil and military education. At first this competition by Germanytook a military complexion, and very rapidly wrought the completeconsolidation of Germany by the Austrian and the French wars. But thisphase presently passed, and after the French campaign of 1870 the purelyeconomic aspect of the situation developed more strenuously still, so muchso that intelligent observers, among whom Lord Roberts was conspicuous, perceived quite early in the present century that the heat generated inthe conflict must, probably, soon engender war. Nor could it eithertheoretically or practically have been otherwise, for the relationsbetween the two countries had reached a point where they generated afriction which caused incandescence automatically. And, moreover, theinflammable material fit for combustion was, especially in Germany, present in quantity. From the time of Fichte and Scharnhorst downward tothe end of the century, the whole nation had learned, as a sort of gospel, that the German education produced a most superior engine of economiccompetition, whereas the slack education and frivolous amusements ofEnglish civil and military life alike, had gradually created a society aptto crumble. And it is only needful for any person who has the curiosity, to glance at the light literature of the Victorian age, which deals withthe army, to see how dominant a part such an amusement as hunting playedin the life of the younger officers, especially in the fashionableregiments, to be impressed with the soundness of much of this Germancriticism. 

Assuming, then, for the sake of argument, that these historical premisesare sound, I proceed to consider how they bear on our prospectivecivilization. 

This is eminently a scientific age, and yet the scientific mind, as it isnow produced among us, is not without tendencies calculated to causeuneasiness to those a little conversant with history or philosophy. Forwhereas no one in these days would dream of utilizing prayer, as did Mosesor Saint Hugh, as a mechanical energy, nevertheless the search for auniversal prime motor goes on unabated, and yet it accomplishes nothing tothe purpose. On the contrary, the effect is one which could neither beexpected nor desired. Instead of being an aid to social coordination, itstimulates disintegration to a high degree as the war has shown. It hasstimulated disintegration in two ways. First, it has enormously quickenedphysical movement, which has already been discussed, and secondly, it hasstimulated the rapidity with which thought is diffused. The average humanbeing can only absorb and assimilate safely new forms of thought whengiven enough time for digestion, as if he were assimilating food. If he beplied with new thought too rapidly he fails to digest. He has a surfeit, serious in proportion to its enormity. That is to say, his power ofdrawing correct conclusions from the premises submitted to him fails, andwe have all sorts of crude experiments in sociology attempted, which endin that form of chaos which we call a violent revolution. The ordinaryresult is infinite waste fomented by fallacious hopes; in a word, financial disaster, supplemented usually by loss of life. The experienceis an old one, and the result is almost invariable. 

For example, during the Middle Ages, men like Saint Hugh and Peter theVenerable, and, most of all, Saint Francis, possessed by dreams ofattaining to perfection, by leading lives of inimitable purity, self-devotion, and asceticism, inspired the community about them with theconviction that they could work miracles. They thereby, as a reward, drewto the Church they served what amounted to being, considering the age theylived in, boundless wealth. But the effect of this economic phenomenon wasfar from what they had hoped or expected. Instead of raising the moralstandard of men to a point where all the world would be improved, they sodebased the hierarchy, by making money the standard of ambition within it, that, as a whole, the priesthood accepted, without any effective protest, the fires of the Council of Constance which consumed Huss, and theabominations of the Borgias at Rome. Perfectly logically, as a corollaryto this orgy of crime and bestiality, the wars of the Reformation sweptaway many, many thousands of human beings, wasted half of Europe, and onlyserved to demonstrate the futility of ideals. 

And so it was with the Puritans, who were themselves the children of therevolt against social corruption. They fondly believed that a new era wasto be ushered in by the rule of the Cromwellian saints. What theCromwellian saints did in truth usher in, was the carnival of debaucheryof Charles II, in its turn to be succeeded by the capitalistic competitiveage which we have known, and which has abutted in the recent war. 

Man can never hope to change his physical necessities, and therefore hismoral nature must always remain the same in essence, if not in form. AsWashington truly said, "The motives which predominate most in humanaffairs are self-love and self-interest, " and "nothing binds one countryor one state to another but interest. "

If, then, it be true, that man is an automatic animal moving always alongthe paths of least resistance toward predetermined ends, it cannot fail tobe useful to us in the present emergency to mark, as distinctly as we can, the causes which impelled Germany, at a certain point in her career, tochoose the paths which led to her destruction rather than those which, atthe first blush, promised as well, and which seemed to be equally as easyand alluring. And we may possibly, by this process, expose certainphenomena which may profit us, since such an examination may help us toestimate what avenues are like to prove ultimately the least resistant. 

Throughout the Middle Ages North Germany, which is the region whereofBerlin is the capital, enjoyed relatively little prosperity, becauseBrandenburg, for example, lay beyond the zone of those main trade routeswhich, before the advent of railways, served as the arteries of theeastern trade. Not until after the opening of the Industrial Revolution inEngland, did that condition alter. Nor even then did a change come rapidlybecause of the inertia of the Russian people. Nevertheless, as the Russianrailway system developed, Berlin one day found herself standing, as itwere, at the apex of a vast triangle whose boundaries are, roughly, indicated by the position of Berlin itself, Petersburg, Warsaw, Moscow, Kiev, and the Ukraine. Beyond Berlin the stream of traffic flowed toHamburg and thence found vent in America, as a terminus. Great Britain, more especially, demanded food, and food passed by sea from Odessa. HenceRussia served as a natural base for Germany, taking German manufacturesand offering to Germany a reservoir capable of absorbing her redundantpopulation. Thus it had long been obvious that intimate relations withRussia were of prime importance to Germany since all the world couldperceive that the monied interests of Russia must more and more fall intoGerman hands, because of the intellectual limitations of the Russians. Also pacification to the eastward always was an integral part ofBismarck's policy. Notwithstanding which other influences conflicted with, and ultimately overbalanced, this eastern trend in Germany. 

For many thousand years before written history began, the economic capitalof the world, the seat for the time being of opulence and of splendor, andat once the admiration and the envy of less favored rivals, has been acertain ambulatory spot upon the earth's surface, at a point where thelines of trade from east to west have converged. And always the markedidiosyncrasy of this spot has been its unrest. It has constantlyoscillated from east to west according as the fortunes of war haveprevailed, or as the march of applied science has made one or anotherroute of transportation cheaper or more defensible. 

Thus Babylon was conquered and robbed by Rome, and Rome, after a longheyday of prosperity, yielded to Constantinople, while Constantinople losther supremacy to Venice, Genoa, and North Italy, following the sack ofConstantinople by the Venetians in 1202 A. D. The Fairs of Champaign inFrance, and the cities of the Rhine and Antwerp were the glory of theMiddle Ages, but these great markets faded when the discovery of the longsea voyage to India threw the route by the Red Sea and Cairo intoeccentricity, and caused Spain and Portugal to bloom. Spain's prosperitydid not, however, last long. England used war during the sixteenth centuryas an economic weapon, pretty easily conquering. And since the opening ofthe Industrial Revolution, at least, London, with the exception of the fewyears when England suffered from the American revolt of 1776, has assumedsteadily more the aspect of the great international centre of exchanges, until with Waterloo her supremacy remained unchallenged. It was thisbrilliant achievement of London, won chiefly by arms, which more than anyother cause impelled Germany to try her fortunes by war rather than by themethods of peace. 

Nor was the German calculation of chances unreasonable or unwarranted. Forupwards of two centuries Germany had found war the most profitable of allher economic ventures; especially had she found the French war of 1870 amost lucrative speculation. And she felt unbounded confidence that shecould win as easy a triumph with her army, over the French, in thetwentieth as in the nineteenth century. But, could she penetrate to Parisand at the same time occupy the littoral of the Channel and Antwerp, shewas persuaded that she could do to the commerce of England what Englandhad once done to the commerce of Spain, and that Hamburg and Berlin wouldsupplant London. And this calculation might have proved sound had it notbeen for her oversight in ignoring one essential factor in the problem. Ever since North America was colonized by the English, that portion of thecontinent which is now comprised by the Republic of the United States, hadformed a part of the British economic system, even when the two fragmentsof that system were competing in war, as has occurred more than once. Andas America has waxed great and rich these relations have grown closer, until of recent years it has become hard to determine whether the centreof gravity of this vast capitalistic mass lay to the east or to the westof the Atlantic. One fact, however, from before the outset of this war hadbeen manifest, and that was that the currents of movement flowed with morepower from America to England than from America to Germany. And this hadfrom before the outbreak of hostilities affected the relations of theparties. Should Germany prevail in her contest with England, the resultwould certainly be to draw the centre of exchanges to the eastward, andthereby to throw the United States, more or less, into eccentricity; butwere England to prevail the United States would tend to become the centretoward which all else would gravitate. Hence, perfectly automatically, from a time as long ago as the Spanish War, the balance, as indicated bythe weight of the United States, hung unevenly as between Germany andEngland, Germany manifesting something approaching to repulsion toward theattraction of the United States while Great Britain manifested favor. Andfrom subsequent evidence, this phenomenon would seem to have been thusearly developed, because the economic centre of gravity of our moderncivilization had already traversed the Atlantic, and by so doing haddecided the fortunes of Germany in advance, in the greater struggle aboutto come. Consider attentively what has happened. In April, 1917, when theUnited States entered the conflict, Germany, though it had sufferedseverely in loss of men, was by no means exhausted. On the contrary, manymonths subsequently she began her final offensive, which she pushed sovigorously that she penetrated to within some sixty miles of Paris. Butthere, at Château Thierry, on the Marne, she first felt the weight of theeconomic shift. She suddenly encountered a division of American troopsadvancing to oppose her. Otherwise the road to Paris lay apparently open. The American troops were raw levies whom the Germans pretended to despise. And yet, almost without making a serious effort at prolonged attack, theGermans began their retreat, which only ended with their collapse and thefall of the empire. 

A similar phenomenon occurred once before in German history, and it is notan uncommon incident in human experience when nature has already made, oris on the brink of making, a change in the seat of the economic centre ofthe world. In the same way, when Constantine won the battle of the MilvianBridge, with his men fighting under the standard of the Labarum, it wassubsequently found that the economic capital of civilization had silentlymigrated from the Tiber to the Bosphorus, where Constantine seated himselfat Constantinople, which was destined to be the new capital of the worldfor about eight hundred years. So in 1792, when the Prussians and theFrench refugees together invaded France, they never doubted for an instantthat they should easily disperse the mob, as they were pleased to call it, of Kellermann's "vagabonds, cobblers, and tailors. " Nevertheless theGermans recoiled on the slope of Valmy from before the republican army, almost without striking a blow, nor could they be brought again to theattack, although the French royalists implored to be allowed to storm thehill alone, provided they could be assured of support. Then the retreat ofthe Duke of Brunswick began, and this retreat was the prelude to theNapoleonic empire, to Austerlitz, to Jena, to the dismemberment and to thereorganization of Prussia and to the evolution of modern Germany: inshort, to the conversion of the remnants of mediæval civilization into thecapitalistic, industrial, competitive society which we have known. And allthis because of the accelerated movement caused by science. 

If it be, indeed, a fact that the victory of Château Thierry and thesubsequent retreat of the German army together with the collapse of theGerman Empire indicate, as there is abundant reason to suppose that theymay, a shift in the world's social equilibrium, equivalent to the shift inEurope presaged by Valmy, or to that which substituted Constantinople forRome and which was marked by the Milvian Bridge, it follows that we mustprepare ourselves for changes possibly greater than our world has seensince it marched to Jerusalem under Godfrey de Bouillon. And the tendencyof those changes is not so very difficult, perhaps, roughly to estimate, always premising that they are hardly compatible with undue optimism. Supposing, for example, we consider, in certain of their simpler aspects, some of the relations of Great Britain toward ourselves, since GreatBritain is not only our most important friend, assuming that she remain afriend, but our most formidable competitor, should competition strain ourfriendship. Also Great Britain has the social system nearest akin to ourown, and most likely to be influenced by the same so-called democratictendencies. For upwards of a hundred years Great Britain has been, and shestill is, absolutely dependent on her maritime supremacy for life. It wason that issue she fought the Napoleonic wars, and when she prevailed atTrafalgar and Waterloo she assumed economic supremacy, but only on thecondition that she should always be ready and willing to defend it, for itis only on that condition that economic supremacy can be maintained. Waris the most potent engine of economic competition. Constantinople andAntwerp survived and flourished on the same identical conditions longbefore the day of London. She must keep her avenues of communication withall the world open, and guard them against possible attack. So long asAmerica competed actively with England on the sea, even for her own trade, her relations with Great Britain were troubled. The irritation of thecolonies with the restrictions which England put upon their commercematerially contributed to foment the revolution, as abundantly appears inthe famous case of John Hancock's sloop Liberty, which was seized forsmuggling. So in the War of 1812, England could not endure the UnitedStates as a competitor in her contest with France. She must be an ally, or, in other words, she must function as a component part of the Britisheconomic system, or she must be crushed. The crisis came with the attackof the Leopard on the Chesapeake in 1807, after which the possibility ofmaintaining peace, under such a pressure, appeared, in its true light, asa phantasm. After the war, with more or less constant friction, the sameconditions continued until the outbreak of the Rebellion, and then GreatBritain manifested her true animus as a competitor. She waged anunacknowledged campaign against the commerce of the United States, building, equipping, arming, manning, and succoring a navy for the South, which operated none the less effectively because its action was officiallyrepudiated. And in this secret warfare England prevailed, since when thelegislation of the United States has made American competition withEngland on the sea impossible. Wherefore we have had peace with England. We have supplied Great Britain with food and raw materials, abandoning toEngland the carrying trade and an undisputed naval supremacy. ConsequentlyGreat Britain feels secure and responds to the full force of that economicattraction which makes America naturally, a component part of the Britisheconomic system. But let American pretensions once again revive to thepoint of causing her to attempt seriously to develop her sea power as ofyore, and the same friction would also revive which could hardly, were itpushed to its legitimate end, eventuate otherwise than in the ultimateform of all economic competition. 

If such a supposition seems now to be fanciful, it is only necessary toreflect a moment on the rapidity with which national relations vary undercompetition, to be assured that it is real. As Washington said, the onlyforce which binds one nation to another is interest. The rise of Germany, which first created jealousy in England, began with the attack on Denmarkin 1864. Then Russia was the power which the British most feared and withwhom they were on the worst of terms. About that period nothing would haveseemed more improbable than that these relations would be reversed, andthat Russia and England would jointly, within a generation, wage fiercewar on Germany. We are very close to England now, but we may be certainthat, were we to press, as Germany pressed, on British maritime andindustrial supremacy, we should be hated too. It is vain to disguise thefact that British fortunes in the past have hinged on Americancompetition, and that the wisest and most sagacious Englishmen have beenthose who have been most alive to the fact. Richard Cobden, for example, was one of the most liberal as he was one of the most eminent of Britisheconomists and statesmen of the middle of the nineteenth century. He was ademocrat by birth and education, and a Quaker by religion. In 1835, justbefore he entered public life, Cobden visited the United States and thusrecorded his impressions on his return:

"America is once more the theatre upon which nations are contending formastery; it is not, however, a struggle for conquest, in which the victorwill acquire territorial dominion--the fight is for commercial supremacy, and will be won by the cheapest. . . . It is from the silent and peacefulrivalry of American commerce, the growth of its manufactures, its rapidprogress in internal improvements, . . . It is from these, and not from thebarbarous policy or the impoverishing armaments of Russia, that thegrandeur of our commercial and national prosperity is endangered. "[Footnote: John Morley, _The Life of Richard Cobden_, 107, 108. ]

It is not, however, any part of my contention that nature should push herlove of competition so far as necessarily to involve us in war with GreatBritain, at least at present, for nature has various and most unlooked-forways of arriving at her ends, since men never can determine, certainly inadvance, what avenue will, to them, prove the least resistant. They veryoften make an error, as did the Germans, which they can only correct byenduring disaster, defeat, and infinite suffering. Nature might very well, for example, prefer that consolidation should advance yet another stepbefore a reaction toward chaos should begin. 

This last war has, apparently, been won by a fusion of two economicsystems which together hold and administer a preponderating mass of fluidcapital, and which have partially pooled their resources to prevail. Theyappear almost as would a gigantic lizard which, having been severed in anancient conflict, was now making a violent but only half-conscious effortto cause the head and body to unite with the tail, so that the two mightfunction once more as a single organism, governed by a single will. Underour present form of capitalistic life there would seem to be no reason whythis fluid capital should not fuse and by its energy furnish the motorwhich should govern the world. Rome, for centuries, was governed by anemperor, who represented the landed class of Italy, under the forms of arepublic. It is not by any means necessary that a plutocratic mass shouldhave a recognized political head. And America and England, like twoenormous banking houses, might in effect fuse and yet go on as separateinstitutions with nominally separate boards of directors. 

But it is inconceivable that even such an expedient as this, howeversuccessful at the outset, should permanently solve the problem, whichresolves itself once more into individual competition. It is notimaginable that such an enormous plutocratic society as I have supposedcould conduct its complex affairs upon the basis of the averageintelligence. As in Rome, a civil service would inevitably be organizedwhich would contain a carefully selected body of ability. We have seensuch a process, in its initial stages, in the recent war. And such a civilservice, however selected and however trained, would, to succeed, have tobe composed of men who were the ablest in their calling, the besteducated, and the fittest: in a word, the representatives of what we call"the big business" of the country. Such as they might handle therailroads, the telegraph lines, the food supply, the question ofcompetitive shipping, and finally prices, as we have seen it done, butonly on condition that they belonged to the fortunate class by merit. 

But supposing, in the face of such a government, the unfortunate classshould protest, as they already do protest in Russia, in Germany, and evenin England and here at home, that a legal system which sanctions such acivilization is iniquitous. Here, the discontented say, you insist on acertain form of competition being carried to its limit. That is, youdemand intellectual and peaceful competition for which I am unfit both byeducation, training, and mental ability. I am therefore excluded fromthose walks in life which make a man a freeman. I become a slave tocapital. I must work, or fight, or starve according to another man'sconvenience, caprice, or, in fine, according to his will. I could be noworse off under any despot. To such a system I will not submit. But I canat least fight. Put me on a competitive equality or I will blow yourcivilization to atoms. To such an argument there is no logical answerpossible except the answer which all extreme socialists have alwaysadvanced. The fortunate man should be taxed for all he earns above theaverage wage, and the State should confiscate his accumulations at death. Then, with a system of government education, obligatory on all, childrenwould start equal from birth. 

Here we come against the hereditary instinct, the creator and thepreserver of the family: the instinct which has made law and orderpossible, so far as our ancestors or we have known order, as far back asthe Ice Age. If the coming world must strive with this question, orabandon the "democratic ideal, " the future promises to be stormy. 

But even assuming that this problem of individual competition be overcome, we are as far as ever from creating a system of moral law which shallavail us, for we at once come in conflict with the principle of abstractjustice which demands that free men shall be permitted to colonize or movewhere they will. But supposing England and America to amalgamate; they nowhold or assume to control all or nearly all the vacant regions of theearth which are suited to the white man's habitation. And the white mancannot live and farm his land in competition with the Asiatic; that wasconclusively proved in the days of Rome. 

But it is not imaginable that Asiatics will submit to this discriminationin silence. Nothing can probably constrain them to resignation but force, and to apply force is to revert to the old argument of the savage or thedespot, who admits that he knows no law save that of the stronger, whichis the system, however much we have disguised it and, in short, lied aboutit, under which we have lived and under which our ancestors have livedever since the family was organized, and under which it is probable thatwe shall continue to live as long as any remnant of civilization shallsurvive. 

Nevertheless, it seems to be far from improbable that the system ofindustrial, capitalistic civilization, which came in, in substance, withthe "free thought" of the Reformation, is nearing an end. Very probably itmay have attained to its ultimate stages and may dissolve presently in thechaos which, since the Reformation, has been visibly impending. Democracyin America has conspicuously and decisively failed, in the collectiveadministration of the common public property. Granting thus much, itbecomes simply a question of relative inefficiency, or degradation oftype, culminating in the exhaustion of resources by waste; unless thedemocratic man can supernaturally raise himself to some level more nearlyapproaching perfection than that on which he stands. For it has becomeself-evident that the democrat cannot change himself from a competitive toa non-competitive animal by talking about it, or by pretending to bealready or to be about to become other than he is, --the victim of infiniteconflicting forces. 

BROOKS ADAMS, QUINCY, _July_ 20, 1919. 

THE EMANCIPATION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE COMMONWEALTH. 

The mysteries of the Holy Catholic Church had been venerated for ages whenEurope burst from her mediæval torpor into the splendor of theRenaissance. Political schemes and papal abuses may have precipitated theinevitable outbreak, but in the dawn of modern thought the darkness fadedamidst which mankind had so long cowered in the abject terrors ofsuperstition. Already in the beginning of the fifteenth century many ofthe ancient dogmas had begun to awaken incredulity, and sceptics learnedto mock at that claim to infallibility upon which the priesthood basedtheir right to command the blind obedience of the Christian world. Betweensuch adversaries compromise was impossible; and those who afterwardrevolted against the authority of the traditions of Rome sought refugeunder the shelter of the Bible, which they grew to reverence with apassionate devotion, believing it to have been not only directly andverbally inspired by God, but the only channel through which he had madeknown his will to men. 

Thus the movement was not toward new doctrines; on the contrary, it wasthe rejection of what could no longer be believed. Calvin was no lessorthodox than St. Augustine in what he accepted; his heresy lay in thedenial of enigmas from which his understanding recoiled. The mightyconvulsion of the Reformation, therefore, was but the supreme effort ofthe race to tear itself from the toils of a hierarchy whose life hung uponits success in forcing the children to worship the myths of theirancestral religion. 

Three hundred years after Luther nailed his theses to the church door thelogical deduction had been drawn from his great act, and Christendom hadbeen driven to admit that any concession of the right to reason uponmatters of faith involved the recognition of the freedom of individualthought. But though this noble principle has been at length established, long years of bloodshed passed before the victory was won; and from theoutset the attitude of the clergy formed the chief obstacle to the triumphof a more liberal civilization; for howsoever bitterly Catholic andProtestant divines have hated and persecuted each other, they have unitedlike true brethren in their hatred and their persecution of heretics; forsuch was their inexorable destiny. 

Men who firmly believe that salvation lies within their creed alone, andthat doubters suffer endless torments, never can be tolerant. They feelthat duty commands them to defend their homes against a deadly peril, andeven pity for the sinner urges them to wring from him a recantation beforeit is too late; and then, moreover, dissent must lessen the power andinfluence of a hierarchy and may endanger its very existence; thereforethe priests of every church have been stimulated to crush out schism bythe two strongest passions that can inflame the mind--by bigotry and byambition. 

In England the Reformation was controlled by statesmen, whose object wasto invest the crown with ecclesiastical power, and who made no changesexcept such as they thought necessary for their purpose. They repudiatedthe papal supremacy, and adopted articles of religion sufficientlyevangelical in form, but they retained episcopacy, the liturgy, and thesurplice; the cross was still used in baptism, the people bowed at thename of Jesus, and knelt at the communion. Such a compromise with whatthey deemed idolatry was offensive to the stricter Protestants, and soearly as 1550 John Hooper refused the see of Gloucester because he wouldnot wear the robes of office; thus almost from its foundation the churchwas divided into factions, and those who demanded a more radical reformwere nicknamed Puritans. As time elapsed large numbers who could no longerbring themselves to conform withdrew from the orthodox communion, andbegan to worship by themselves; persecution followed, and many fled toHolland, where they formed congregations in the larger towns, the mostcelebrated of them being that of John Robinson at Leyden, which afterwardfounded Plymouth. But the intellectual ferment was universal, and the sameupheaval that was rending the church was shaking the foundations of thestate: power was passing into the hands of the people, but a century wasto elapse before the relations of the sovereign to the House of Commonswere fully adjusted. During this interval the Stuarts reigned and three ofthe four kings suffered exile or death in the fierce contest for mastery. 

The fixed determination of Charles I. Was to establish a despotism andenforce conformity with ritualism; and the result was the Great Rebellion. 

Among the statesmen who advised him, none has met with such scant mercyfrom posterity as Laud, who has been gibbeted as the impersonification ofnarrowness, of bigotry, and of cruelty. The judgment is unscientific, forwhatever may be thought of the humanity or wisdom of his policy, he onlydid what all have done who have attempted to impose a creed on men. 

The real grievance has never been that an observance has been required, oran indulgence refused, but that the right to think has been denied. Provided a boundary be fixed within which the reason must be chained, theline drawn by Laud is as reasonable as that of Calvin; Geneva is no moreinfallible than Canterbury or Rome. Comprehension is the dream ofvisionaries, for some will always differ from any confession of faith, however broad; and where there are dogmas there will be heretics till allhave perished. But in their fear and hatred of individual free thoughtregarding the mysteries of religion, Laud, Calvin, and the Pope agreed. 

With the progress of the war, the Puritans, who had at first been unitedin their opposition to the crown, themselves divided; one party, to whichmost of the peers and of the non-conforming clergy belonged, being anxiousto reestablish the monarchy, and set up a rigid Presbyterianism; theother, of whose spirit Cromwell was the incarnation, resolving each daymore firmly to crush the king and proclaim freedom of conscience; and itwas this doctrine of toleration which was the snare and the abomination inthe eyes of evangelical divines. 

Robert Baillie, the Scotch commissioner, while in London, anxiouslywatching the rise of the power of the Independents in Parliament, witheach victory of their armies in the field wrote, "Liberty of conscience, and toleration of all and any religion, is so prodigious an impiety thatthis religious parliament cannot but abhor the very meaning of it. " Nordid his reverend brethren of the Westminster Assembly fall any whit behindhim when they rose to expound the word. In a letter of 17th May, 1644, hethus described their doctrine: "This day was the best that I have seensince I came to England. . . . After D. Twisse had begun with a brief prayer, Mr. Marshall prayed large two hours, most divinely, confessing the sins ofthe members of the assembly, in a wonderful, pathetick, and prudent way. After, Mr. Arrowsmith preached an hour, then a psalm; thereafter, Mr. Vines prayed near two hours, and Mr. Palmer preached an hour, and Mr. Seaman prayed near two hours, then a psalm; after, Mr. Henderson broughtthem to a sweet conference of the heat confessed in the assembly, andother seen faults to be remedied, and the conveniency to preach againstall sects, especially Anabaptists and Antinomians. Dr. Twisse closed witha short prayer and blessing. " [Footnote: Baillie's _Letters and Journals_, ii. 18. ]

But Cromwell, gifted with noble instincts and transcendent politicalgenius, a layman, a statesman, and a soldier, was a liberal from birthtill death. 

"Those that were sound in the faith, how proper was it for them to laborfor liberty, . . . That men might not be trampled upon for theirconsciences! Had not they labored but lately under the weight ofpersecution? And was it fit for them to sit heavy upon others? Is itingenuous to ask liberty and not to give it? What greater hypocrisy thanfor those who were oppressed by the bishops to become the greatestoppressors themselves, so soon as their yoke was removed? I could wishthat they who call for liberty now also had not too much of that spirit, if the power were in their hands. " [Footnote: Speech at dissolution offirst Parliment, Jan. 22, 1655. Carlyle's _Cromwell_, iv. 107. ]

"If a man of one form will be trampling upon the heels of another form, ifan Independent, for example, will despise him under Baptism, and willrevile him and reproach him and provoke him, --I will not suffer it in him. If, on the other side, those of the Anabaptist shall be censuring thegodly ministers of the nation who profess under that of Independency; orif those that profess under Presbytery shall be reproaching or speakingevil of them, traducing and censuring of them, as I would not be willingto see the day when England shall be in the power of the Presbytery toimpose upon the consciences of others that profess faith in Christ, --so Iwill not endure any reproach to them. " [Footnote: Speech made September, 1656. Carlyle's _Cromwell_, iv. 234. ]

The number of clergymen among the emigrants to Massachusetts was verylarge, and the character of the class who formed the colony was influencedby them to an extraordinary degree. Many able pastors had been deprived inEngland for non-conformity, and they had to choose between silence orexile. To men of their temperament silence would have been intolerable;and most must have depended upon their profession for support. America, therefore, offered a convenient refuge. The motives are less obvious whichinduced the leading laymen, some of whom were of fortune and consequenceat home, to face the hardships of the wilderness. Persecution cannot bethe explanation, for a government under which Hampden and Cromwell couldlive and be returned to Parliament was not intolerable; nor does it appearthat any of them had been severely dealt with. The wish of the Puritanparty to have a place of retreat, should the worst befall, may have hadits weight with individuals, but probably the influence which swayed thelarger number was the personal ascendancy of their pastors, for thatascendancy was complete. In a community so selected, men of the type ofBaillie must have vastly outnumbered those of the stamp of Cromwell, andin point of fact their minds were generally cast in the ecclesiasticalmould and imbued with the ecclesiastical feeling. Governor Dudleyrepresented them well, and at his death some lines were found in hispocket in which their spirit yet glows in all the fierceness of itsbigotry. 

 "Let men of God in Courts and Churches watch O're such as do a Toleration hatch, Lest that Ill Egg bring forth a Cockatrice, To poison all with heresie and vice. "[Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 2, ch. V. Section 1. ]

In former ages churches had been comprehensive to this extent: infantshad been baptized, and, when the child had become a man, he had beenadmitted to the communion as a matter of course, unless his life had givenscandal; but to this system the Congregationalist was utterly opposed. Hebelieved that, human nature being totally depraved, some became regeneratethrough grace; that the signs of grace were as palpable as any othertraits of character, and could be discerned by all the world; therefore, none should be admitted to the sacrament who had not the marks of theelect; and as in a well-ordered community the godly ought to rule, itfollowed that none should be enfranchised but members of the church. 

To suppose such a government could be maintained in England was beyond thedreams even of an enthusiast, and there can be little doubt that thecontrolling incentive with many of those who sailed was the hope, with theaid of their divines, of founding a religious commonwealth in thewilderness which should harmonize with their interpretation of theScriptures. 

The execution of such a project was, however, far from easy. It would havebeen most unsafe for the emigrants to have divulged their true designs, since these were not only unlawful, but would have been highly offensiveto the king, and yet they were too feeble to exist without the protectionof Great Britain, therefore it was necessary to secure for themselves therights of English subjects, and to throw some semblance at least of thesanction of law over the organization of their new state. Accordingly, apatent [Footnote: March 4, 1629. ] was obtained from the crown, by whichtwenty-five persons were incorporated under the name of the Governor andCompany of Massachusetts Bay in New England; and as the extent of thepowers therein granted has given rise to a controversy which is not yetclosed, it is necessary to understand the nature of that instrument inorder to comprehend the bearings of the bitter strife which darkens thehistory of the first fifty years of the colony. 

The germ of the written charter is so ancient as to be lost in obscurity. During the Middle Ages, oppression was, speaking generally, the acceptedcondition of society, no man not noble having the right in theory, or thepower in practice, to control his own actions without interference fromhis feudal superior. Under such circumstances the only hope for the weakwas to combine, and most of the early triumphs of freedom were won bycombinations of commons against some noble, or of nobles against a king. Organization is difficult for a peasantry, but easy for burghers, and fromthe outset these seem to have united for their common defense against theneighboring barons; and thus was born the mediæval guild. 

The ancient townsmen were not usually strong enough to fight for theirliberties, so they generally resorted to purchase; they agreed with theirlord upon a price to be paid for a privilege, and were given for theirmoney a grant, which, because it was written, was called a charter. 

The following charter of the Merchants' Guild of Leicester is very earlyand very simple. It presupposes that there could be no doubt about thelocal customs, which are therefore not enumerated, and it shows that theguild of Leicester existed as a corporation at the Conquest, and mustalready have held property in succession and been liable to suit throughtwo reigns:--

"Robert, Earl of Mellent, to Ralph, and all his barons, French andEnglish, of all his land in England, greeting: Know ye, that I havegranted to my merchants of Leicester their Guild Merchant, with allcustoms which they held in the time of King William, of King William hisson, and now hold in the time of Henry the king. 

"Witness: R. , the son of Alcitil. "

The object of these ancient writings was only to record the fact ofcorporate existence; the popular custom by which the guilds were regulatedwas taken for granted; but obviously they must have had succession, beenliable to suit, able to contract, and, in a word, to do all those actswhich were afterward set forth. And such has uniformly been the process bywhich English jurisprudence has been shaped; a usage grows up that courtsrecognize, and, by their decisions, establish as the common law; butjudicial decisions are inflexible, and, as they become antiquated, theyare themselves modified by legislation. Lawyers observed these customarycompanies for some centuries before they learned what functions wereuniversal; but, with the lapse of time, the patents became more elaborate, until at length a voluminous grant of each particular power was heldnecessary to create a new corporation. 

A merchants' guild, like the one of Leicester, was an association of thetownsmen for their common welfare. Every trader was then called amerchant, and as almost every burgher lived by trade, and was also alandowner, to the extent at least of his dwelling, it followed that theguild practically included all free male inhabitants; the guild hall wasused as the town hall, the guild ordinances were the town ordinances, andthe corporation became the government of the borough, and as such chosepersons to represent it in Parliament, when summoned by the king's writ tosend burgesses to Westminster. 

London is a corporation by prescription and not by virtue of anyparticular charter, and to this day its city hall is called by the ancientname, Guild Hall. But with the growth of wealth and population theoriginal fraternity divided into craft organizations (so long ago, indeed, that no record of its existence remains), and each trade organized aguild, with a hall of its own; and thus it came to pass that the twelvelivery companies--the Mercers, the Grocers, the Goldsmiths, the Drapers, the Fishmongers, and the rest--became the government of the capital ofEngland. 

All mediæval institutions tended to aristocracy and monopoly, and, accordingly, after the merchant guilds had split into these corporatetrade unions, boroughs waxed exclusive, and membership, instead of beingan incident of citizenship, grew to confer citizenship itself; thus thefranchise, being confined to freemen, and freedom or membership havingcome to depend on birth, marriage, election, or purchase, theconstituencies which returned a majority of the House of Commons grew sopetty and corrupt as to threaten the existence of parliamentary governmentitself, and the abuse at last culminated in the agitation which producedthe Reform Bill. 

When legal forms had taken shape, the land upon which a town stood was notunusually granted to the mayor and commonalty by metes and bounds, [Footnote: See Charter of Plymouth, granted 1439. _History ofPlymouth_, p. 50. The incorporation was by statute. ] to them and theirsuccessors forever, upon payment of a rent; and the mayor and commoncouncil were empowered to make laws and ordinances for the localgovernment, and to fine, imprison, and sometimes whip and otherwise punishoffenders, so as their statutes, fines, pains, and penalties werereasonable and not repugnant to law. [Footnote: _History ofTiverton_, App. 5. ] The foreign trading company was an offshoot of theguild, and was intended to protect commerce. Obviously some suchorganization must have been necessary, for, if property was insecurewithin the realm, it was far more exposed without; and, indeed, in thefourteenth century, English merchants domiciled on the Continent couldhardly have been safer than Europeans are now who garrison the so-calledfactories upon the coast of Africa. 

At the Conquest, the Hanse merchants had a house in London, which wasafterward famous as the Steel Yard. They lived a strange life, --acombination of that of the trader, the soldier, and the monk. Theirfortified warehouse, exposed to the attacks of the ferocious mob, wasoccasionally taken and sacked; and the garrison shut up within was subjectto an iron discipline. They were forbidden to marry, no woman passed thegates, nor did they ever sleep a night without the walls; but, always onthe watch, they lay in their cells ready to repulse a storm. For manyyears these Germans seem to have monopolized the carrying trade, for itwas not till the thirteenth century that Englishmen appear to have made aneffort at competition. However, about 1296 certain London mercers are saidto have obtained a grant of privileges from John, Duke of Brabant, and tohave established a wool market at Antwerp. [Footnote: Andersen's_History of Commerce_. ] The recognition of the Flemish government wasof course necessary; but they could hardly have maintained themselveswithout some support at home; for, although their warehouse was abroad, they were English merchants, and they must have relied upon Englishprotection. No very early documents remain; but an elaborate charter, granted by Edward IV. In 1463, proves that the corporation had then had along legal existence. [Footnote: Hakluyt's _Voyages_, i. 230. ] Thecrown thereby confirmed one Obrey, the governor, in his office duringpleasure, with the wages theretofore enjoyed; existing laws were approved;the governor and merchants were empowered to elect twelve Justicers, whowere to hold courts for all merchants and mariners in those parts; and thecompany was authorized to regulate the trade and control the traders, provided no laws were passed contrary to the intent of that charter. 

Here, as in the Merchant Guild, the inevitable aristocratic revolutiontook place, and the old democratic brotherhood became a strict monopoly. The oppression was so flagrant that a petition was presented to Parliamentin 1497 against the exactions of the Merchant Adventurers, as theassociation was then called, by which it appeared that interlopers, trading to Holland and Flanders, were fined £40, whereas any subject mighthave become a freeman in earlier times for an old noble, or about 6s. 8d. ;[Footnote: 12 Henry VII. Ch. Vi. ] and the scandal was so great that thefine was fixed at 10 marks, or £6 l3s. 4d. , by statute. During thestagnation of the Middle Ages few traces of such commercial enterprisesare to be found, but with the sixteenth century Europe awoke to a new lifeand thrilled with a new energy. Trade shared in the impulse. In 1554Philip and Mary incorporated the Russia Company in regular modern form; in1581 the Turkey Company was organized; in 1600 the East India Companyreceived its charter; and, to come directly to what is material, in 1629Charles I. Signed the patent of the Governor and Company of MassachusettsBay in New England. 

Stripped of its verbiage, the provisions are simple. The stockholders, or"freemen, " as they were then called, were to meet once a quarter in a"General Court. " This General Court, or stockholders' meeting, chose theofficers, of which there were twenty, the governor, deputy governor, andeighteen assistants or directors, on the last Wednesday in each EasterTerm. The assistants were intrusted with the business management, and wereto meet once a month or oftener; while the General Court was empowered toadmit freemen, and "to make laws and ordinances for the good and welfareof the said company, and for the government and ordering of the said landsand plantation, and the people inhabiting and to inhabit the same, as tothem from time to time shall be thought meet, --so as such laws andordinances be not contrary or repugnant to the laws and statutes of thisour realm of England. " The criminal jurisdiction was limited to the"imposition of lawful fines, mulcts, imprisonment, or other lawfulcorrection, according to the course of other corporations in this ourrealm of England. "

The "course of corporations" referred to was well established. The Masterand Wardens of the Guild of Drapers in London, for example, could make"such . . . Pains, punishments, and penalties, by corporal punishment, orfines and amercements, " . . . "as shall seem . . . Necessary, " provided theirstatutes were reasonable and not contrary to the laws of the kingdom. [Footnote: Herbert's _Livery Companies_, i. 489. ] In like manner, boroughs such as Tiverton might "impose and assess punishments byimprisonments, etc. , and reasonable fines upon offenders. " [Footnote: See_History of Tiverton_, App. 5. ]

But all lawyers knew that such grants did not convey full civil orcriminal jurisdiction, which, when thought needful, was speciallyconferred, as was done in the case of the East India Company upon theirpetition in 1624, [Footnote: Bruce, _Annals_, i. 252. ] and in that ofMassachusetts by the charter of William and Mary. 

Such was the undoubted theory, and evidently there must always have beensome practical means of checking the abuse of power by these strongorganizations. In semi-barbarous ages the sovereign took matters into hisown hands by seizing the franchise, and even the Plantagenets repeatedlysuspended or revoked the liberties of London, --often, no doubt, for cause, but sometimes also to make money by a resale; and a succession of thesearbitrary forfeitures demonstrated that charters to be of value must bebeyond the grantor's control. Resort was had to the courts, as a matter ofcourse, and finally it was settled that relief should be given by a writof _quo warranto_, upon which the question of the violation ofprivileges could be tried; and curious records still remain of ancientlitigations of this nature. 

In 1321 complaint was made against the London Weavers for injuring thepublic by passing regulations tending to raise the price of cloth. [Footnote: _Liber Customarum_, i. 416-424. ] It was alleged that theguild, with this intent, had limited the working hours in the day, theworking days in the year, and the number of apprentices the freemen mightemploy; and the prayer was that for these abuses the charter should beannulled. 

The cause was tried before a jury, who found the truth of some of thecharges; but the judgment is lost, as the roll is imperfect. 

There was danger, moreover, to the citizen from the oppression of thesepowerful bodies, as well as to the public from their usurpations; and wereauthority wholly wanting, argument would be almost unnecessary to provethat some appellate tribunal must always have had jurisdiction to passupon the validity of corporate legislation; for otherwise any summarypunishment might have been inflicted upon an individual, thoughnotoriously unlawful, and the only redress possible would have beensubsequent proceedings to vacate the charter. 

Through appeals, corporations could be controlled; and by none was thiscontrol so stubbornly disputed, or its necessity so clearly demonstrated, as by the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay in New England. A goodillustration is the trial of the Quaker, Wenlock Christison, for his lifein 1661. 

"William Leddra being thus dispatch'd, it was resolved to make an end alsoof Wenlock Christison. He therefore was brought from the prison to thecourt at Boston, where the governor John Indicot, and the deputy governorRichard Billingham, being both present, it was told him, 'Unless you willrenounce your religion, you shall surely die. ' But instead of shrinking, he said with an undaunted courage, 'Nay, I shall not change my religion, nor seek to save my life; neither do I intend to deny my Master; but if Ilose my life for Christ's sake, and the preaching of the gospel, I shallsave my life. ' . . . John Indicot asked him 'what he had to say for himself, why he should not die?' . . . Then Wenlock asked, 'By what law will you putme to death?' The answer was, 'We have a law, and by our law you are todie. ' 'So said the Jews of Christ, ' (reply'd Wenlock) 'we have a law, andby our law he ought to die. Who empowered you to make that law?' To whichone of the board answered, 'We have a patent, and are the patentees; judgewhether we have not power to make laws. ' Hereupon Wenlock asked again, 'How, have you power to make laws repugnant to the laws of England?' 'No, 'said the governor. 'Then, ' (reply'd Wenlock, ) 'you are gone beyond yourbounds, and have forfeited your patent; and that is more than you cananswer. ' 'Are you, ' ask'd he, 'subjects to the king, yea or nay?' . . . Towhich one said, 'Yea, we are so. ' 'Well, ' said Wenlock, 'so am I. ' . . . 'Therefore seeing that you and I are subjects to the king, I demand to betried by the laws of my own nation. ' It was answered, 'You shall be triedby a bench and a jury. ' For it seems they began to be afraid to go on inthe former course, of trial without a jury . . . But Wenlock said, 'That isnot the law, but the manner of it; for I never heard nor read of any lawthat was in England to hang Quakers. ' To this the governor reply'd 'thatthere was a law to hang Jesuits. ' To which Wenlock return'd, 'If you putme to death, it is not because I go under the name of a Jesuit, but of aQuaker. Therefore, I appeal to the laws of my own nation. ' But instead oftaking notice of this, one said 'that he was in their hands, and hadbroken their law, and they would try him. '" [Footnote: Sewel, pp. 278, 279. ]

Yet, though the ecclesiastical party in Massachusetts obstinately refusedto admit appeals to the British judiciary up to the last moment of theirpower, for the obvious reason that the existence of the theocracy dependedupon the enforcement of such legislation as that under which the Quakerssuffered, there was no principle in the whole range of Englishjurisprudence more firmly established. By a statute of Henry VI. Passed in1436, corporate enactments were to be submitted to the judges forapproval; and the Court of King's Bench always set aside such as were bad, whenever the question of their validity was presented for adjudication. [Footnote: Stat. 15 H. VI. Ch. 6. Stat 19 H. VII. Ch. 7. Clark's Case, 5Coke, 633, decided A. D. 1596. See Kyd on Corporations, ii. 107-110, whereauthorities are collected. Child v. Hudson Bay Co. , 2 P. W. 207. ]

But discussion is futile; the proposition is self-evident, that anassociation endowed with the capacity of acting like a single man, forcertain defined objects, which shall attempt other objects, or shall seekto compass its ends by unlawful means, violates the condition upon whichits life has been granted, transcends the limits of its existence, andforfeits its privileges; and that under such circumstances its ordinancesare void, and none are bound to yield them their obedience. 

Approached thus from the standpoint of legal history, no doubt can existconcerning the scope of the franchise secured by the Puritans for theMassachusetts colony. The instrument obtained from Charles I. Embodiedcertain of their number in an English corporation, whose only lawfulbusiness was the American trade, as the business of the East India Companywas trade in Hindostan. To enable them to act effectively, a tract of landin New England, between the Merrimack and the Charles, was conveyed tothem, as the soil upon which a town stood was conveyed to the mayor andcommonalty. Within this territory they were authorized to establishedtheir plantations and forts, which they were empowered to defend againstattack, as the Hanse merchants defended the Steel Yard in London. Theywere also permitted to govern the country within their grant by reasonableregulations calculated to preserve the peace, and of much the samecharacter as the municipal ordinances of towns, subject, of course, tojudicial supervision. The corporation itself was created subject to themunicipal laws of England, and could have no existence without the realm;and though perhaps even then the American wilderness might have been heldto belong to the British empire, it formed no part of the kingdom, [Footnote: Blackstone's _Commentaries_, i. 109. ] and was altogetherbeyond the limits of that jurisdiction from whose customs and statutes thelife of this imaginary being sprang. Therefore, the governing body couldlegally exercise its functions only when domiciled in some English town. [Footnote: On this subject see the able paper of Mr. Deane, in_Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings_, December, 1869, p. 166. ]

Sir Richard Sheldon, the solicitor-general, advised the king that he wassigning a charter containing "such . . . Clauses for ye electing ofGovernors and Officers here in England, . . . And powers to make lawes andordinances for setling ye governement and magistracye for ye plantaconthere, . . . As . . . Are usuallie allowed to Corporacons in England. "[Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. _ 1869-70, p. 173. ] And there canbe no question that his opinion was sound. 

Nothing can be imagined more ill-suited to serve as the organic law of anew commonwealth than this instrument. No provision was made for superioror probate courts, for a representative assembly, for the incorporation ofcounties and towns, for police or taxation. In short, hardly a step couldbe taken toward founding a territorial government based upon popularsuffrage without working a forfeiture of the charter by abuse of thefranchise. The colonists, it is true, afterward advanced very differenttheories of construction; but that they were well aware of their legalposition is demonstrated by the fact that after some hesitation fromapprehension of consequences, they ventured on the singularly bold andlawless measure of secretly removing their charter to America andestablishing their corporation in a land which they thought would bebeyond the process of Westminster Hall. [Footnote: 1629, Aug. 29. ] Thedetails of the settlement are related in many books, and require only thebriefest mention here. In 1628 an association of gentlemen bought thetract of country lying between the Merrimack and Charles from the Councilof Plymouth, and sent Endicott to take charge of their purchase. A royalpatent was, however, thought necessary for the protection of a largecolony, and one having been obtained, the Company of Massachusetts Bay wasat once organized in England, Endicott was appointed governor in America, and six vessels sailed during the spring of 1629, taking out severalhundred persons and a "plentiful provision of godly ministers. " In Augustthe church of Salem was gathered and Mr. Higginson was consecrated astheir teacher. In that same month Winthrop, Saltonstall, and others met atCambridge and signed an agreement binding themselves upon the faith ofChristians to embark for the plantation by the following March; "Providedalways that before the last of September next, the whole government, together with the patent, . . . Be first by an order of court legallytransferred and established to remain with us and others which shallinhabite upon the said plantation. " [Footnote: _Hutch. Coll. _, PrinceSoc. Ed. I. 28. ] The Company accepted the proposition, Winthrop was chosengovernor, and he anchored in Salem harbor in June. [Footnote: 1630] Morethan a thousand settlers landed before winter, and the first General Courtwas held at Boston in October; nor did the emigration thus begun entirelycease until the meeting of the Long Parliament. 

From the beginning the colonists took what measures they thought proper, without regarding the limitations of the law. Counties and towns had to bepractically incorporated, taxes were levied upon inhabitants, and in 1634all pretence of a General Court of freemen was dropped, and the townschose delegates to represent them, though the legislature was not dividedinto two branches until ten years later. When the government had becomefully organized supreme power was vested in the General Court, alegislature composed of two houses; the assistants, or magistrates, asthey were called, and the deputies. The governor, deputy governor, andassistants were elected by a general vote; but each town sent two deputiesto Boston. 

For some years justice was dispensed by the magistrates according to theWord of God, but gradually a judicial system was established; themagistrate's local court was the lowest, from whence causes went by appealto the county courts, one of whose judges was always an assistant, andprobate jurisdiction was given to the two held at Ipswich and at Salem. From the judgments entered here an appeal lay to the Court of Assistants, and then to the General Court, which was the tribunal of last resort. Theclergy and gentry pertinaciously resisted the enactment of a series ofgeneral statutes, upon which the people as steadily insisted, until atlength, in 1641, "The Body of Liberties" was approved by the legislature. This compilation was the work of the Rev. Mr. Ward, pastor of Ipswich, andcontained a criminal code copied almost word for word from the Pentateuch, but apart from matters touching religion, the legislation was such asEnglish colonists have always adopted. A major-general was elected whocommanded the militia, and in 1652 money was coined. 

The social institutions, however, have a keener interest, for they reflectthat strong cast of thought which has stamped its imprint deep into thecharacter of so much of the American people. The seventeenth century wasaristocratic, and the inhabitants of the larger part of New England weredivided into three classes, the commonalty, the gentry, and the clergy. Little need be said of the first, except that they were a brave anddetermined race, as ready to fight as Cromwell's saints, who made Rupert'stroopers "as stubble to their swords;" that they were intelligent, andwould not brook injustice; and that they were resolute, and would notendure oppression. All know that they were energetic and shrewd. 

The gentry had the weight in the community that comes with wealth andeducation, and they received the deference then paid to birth, for theywere for the most part the descendants of English country-gentlemen. As amatter of course they monopolized the chief offices; and they were notsentenced by the courts to degrading punishments, like whipping, for theiroffences, as other criminals were. They even showed some wish at theoutset to create legal distinctions, such as a magistracy for life, and adisposition to magnify the jurisdiction of the Court of Assistants, whoseseats they filled; but the action of the people was determined thoughquiet, a chamber of deputies was chosen, and such schemes were heard of nomore. 

Yet notwithstanding the existence of this aristocratic element, the realsubstance of influence and power lay with the clergy. It has been taughtas an axiom of Massachusetts history, that from the outset the town wasthe social and political unit; but an analysis of the evidence tends toshow that the organization of the Puritan Commonwealth was ecclesiastical, and the congregation, not the town, the basis upon which the fabricrested. By the constitution of the corporation the franchise went with thefreedom of the company; but in order to form a constituency which wouldsupport a sacerdotal oligarchy, it was enacted in 1631 "that for time tocome noe man shalbe admitted to the freedome of this body polliticke, butsuch as are members of some of the churches within . . . The same. "[Footnote: _Mass. Records_, i. 87. ] Thus though communicants were notnecessarily voters, no one could be a voter who was not a communicant;therefore the town-meeting was in fact nothing but the church meeting, possibly somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By thisinsidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which they heldtill the charter fell. The minister stood at the head of the congregationand moulded it to suit his purposes and to do his will; for though hecould not when opposed admit an inhabitant to the sacrament, he couldperemptorily exclude therefrom all those of whom he disapproved, for "noneare propounded to the congregation, except they be first allowed by theelders. " [Footnote: Winthrop's reply to Vane, _Hutch. Coll. _, PrinceSoc. Ed. I. 101. ] In such a community the influence of the priesthood musthave been overwhelming. Not only in an age without newspapers or tolerableroads were their sermons, preached several times each week to every voter, the most effective of political harangues; but, unlike other partyorators, they were not forced to stimulate the sluggish, or to convincethe hostile, for from a people glowing with fanaticism, each elder pickedhis band of devoted servants of the church, men passionately longing to dothe will of Christ, whose commands concerning earth and heaven theirpastor had been ordained to declare. Nor was their power bounded by locallimits; though seldom holding office themselves, they were solemnlyconsulted by the government on every important question that arose, whether of war or peace, and their counsel was rarely disregarded. Theygave their opinion, no matter how foreign the subject might be to theirprofession or their education; and they had no hesitation in passing uponthe technical construction of the charter with the authority of a bench ofjudges. An amusing example is given by Winthrop: "The General Courtassembled again, and all the elders were sent for, to reconcile thedifferences between the magistrates and deputies. When they were come thefirst question put to them was, . . . Whether the magistrates are, by patentand election of the people, the standing council of this commonwealth inthe vacancy of the General Court, and have power accordingly to act in allcases subject to government, according to the said patent and the laws ofthis jurisdiction; and when any necessary occasions call for action fromauthority, in cases where there is no particular express law provided, there to be guided by the word of God, till the General Court giveparticular rules in such cases. The elders, having received the question, withdrew themselves for consultation about it, and the next day sent toknow, when we would appoint a time that they might attend the court withtheir answer. The magistrates and deputies agreed upon an hour "and . . . Their answer was affirmative, on the magistrates behalf, in the verywords of the question, with some reasons thereof. It was delivered inwriting by Mr. Cotton in the name of them all, they being all present, andnot one dissentient. " Then the magistrates propounded four more questions, the last of which is as follows: "Whether a judge be bound to pronouncesuch sentence as a positive law prescribes, in case it be apparently aboveor beneath the merit of the offence?" To which the elders replied at greatlength, saying that the penalty must vary with the gravity of the crime, and added examples: "So any sin committed with an high hand, as thegathering of sticks on the Sabbath day, may be punished with death when alesser punishment may serve for gathering sticks privily and in someneed. " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 204, 205. ] Yet though the clericalinfluence was so unbounded the theocracy itself was exposed to constantperil. In monarchies such as France or Spain the priests who rule the kinghave the force of the nation at command to dispose of at their will; butin Massachusetts a more difficult problem was presented, for the votershad to be controlled. By the law requiring freemen to be church-membersthe elders meant to grasp the key to the suffrage, but experience soonproved that more stringent regulation was needed. 

According to the original Congregational theory each church was completeand independent, and elected its own officers and conducted its ownworship, free from interference from without, except that others of thesame communion might offer advice or admonition. Under the theocracy nosuch loose system was possible, for heresy might enter in three differentways; first, under the early law, "blasphemers" might form a congregationand from thence creep into the company; second, an established churchmight fall into error; third, an unsound minister might be chosen, whowould debauch his flock by securing the admission of sectaries to thesacrament. Above all, a creed was necessary by means of which falsedoctrine might be instantly detected and condemned. Accordingly, one byone, as the need for vigilance increased, laws were passed to guard thesepoints of danger. 

First, in 1635 it was enacted, [Footnote: 1635-6, March 3. ] "Forasmuch asit hath bene found by sad experience, that much trouble and disturbancehath happened both to the church & civill state by the officers & membersof some churches, which have bene gathered . . . In an vndue manner . . . Itis . . . Ordered that . . . This Court doeth not, nor will hereafter, approueof any such companyes of men as shall henceforthe ioyne in any pretendedway of church fellowshipp, without they shall first acquainte themagistrates, & the elders of the greater parte of the churches in thisjurisdiction, with their intenctions, and have their approbaction herein. And ffurther, it is ordered, that noe person, being a member of anychurche which shall hereafter be gathered without the approbaction of themagistrates, & the greater parte of the said churches, shallbe admitted tothe ffreedome of this commonwealthe. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ i. 168. ]

In 1648 all the elders met in a synod at Cambridge; they adopted theWestminster Confession of Faith and an elaborate "Platform of ChurchDiscipline, " the last clause of which is as follows: "If any church . . . Shall grow schismatical, rending itself from the communion of otherchurches, or shall walk incorrigibly and obstinately in any corrupt way oftheir own contrary to the rule of the word; in such case the magistrate, . . . Is to put forth his coercive power, as the matter shall require. "[Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 5, ch. Xvii. Section 9. ]

In 1658 the General Court declared: "Whereas it is the duty of theChristian magistrate to take care the people be fed with wholesome & sounddoctrine, & in this houre of temptation, . . . It is therefore ordered, thathenceforth no person shall . . . Preach to any company of people, whither inchurch society or not, or be ordeyned to the office of a teaching elder, where any two organnick churches, councill of state, or Generall Courtshall declare theire dissatisfaction thereat, either in refference todoctrine or practize. . . And in case of ordination. . . Timely notice thereofshall be given unto three or fower of the neighbouring organicke churchesfor theire approbation. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ iv. Pt. 1, p. 328. ] Andlastly, in 1679, the building of meeting-houses was forbidden, withoutleave from the freemen of the town or the General Court. [Footnote:_Mass. Rec. _ v. 213. ]

But legislation has never yet controlled the action of human thought. Allexperience shows that every age, and every western nation, produces menwhose nature it is to follow the guidance of their reason in the face ofevery danger. To exterminate these is the task of religious persecution, for they can be silenced only by death. Thus is a dominant priesthoodbrought face to face with the alternative, of surrendering its power or ofkilling the heretic, and those bloody deeds that cast their sombre shadowacross the history of the Puritan Commonwealth cannot be seen in theirtrue bearing unless the position of the clergy is vividly before the mind. 

Cromwell said that ministers were "helpers of, not lords over, God'speople, " [Footnote: Cromwell to Dundass, letter cxlviii. Carlyle's_Cromwell_, iii. 72. ] but the orthodox New Englander was the vassalof his priest. Winthrop was the ablest and the most enlightened magistratethe ecclesiastical party ever had, and he tells us that "I honoured afaithful minister in my heart and could have kissed his feet. " [Footnote:_Life and Letters of Winthrop_, i. 61. ] If the governor ofMassachusetts and the leader of the emigration could thus describe hismoral growth, --a man of birth, education, and fortune, who had had wideexperience of life, and was a lawyer by profession, --the awe and terrorfelt by the mass of the communicants can be imagined. 

Jonathan Mitchel, one of the most famous of the earlier divines, thusdescribes his flock: "They were a gracious, savoury-spirited people, principled by Mr. Shepard, liking an humbling, mourning, heart-breakingministry and spirit; living in religion, praying men and women. " And "hewould speak with such a transcendent majesty and liveliness, that thepeople . . . Would often shake under his dispensations, as if they had heardthe sound of the trumpets from the burning mountain, and yet they wouldmourn to think, that they were going presently to be dismissed from suchan heaven upon earth. " . . . "When a publick admonition was to be dispensedunto any one that had offended scandalously. . . The hearers would be alldrowned in tears, as if the admonition had been, as indeed he would withmuch artifice make it be directed unto them all; but such would be thecompassion, and yet the gravity, the majesty, the scriptural and awfulpungency of these his dispensations, that the conscience of the offenderhimself, could make no resistance thereunto. " [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. Iv. Sub-section 9, 10. ]

Their arrogance was fed by the submission of the people, and they wouldnot tolerate the slightest opposition even from their most devotedretainers. The Reforming Synod was held in 1679. "When the report of acommittee on 'the evils that had provoked the Lord' came up forconsideration, 'Mr. Wheelock declared that there was a cry of injustice inthat magistrates and ministers were not rated' (taxed), 'which occasioneda very warm discourse. Mr. Stodder' (minister of Northampton) 'charged thedeputy with saying what was not true, and the deputy governor' (Danforth)'told him he deserved to be laid by the heels, etc. '

"'After we broke up, the deputy and several others went home with Mr. Stodder, and the deputy asked forgiveness of him and told him he freelyforgave him, but Mr. Stodder was high. ' The next day 'the deputy owned hisbeing in too great a heat, and desired the Lord to forgive it, and Mr. Stodder did something, though very little, by the deputy. '" [Footnote:Palfrey's _History of New England_, in. 330, note 2. Extract from_Journal_ of Rev. Peter Thacher. ] Wheelock was lucky in not having tosmart more severely for his temerity, for the unfortunate Ursula Cole wassentenced to pay £5 [Footnote: Five pounds was equivalent to a sum betweenone hundred and twenty-five and one hundred and fifty dollars now. Ursulawas of course poor, or she would not have been sentenced to be whipped. The fine was therefore extremely heavy. ] or be whipped for the lightercrime of saying "she had as lief hear a cat mew" [Footnote: Frothingham, _History of Charlestown_, p. 208. ] as Mr. Shepard preach. The dailyservices in the churches consumed so much time that they became agrievance with which the government was unable to cope. 

In 1633 the Court of Assistants, thinking "the keepeing of lectures attthe ordinary howres nowe obserued in the forenoone, to be dyvers wayespreiudiciall to the common good, both in the losse of a whole day, &bringing other charges & troubles to the place where the lecture is kept, "ordered that they should not begin before one o'clock. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ i. 110. ] The evil still continued, for only the next year it wasfound that so many lectures "did spend too much time and provedoverburdensome, " and they were reduced to two a week. [Footnote: Felt's_Eccl. Hist. _ i. 201. ] Notwithstanding these measures, relief was notobtained, because, as the legislature complained in 1639, lectures "wereheld till night, and sometimes within the night, so as such as dwelt faroff could not get home in due season, and many weak bodies could notendure so long, in the extremity of the heat or cold, without greattrouble and hazard of their health, " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 324. ] and aconsultation between the elders and magistrates was suggested. 

But to have the delights of the pulpit abridged was more than the divinescould bear. They declared roundly that their privileges were invaded;[Footnote: _Idem_, i. 325. ] and the General Court had to give way. Afew lines in Winthrop's Journal give an idea of the tax this loquacitymust have been upon the time of a poor and scattered people. "Mr. Hookerbeing to preach at Cambridge, the governor and many others went to hearhim. . . . He preached in the afternoon, and having gone on, with muchstrength of voice and intention of spirit, about a quarter of an hour, hewas at a stand, and told the people that God had deprived him both of hisstrength and matter, &c. And so went forth, and about half an hour afterreturned again, and went on to very good purpose about two hours. "[Footnote: Winthrop, i. 304. ] Common men could not have kept this holdupon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds burned withfanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs and under theirtemptations persecution seemed to them not only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to Christ--and that duty they unflinchinglyperformed. John Cotton, the most gifted among them, taught it as a holywork: "But the good that is brought to princes and subjects by the duepunishment of apostate seducers and idolaters and blasphemers is manifold. 

"First, it putteth away evill from the people and cutteth off a gangreene, which would spread to further ungodlinesse. . . . 

"Secondly, it driveth away wolves from worrying and scattering the sheepof Christ. For false teachers be wolves, . . . And the very name of wolvesholdeth forth what benefit will redound to the sheep, by either killingthem or driving them away. 

"Thirdly, such executions upon such evill doers causeth all the country toheare and feare, and doe no more such wickednesse. . . . Yea as thesepunishments are preventions of like wickednesse in some, so are theywholesome medicines, to heale such as are curable of these eviles. . . . 

"Fourthly, the punishments executed upon false prophets and seducingteachers, doe bring downe showers of God's blessings upon the civillstate. . . . 

"Fifthly, it is an honour to God's Justice that such judgments areexecuted. . . . " [Footnote: _Bloody Tenent Washed_, pp. 137, 138. ]

All motives combined to drive them headlong into cruelty; for in thebreasts of the larger number, even the passion of bigotry was cool besidethe malignant hate they felt for those whose opinions menaced theirearthly power and dominion; and they never wearied of exhorting themagistrates to destroy the enemies of the church. "Men's lusts are sweetto them, and they would not be disturbed or disquieted in their sin. Hencethere be so many such as cry up tolleration boundless and libertinism soas (if it were in their power) to order a total and perpetual confinementof the sword of the civil magistrate unto its scabbard; (a notion that isevidently distructive to this people, and to the publick liberty, peace, and prosperity of any instituted churches under heaven. )" [Footnote:_Eye Salve_, Election Sermon, by Mr. Shepard of Charlestown, p. 21. ]"Let the magistrates coercive power in matters of religion (therefore) bestill asserted, seing he is one who is bound to God more than any othermen to cherish his true religion; . . . And how wofull would the state ofthings soon be among us, if men might have liberty without controll toprofess, or preach, or print, or publish what they list, tending to theseduction of others. " [Footnote: _Eye Salve_, p. 38. ] Such feelingsfound their fit expression in savage laws against dissenting sects; these, however, will be dealt with hereafter; only those which illustrate thefundamental principles of the theocracy need be mentioned here. One chiefcause of schism was the hearing of false doctrine; and in order that thepeople might not be led into temptation, but might on the contrary heartrue exposition of the word, every inhabitant was obliged to attend theservices of the established church upon the Lord's day under a penalty offine or imprisonment; the fine not to exceed 5s. (equal to about $5 now)for every absence. [Footnote: 1634-35, 4 March. _Mass. Rec. _ i. 140. ]

"If any Christian so called . . . Shall contemptuously behave himselfetoward ye word preached, or ye messengers thereof called to dispence yesame in any congregation, . . . Or like a sonn of Corah cast upon his truedoctrine or himselfe any reproach . . . Shall for ye first scandole beconvented . . . And bound to their good behaviour; and if a second time theybreake forth into ye like contemptuous carriages, either to pay £5 to yepublike treasury or to stand two houres openly upon a block 4 foote high, on a lecture day, with a pap fixed on his breast with this, A WantonGospeller, written in capitall letters ye others may fear & be ashamed ofbreaking out into the like wickednes. " [Footnote: 1646, 4 Nov. _Mass. Rec. _ ii. 179. ]

"Though no humane power be Lord over ye faith & consciences of men andtherefore may not constraine ym to beleeve or profes against theirconscience, yet because such as bring in damnable heresies tending to yesubversion of ye Christian faith . . . Ought duely to be restrained fromsuch notorious impiety, if any Christian . . . Shall go about to subvert . . . Ye Christian faith, by broaching . . . Any damnable heresy, as deniing yeimmortality of ye soule, or ye resurrection of ye body, or any sinn to berepented of in ye regenerate, or any evill done by ye outward man to beaccounted sinn, or deniing yt Christ gave himselfe a ransome for or sinns. . . Or any other heresy of such nature & degree . . . Shall pay to ye commontreasury during ye first six months 20s. A month and for ye next sixmonths 40s. P. M. , and so to continue dureing his obstinacy; and if anysuch person shall endeavour to seduce others . . . He shall forfeit . . . Forevery severall offence . . . Five pounds. " [Footnote: 1646, 4 Nov. _Mass. Rec. _ ii. 177. ]

"For ye honnor of ye aetaernall God, whome only wee worshippp and serve, "(it is ordered that) "no person within this jurisdiction, whetherChristian or pagan, shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme hisholy name either by wilfull or obstinate denying ye true God, or reproachye holy religion of God, as if it were but a polliticke devise to keepeignorant men in awe, . . . Or deny his creation or gouvernment of ye world, or shall curse God, or shall vtter any other eminent kind of blasphemy, ofye like nature and degree; if any person or persons whatsoeuer within ourjurisdiction shall breake this lawe they shall be putt to death. "[Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ iii. 98. ]

The special punishments for Antinomians, Baptists, Quakers, and othersectaries were fine and imprisonment, branding, whipping, mutilation, banishment, and hanging. Nor were the elders men to shrink from executingthese laws with the same ferocious spirit in which they were enacted. Remonstrance and command were alike neglected. The Long Parliament warnedthem to beware; Charles II. Repeatedly ordered them to desist; theirtrusted and dearest friend, Sir Richard Saltonstall, wrote from London toCotton: "It doth not a little grieve my spirit to heare what sadd thingsare reported dayly of your tyranny and persecution in New England, as thatyou fyne, whip, and imprison men for their consciences, " [Footnote:_Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 127. ] and told them their "rigidwayes have laid you very lowe in the hearts of the saynts. " Thirteen ofthe most learned and eminent nonconforming ministers in England wrote tothe governor of Massachusetts imploring him that he and the General Courtwould not by their violence "put an advantage into the hands of some whoseek pretences and occasions against our liberty. " [Footnote:_Magnalia_, bk. 7, ch. Iv. Section 4. ] Winthrop, the wisest andablest champion the clergy ever had, hung back. Like many anotherpolitical leader, he was forced by his party into measures from which hisjudgment and his heart recoiled. He tells us how, on a question arisingbetween him and Mr. Haynes, the elders "delivered their several reasonswhich all sorted to this conclusion, that strict discipline, both incriminal offences and in martial affairs, was more needful in plantationsthan in a settled state, as tending to the honor and safety of the gospel. Whereupon Mr. Winthrop acknowledged that he was convinced that he hadfailed in over much lenity and remissness, and would endeavor (by God'sassistance) to take a more strict course thereafter. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 178. ] But his better nature revolted from the foul task and once moreregained ascendancy just as he sunk in death. For while he was lying verysick, Dudley came to his bedside with an order to banish a heretic: "No, "said the dying man, "I have done too much of that work already, " and hewould not sign the warrant. [Footnote: _Life and Letters of Winthrop_, ii. 393. ]

Nothing could avail, for the clergy held the state within their grasp, andshrank from no deed of blood to guard the interests of their order. 

The case of Gorton may serve as an example of a rigor that shocked eventhe Presbyterian Baillie; it must be said in explanation of his story thatthe magistrates condemned Gorton and his friends to death for the crime ofheresy in obedience to the unanimous decision of the elders, [Footnote:Winthrop, ii. 146. ] but the deputies refusing to concur, the sentence ofimprisonment in irons during the pleasure of the General Court was agreedupon as a compromise. "Only they in New England are more strict and rigidthan we, or any church, to suppress, by the power of the magistrate, allwho are not of their way, to banishment ordinarily and presently even todeath lately, or perpetual slavery; for one Jortin, sometime a famouscitizen here for piety, having taught a number in New England to cast oftthe word and sacrament, and deny angels and devils, and teach a gross kindof union with Christ in this life, by force of arms was brought to NewBoston, and there with ten of the chief of his followers, by the civilcourt was discerned perpetual slaves, but the votes of many were for theirexecution. They lie in irons, though gentlemen; and out of their prisonwrite to the admiral here, to deal with the parliament for theirdeliverance. " [Footnote: Baillie's Letters, ii. 17, 18. ]

Like all phenomena of nature, the action of the mind is obedient to law;the cause is followed by the consequence with the precision that the earthmoves round the sun, and impelled by this resistless power his destiny iswrought out by man. To the ecclesiastic a deep debt of gratitude is due, for it was by his effort that the first step from barbarism was made. Inthe world's childhood, knowledge seems divine, and those who first acquireits rudiments claim, and are believed, to have received it by revelationfrom the gods. In an archaic age the priest is likewise the law-giver andthe physician, for all erudition is concentrated in one supremely favoredclass--the sacred caste. Their discoveries are kept profoundly secret, andyet to perpetuate their mysteries among their descendants they foundschools which are the only repositories of learning; but the time mustinevitably come when this order is transformed into the deadliest enemy ofthe civilization which it has brought into being. The power of thespiritual oligarchy rests upon superstitious terrors which dwindle beforeadvancing enlightenment; hence the clergy have become reactionary, havesought to stifle the spirit of free inquiry, and have used the schoolswhich they have builded as instruments to keep alive unreasoningprejudice, or to serve their selfish ends. This, then, has been thefiercest battle of mankind; the heroic struggle to break down thesacerdotal barrier, to popularize knowledge, and to liberate the mind, began ages before the crucifixion upon Calvary; it still goes on. In thiscause the noblest and the bravest have poured forth their blood likewater, and the path to freedom has been heaped with the corpses of hermartyrs. 

In that tremendous drama Massachusetts has played her part; it may be saidto have made her intellectual life; and it is the passion of the combatwhich gives an interest at once so sombre and so romantic to her story. 

In the tempest of the Reformation a handful of the sternest rebels werecast upon the bleak New England coast, and the fervor of that devotionwhich led them into the wilderness inspired them with the dream ofreproducing the institutions of God's chosen people, a picture of whichthey believed was divinely preserved for their guidance in the Bible. Whatthey did in reality was to surrender their new commonwealth to theirpriests. Yet they were a race in whose bone and blood the spirit of freethought was bred; the impulse which had goaded them to reject the Romandogmas was quick within them still, and revolt against the ecclesiasticalyoke was certain. The clergy upon their side trod their appointed pathwith the precision of machines, and, constrained by an inexorable destiny, they took that position of antagonism to liberal thought which has becometypical of their order. And the struggles and the agony by which this poorand isolated community freed itself from its gloomy bondage, the means bywhich it secularized its education and its government, won for itself theblessing of free thought and speech, and matured a system ofconstitutional liberty which has been the foundation of the AmericanUnion, rise in dignity to one of the supreme efforts of mankind. 

CHAPTER II. 

THE ANTINOMIANS. 

Habit may be defined with enough accuracy for ordinary purposes as theresult of reflex action, or the immediate response of the nerves to astimulus, without the intervention of consciousness. Many bodily functionsare naturally reflex, and most movements may be made so by constantrepetition; they are then executed independently of the will. It is noexaggeration to say that the social fabric rests on the control thistendency exerts over the actions of men; and its strength is strikinglyexemplified in armies, which, when well organized, are machines, whereinsubjection to command is instinctive, and insubordination, therefore, practically impossible. 

An analogous phenomenon is presented by the church, whose priests haveintuitively exhausted their ingenuity in weaving webs of ceremonial, assoldiers have directed their energies to perfecting manuals of arms; andthe evidence leads to the conclusion that increasing complexity of ritualindicates a densening ignorance and a deepening despotism. The Hindoos, the Spaniards, and the English are types of the progression. 

Within the historic ages unnumbered methods of sacerdotal discipline havebeen evolved, but whether the means used to compass the end has been thebewildering maze of a Levitical code, or the rosary and the confessionalof Rome, the object has always been to reduce the devotee to the implicitobedience of the trooper. And the stupendous power of these amazinglyperfect systems for destroying the capacity for original thought cannot befully realized until the mind has been brought to dwell upon the fact thatthe greatest eras of human progress have begun with the advent of thosewho have led successful insurrection; nor can the dazzling genius of thesebrilliant exceptions be appreciated, unless it be remembered howinfinitely small has been the number of those among mankind who, havingbeen once drilled to rigid conformity, have not lapsed into automatism, but have been endowed with the mental energy to revolt. On the other hand, though ecclesiastics have differed widely in the details of the trainingthey have enforced upon the faithful, they have agreed upon this cardinalprinciple: they have uniformly seized upon the education of the young, andtaught the child to revere the rites in which he was made to partakebefore he could reason upon their meaning, for they understood well thatthe habit of abject submission to authority, when firmly rooted ininfancy, would ripen into a second nature in after years, and would almostinvariably last till death. 

But this manual of religion, this deadening of the soul by makingmechanical prayers and genuflexions the gauge of piety, has always rousedthe deepest indignation in the great reformers; and, un-appalled by themost ghastly perils, they have never ceased to exhort mankind to cast offthe slavery of custom and emancipate the mind. Christ rebuked thePharisees because they rejected the commandment of God to keep their owntradition; Paul proclaimed that men should be justified by faith withoutthe deeds of the law; and Luther preached that the Christian was free, that the soul did not live because the body wore vestments or prayed withthe lips, and he denounced the tyranny of the clergy, who arrogated tothemselves a higher position than others who were Christian in the spirit. On their side priesthoods know these leaders of rebellion by an unerringinstinct and pursue them to the death. 

The ministers of New England were formalists to the core, and the societyover which they dominated was organized upon the avowed basis of themanifestation of godliness in the outward man. The sad countenance, theBiblical speech, the sombre garb, the austere life, the attendance atworship, and, above all, the unfailing deference paid to themselves, werethe marks of sanctification by which the elders knew the saints on earth, for whom they were to open the path to fortune by making them members ofthe church. 

Happily for Massachusetts, there has never been a time when all herchildren could be docile under such a rule; and, among her champions offreedom, none have been braver than those who have sprung from the ranksof her ministry, as the fate of Roger Williams had already proved. In sucha community, before the ecclesiastical power had been solidified by time, only a spark was needed to kindle a conflagration, and that spark wasstruck by a woman. 

So early as 1634 a restless spirit was abroad, for Winthrop was then setaside, and now, in 1636, young Henry Vane was enthusiastically electedgovernor, though he was only twenty-four, and had been but a few months inthe colony. The future seemed bright and serene, yet he had hardly takenoffice before the storm burst, which not only overthrew him, but wasdestined to destroy that unhappy lady whom the Rev. Thomas Welde calledthe American Jezebel. [Footnote: Opinions are divided as to the authorshipof the _Short Story_, but I conclude from internal evidence that theending at least was written by Mr. Welde. ]

John Cotton, the former rector of St. Botolph's, was the teacher of theBoston church. By common consent the leader of the clergy, he was the mostbrilliant, and, in some respects, the most powerful man in the colony. Twoyears before, Anne Hutchinson, with all her family, had followed him fromher home in Lincolnshire into the wilderness, for, "when our teacher cameto New England, it was a great trouble unto me, my brother, Wheelwright, being put by also. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist_. Ii. 440. ] A gentlewomanof spotless life, with a kind and charitable heart, a vigorousunderstanding and dauntless courage, her failings were vanity and a bittertongue toward those whom she disliked. [Footnote: Cotton, _Way of NewEngland Churches_, p. 52. ] Unfortunately also for herself, she was oneof the enthusiasts who believe themselves subject to divine revelations, for this pretension would probably in any event have brought upon her thedispleasure of the church. It is worth while to attempt some logicalexplanation of the dislike felt by the Massachusetts elders to anysuggestion of such supernatural interposition. The half-unconscious trainof reasoning on which they based their claim to exact implicit obediencefrom the people seems, when analyzed, to yield this syllogism: Allrevelation is contained in the Bible; but to interpret the ancient sacredwritings with authority, a technical training is essential, which isconfined to priests; therefore no one can define God's will who is not ofthe ministry. Had the possibility of direct revelation been admitted thisreasoning must have fallen; for then, obviously, the word of an inspiredpeasant would have outweighed the sermon of an uninspired divine; itfollows, necessarily, that ecclesiastics so situated would have beenjealous of lay preaching, and absolutely intolerant of the inner light. 

In May, 1636, the month of Vane's election, Mrs. Hutchinson had beenjoined by her brother-in-law, John Wheelwright, the deprived vicar ofBilsby. Her social influence was then at its height; her amiabledisposition had made her popular, and for some time past she had heldreligious meetings for women at her house. The ostensible object of thesegatherings was to recapitulate the sermons of the week; but the step fromdiscussion to criticism was short, and it soon began to be said that shecast reproach "upon the ministers, . . . Saying that none of them did preachthe covenant of free grace, but Master Cotton, and that they have not theseale of the Spirit, and so were not able ministers of the New Testament. "[Footnote: _Short Story_, p. 36. ] Or, to use colloquial language, sheaccused the clergy of being teachers of forms, and said that, of them all, Cotton alone appealed to the animating spirit like Luther or St. Paul. 

"A company of legall professors, " quoth she, "lie poring on the law whichChrist hath abolished. " [Footnote: _Wonder-Working Providence_, Poole'sed. P. 102. ]

Such freedom of speech was, of course, intolerable; and so, as Cotton wasimplicated by her imprudent talk, the elders went to Boston in a body inOctober to take him to task. In the hope of adjusting the difficulty, hesuggested a friendly meeting at his house, and an interview took place. Atfirst Mrs. Hutchinson, with much prudence, declined to commit herself; butthe Rev. Hugh Peters besought her so earnestly to deal frankly and openlywith them that she, confiding in the sacred character of a confidentialconversation with clergymen in the house of her own religious teacher, committed the fatal error of admitting that she saw a wide differencebetween Mr. Cotton's ministry and theirs, and that they could not preach acovenant of grace so clearly as he, because they had not the seal of theSpirit. The progress of the new opinion was rapid, and it is clear Mrs. Hutchinson had only given expression to a feeling of discontent which wasboth wide-spread and deep. Before winter her adherents, or those whocondemned the covenant of works, --in modern language, the liberals, --hadbecome an organized political party, of which Vane was the leader; andhere lay their first danger. 

Notwithstanding his eminent ability, he was then but a boy, and the taskwas beyond his strength. The stronghold of his party was Boston, where, except some half-dozen, [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 212. ] the wholecongregation followed him and Cotton: yet even here he met with thepowerful opposition of Winthrop and the pastor, John Wilson. In thecountry he was confronted by the solid body of the clergy, whose influenceproved sufficient to hold together a majority of the voters insubstantially all the towns, so that the conservatives never lost controlof the legislature. 

The position was harassing, and his nerves gave way under the strain. InDecember he called a court and one day suddenly announced that he hadreceived letters from England requiring his immediate return; but whensome of his friends remonstrated he "brake forth into tears and professedthat, howsoever the causes propounded for his departure were such as didconcern the utter ruin of his outward estate, yet he would rather havehazarded all" . . . "but for the danger he saw of God's judgment to comeupon us for these differences and dissensions which he saw amongst us, andthe scandalous imputations brought upon himself, as if he should be thecause of all. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 207. ]

Such a flight was out of the question. The weight of his name and theprotection given his supporters by the power of his family in Englandcould not be dispensed with, and therefore the Boston congregationintervened. After a day's reflection he seems himself to have becomeconvinced that he had gone too far to recede, so he "expressed himself tobe an obedient child to the church and therefore . . . Durst not go away. "[Footnote: _Idem_, i. 208. ]

That a young and untried man like Vane should have grown weary of hisoffice and longed to escape will astonish no one who is familiar with thecharacter and the mode of warfare of his adversaries. 

In that society a layman could not retort upon a minister who insultedhim, nor could Vane employ the arguments with which Cromwell soeffectually silenced the Scotch divines. The following is a specimen ofthe treatment to which he was probably almost daily subjected, and thescene in this instance was the more mortifying because it took placebefore the assembled legislature. 

"The ministers had met a little before and had drawn into heads all thepoints wherein they suspected Mr. Cotton did differ from them, and hadpropounded them to him, and pressed him to a direct answer . . . To everyone; which he had promised. . . . This meeting being spoke of in the courtthe day before, the governour took great offence at it, as being withouthis privity, &c. , which this day Mr. Peter told him as plainly of (withall due reverence), and how it had sadded the ministers' spirits, that heshould be jealous of their meetings, or seem to restrain their liberty, &c. The governour excused his speech as sudden and upon a mistake. Mr. Peter told him also, that before he came, within less than two yearssince, the churches were in peace. . . . Mr. Peter also besought him humblyto consider his youth and short experience in the things of God, and tobeware of peremptory conclusions which he perceived him to be very aptunto. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 209. ] This coarse bully was the same HughPeters of whom Whitelock afterward complained that he often advised him, though he "understood little of the law, but was very opinionative, "[Footnote: Memorials, p. 521. ] and who was so terrified at the approach ofdeath that on his way to the scaffold he had to drink liquor to keep fromfainting. [Footnote: Burnet, i. 162. ]

"Mr. Wilson" also "made a very sad speech to the General Court of thecondition of our churches, and the inevitable danger of separation, ifthese differences . . . Were not speedily remedied, and laid the blame uponthese new opinions . . . Which all the magistrates except the governour andtwo others did confirm and all the ministers but two. " [Footnote:Winthrop, i. 209. ] Those two were John Cotton and John Wheelwright, thepreachers of the covenant of grace. 

Their brethren might well make sad speeches, for their cup of bitternesswas full; but they must be left to describe for themselves the tempest offear and wrath that raged within them. "Yea, some that had beene begottento Christ by some of their faithfull labours in this land" (England, wherethe tract was published, ) "for whom they could have laid downe theirlives, and not being able to beare their absence followed after themthither to New England to enjoy their labours, yet these fallingacquainted with those seducers, were suddenly so altered in theiraffections toward those their spirituall fathers, that they would neitherheare them, nor willingly come in their company, professing they had neverreceived any good from them. " . . . "Now the faithfull ministers of Christmust have dung cast on their faces . . . Must be pointed at as it were withthe finger, and reproached by name, such a church officer is an ignorantman, and knows not Christ; such an one is under a covenant of works: sucha pastor is a proud man, and would make a good persecutor . . . So thatthrough these reproaches occasion was given to men, to abhorre theofferings of the Lord. " [Footnote: Welde's _Short Story_, Pref. Sections7-11. ]

"Now, one of them in a solemne convention of ministers dared to say totheir faces, that they did not preach the Covenant of Free Grace, and thatthey themselves had not the seale of the Spirit. . . . Now, after our sermonswere ended at our publike lectures, you might have seene halfe a dozenpistols discharged at the face of the preacher (I meane) so manyobjections made by the opinionists in the open assembly against ourdoctrine . . . To the marvellous weakening of holy truths delivered . . . Inthe hearts of all the weaker sort. " [Footnote: Welde's _Short Story_, Pref. Sections 7-11. ]

John Wheelwright was a man whose character extorts our admiration, if itdoes not win our love. The personal friend of Cromwell and of Vane, with amind vigorous and masculine, and a courage stern and determined even abovethe Puritan standard of resolution and of daring, he spoke the truth whichwas within him, and could neither be intimidated nor cajoled. In Octoberan attempt had been made to have him settled as a teacher of the Bostonchurch in conjunction with Wilson and Cotton, but it had miscarriedthrough Winthrop's opposition, and he had afterward taken charge of acongregation that had been gathered at Mount Wollaston, in what is nowQuincy. 

On the 19th of January a fast was held on account of the publicdissensions, and on that day Wheelwright preached a great sermon in Bostonwhich brought on the crisis. He was afterward accused of sedition: thecharge was false, for he did not utter one seditious word; but he did thatwhich was harder to forgive, he struck at what he deemed the wrong withhis whole might, and those who will patiently pore over his pages untilthey see the fire glowing through his rugged sentences will feel the powerof his blow. And what he told his hearers was in substance this: It makethno matter how seemingly holy men be according to the law, if . . . They aresuch as trust to their own righteousness they shall die, saith the Lord. Do ye not after their works; for they say and do not. They make broadtheir phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments; and love theuppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues; andgreetings in the market place and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. Butbelieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and ye shall be saved, for beingjustified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. And the way we must take if so be we will not have the Lord Jesus Christtaken from us is this, we must all prepare a spiritual combat, we must puton the whole armor of God, and must have our loins girt up and be ready tofight, . . . Because of fear in the night if we will not fight the LordJesus Christ may come to be surprised. 

And when his brethren heard it they sought how they might destroy him; forthey feared him, because all the people were astonished at his doctrine. 

In March the legislature met, and Wheelwright was arraigned before a courtcomposed, according to the account of the Quaker Groom, of Henry Vane, "twelve magistrates, twelve priests, & thirty-three deputies. " [Footnote:Groom's Glass for New England, p. 6. ] His sermon was produced, and anattempt was made to obtain an admission that by those under a covenant ofworks he meant his brethren. But the accused was one whom it was hard toentrap and impossible to frighten. He defied his judges to controvert hisdoctrine, offering to prove it by the Scriptures, and as for theapplication he answered that "if he were shown any that walked in such away as he had described to be a covenant of works, them did he mean. "[Footnote: Wheelwright, Prince Soc. Ed. P. 17, note 27. ] Then the rest ofthe elders were asked if they "did walk in such a way, and they allacknowledged they did, " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 215. Wheelwright, p. 18. ]excepting John Cotton, who declared that "brother Wheelwright's doctrinewas according to God in the parts controverted, and wholly andaltogether. " [Footnote: Groom's _Glass for New England_, p. 7. ] Hereceived ecclesiastical justice. There was no jury, and the popularassembly that decided law and fact by a partisan vote was controlled byhis adversaries. Yet even so, a verdict of sedition was such a flagrantoutrage that the clergy found it impossible to command prompt obedience. For two days the issue was in doubt, but at length "the priests got two ofthe magistrates on their side, and so got the major part with them. "[Footnote: Felt's _Eccl. Hist. _ ii. 611. ] They appear, however, tohave felt too weak to proceed to sentence, for the prisoner was remandeduntil the next session. 

No sooner was the judgment made known than more than sixty of the mostrespected citizens of Boston signed a petition to the court inWheelwright's behalf, In respectful and even submissive language theypointed out the danger of meddling with the right of free speech. "Paulwas counted a pestilent fellow, or a moover of sedition, and a ringleaderof a sect, . . . And Christ himselfe, as well as Paul, was charged to bee ateacher of New Doctrine. . . . Now wee beseech you, consider whether that oldserpent work not after his old method, even in our daies. " [Footnote:Wheelwright, Prince Soc. Ed. P. 21. ]

The charge of sedition made against them they repudiated in emphaticwords, which deserve attention, as they were afterwards held to becriminal. 

"Thirdly, if you look at the effects of his doctrine upon the hearers, ithath not stirred up sedition in us, not so much as by accident; wee havenot drawn the sword, as sometimes Peter did, rashly, neither have weerescued our innocent brother, as sometimes the Israelites did Jonathan, and yet they did not seditiously. The covenant of free grace held forth byour brother hath taught us rather to become humble suppliants to yourworships, and if wee should not prevaile, wee would rather with patiencegive our cheekes to the smiters. " [Footnote: _Idem_. ]

The liberal feeling ran so strongly in Boston that the conservativesthought it prudent to remove the government temporarily to Cambridge, thatthey might more easily control the election which was to come in May. Vane, with some petulance, refused to entertain the motion; but Endicottput the question, and it was carried. As the time drew near the excitementincreased, the clergy straining every nerve to bring up their voters fromthe country; and on the morning of the day the feeling was so intense thatthe Rev. Mr. Wilson, forgetting his dignity and his age, scrambled up atree and harangued the people from its branches. [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist_. I. 62, note. ]

Yet, though the freemen were so deeply moved, there was no violence, andWinthrop was peaceably elected governor, with a strong conservativemajority in the legislature. It so happened that just at this time anumber of the friends of Wheelwright and the Hutchinsons were on their wayfrom England to settle in Massachusetts. The first act of the newgovernment was to exclude these new-comers by passing a law forbidding anytown to entertain strangers for more than three weeks without the consentof two of the magistrates. 

This oppressive statute caused such discontent that Winthrop thought itnecessary to publish a defence, to which Vane replied and Winthroprejoined. The controversy would long since have lost its interest had itnot been for the theory then first advanced by Winthrop, that thecorporation of Massachusetts, having bought its land, held it as though itwere a private estate, and might exclude whom they pleased therefrom; andever since this plea has been set up in justification of every excesscommitted by the theocracy. 

Winthrop was a lawyer, and it is but justice to his reputation to presumethat he spoke as a partisan, knowing his argument to be fallacious. As alegal proposition he must have been aware that it was unsound. 

Although during the reign of Charles I. Monopolies were a standinggrievance with the House of Commons, yet they had been granted andenforced for centuries; and had Massachusetts claimed the right to excludestrangers as interlopers in trade, she would have stood upon goodprecedent. Such, however, was not her contention. The legislation againstthe friends of Wheelwright was passed avowedly upon grounds of religiousdifference of opinion, and a monopoly in religion was unknown. 

Her commercial privileges alone were exclusive, and, provided he respectedthem, a British subject had the same right to dwell in Massachusetts as inany of the other dominions of the crown, or, indeed, in any borough whichheld its land by grant, like Plymouth. To subject Englishmen torestriction or punishment unknown to English law was as outrageous as thesame act would have been had it been perpetrated by the city of London, --both corporations having a like power to preserve the peace by localordinances, and both being controlled by the law of the land asadministered by the courts. Such arguments as those advanced by Winthropwere only solemn quibbling to cloak an indefensible policy. To banishfreemen for demanding liberty of conscience was a still more flagrantwrong. A precisely parallel case would have been presented had thedirectors of the East India Company declared the membership of aproprietor to be forfeited, and ordered his stock to be sold, because hedisapproved of enforcing conformity in worship among inhabitants of thefactories in Hindostan. 

Vane sailed early in August, and his departure cleared the last barrierfrom the way of vengeance. Proceedings were at once begun by a synod ofall the ministers, which was held at Cambridge, for the purpose ofrestoring peace to the churches. "There were about eighty opinions, someblasphemous, others erroneous, and all unsafe, condemned by the wholeassembly. . . . Some of the church of Boston . . . Were offended at theproducing of so many errors, . . . And called to have the persons namedwhich held those errors. " To which the elders answered that all thoseopinions could be proved to be held by some, but it was not thought fit toname the parties. "Yet this would not satisfy some but they oft called forwitnesses; and because some of the magistrates declared to them . . . Thatif they would not forbear it would prove a civil disturbance . . . Theyobjected. . . . So as he" (probably meaning Winthrop) "was forced to tell oneof them that if he would not forbear . . . He might see it executed. Uponthis some of Boston departed from the assembly and came no more. "[Footnote: Winthrop, i. 238. ] Once freed from their repinings all wentwell, and their pastor, Mr. Wilson, soon had the satisfaction of sendingtheir reputed heresies "to the devil of hell from whence they came. "[Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 3, ch. Ii. Section 13. ] Cotton, seeingthat all was lost, hastened to make his peace by a submission which theRev. Mr. Hubbard of Ipswich describes with unconscious cynicism. "If hewere not convinced, yet he was persuaded to an amicable compliance withthe other ministers; . . . For, although it was thought he did still retainhis own sense and enjoy his own apprehension in all or most of the thingsthen controverted (as is manifest by some expressions of his . . . Sincethat time published, ". . . ) yet. "By that means did that reverend and worthyminister of the gospel recover his former splendour throughout . . . NewEngland. " [Footnote: Hubbard, p. 302. ]

He was not a sensitive man, and having once determined to do penance, hewas far too astute a politician to do it by halves; he not only gavehimself up to the task of detecting the heterodoxy of his old friends, [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 253. ] but on a day of solemn fasting he publiclyprofessed repentance with many tears, and told how, "God leaving him for atime, he fell into a spirituall slumber; and had it not been for thewatchfulnesse of his brethren, the elders, &c. , hee might have slept on, . . . And was very thankfull to his brethren for their watchfulnesse overhim. " [Footnote: _Hypocrisie Unmasked_, p. 76. ] Nor to the end of hislife did he feel quite at ease; "yea, such was his ingenuity and piety asthat his soul was not satisfied without often breaking forth intoaffectionate bewailing of his infirmity herein, in the publick assembly, sometimes in his prayer, sometimes in his sermon, and that with tears. "[Footnote: Norton's _Funeral Sermon_, p. 37. ]

Wheelwright was made of sterner stuff, and was inflexible. In fact, however, the difference of dogma, if any existed, was trivial. The clergyused the cry of heresy to excite odium, just as they called theiropponents Antinomians, or dangerous fanatics. To support these accusationsthe synod gravely accepted every unsavory inference which ingenuity couldwring from the tenets of their adversaries; and these, together with thefables invented by idle gossip, made up the long list of errors theycondemned. Though the scheme was unprincipled, it met with completesuccess, and the Antinomians have come down to posterity branded as deadlyenemies of Christ and the commonwealth; yet nothing is more certain thanthat they were not only good citizens, but substantially orthodox. On sucha point there is no one among the conservatives whose testimony has theweight of Winthrop's, who says: "Mr. Cotton . . . Stated the differences ina very narrow scantling; and Mr. Shepherd, preaching at the day ofelection, brought them yet nearer, so as, except men of goodunderstanding, and such as knew the bottom of the tenents of those of theother party, few could see where the difference was. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 221. ] While Cotton himself complains bitterly of the falsehoods spreadabout him and his friends: "But when some of . . . The elders of neighbourchurches advertised me of the evill report . . . I . . . Dealt with Mrs. Hutchinson and others of them, declaring to them the erroneousnesse ofthose tenents, and the injury done to myself in fathering them upon mee. Both shee and they utterly denyed that they held such tenents, or thatthey had fathered them upon mee. I returned their answer to the elders. . . . They answered me they had but one witnesse, . . . And that one both to beknown. " . . . [Footnote: Cotton, _Way of New England Churches_, pp. 39, 40. ]Moreover, it is a remarkable fact that, notwithstanding the advantage itwould have given the reactionists to have been able to fix subversiveopinions upon their prominent opponents, it was found impossible to proveheresy in a single case which was brought to trial. The legislature chosenin May was apparently unfit for the work now to be done, for theextraordinary step of a dissolution was decided on, and a new electionheld, under circumstances in which it was easy to secure the return ofsuitable candidates. The session opened on November 2, and Wheelwright wassummoned to appear. He was ordered to submit, or prepare for sentence. Hereplied that he was guilty of neither sedition nor contempt; that he hadpreached only the truth of Christ, the application of which was forothers, not for him. "To which it was answered by the court that they hadnot censured his doctrine, but left it as it was; but his application, bywhich hee laid the magistrates and ministers and most of the people of Godin these churches under a covenant of works. " [Footnote: _Short Story_, p. 24. ] The prisoner was then sentenced to be disfranchised and banished. Hedemanded an appeal to the king; it was refused; and he was given fourteendays to leave Massachusetts. So he went forth alone in the bitter winterweather and journeyed to the Piscataqua, --yet "it was marvellous he gotthither at that time, when they expelled him, by reason of the deep snowin which he might have perished. " [Footnote: Wheelwright, Prince Soc. Ed. _Mercurius Americanus_, p. 24. ] Nor was banishment by any means thetrivial penalty it has been described. On the contrary, it was apunishment of the utmost rigor. The exiles were forced suddenly to disposeof their property, which, in those times, was mostly in houses and land, and go forth among the savages with helpless women and children. Such anordeal might well appall even a brave man; but Wheelwright was sacrificinghis intellectual life. He was leaving books, friends, and the mentalactivity, which made the world to him, to settle in the forests amongbackwoodsmen; and yet even in this desolate solitude the theocracycontinued to pursue him with persevering hate. 

But there were others beside Wheelwright who had sinned, and some pretexthad to be devised by which to reach them. The names of most of his friendswere upon the petition that had been drawn up after his trial. It is trueit was a proceeding with which the existing legislature was not concerned, since it had been presented to one of its predecessors; it is also truethat probably never, before or since, have men who have protested theyhave not drawn the sword rashly, but have come as humble suppliants tooffer their cheeks to the smiters, been held to be public enemies. Suchscruples, however, never hampered the theocracy. Their justice wastrammelled neither by judges, by juries, nor by laws; the petition wasdeclared to be a seditious libel, and the petitioners were given theirchoice of disavowing their act and making humble submission, or exile. 

Aspinwall was at once disfranchised and banished. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ i. 207. ] Coddington, Coggeshall, and nine more were given leaveto depart within three months, or abide the action of the court; otherswere disfranchised; and fifty-eight of the less prominent of the partywere disarmed in Boston alone. [Footnote: _Idem_, i. 223. ]

Thus were the early liberals crushed in Massachusetts; the bold wereexiled, the timid were terrified; as a political organization they movedno more till the theocracy was tottering to its fall; and for forty yearsthe power of the clergy was absolute in the land. 

The fate of Anne Hutchinson makes a fit ending to this sad tale ofoppression and of wrong. In November, 1637, when her friends were crushed, and the triumphant priests felt that their victim's doom was sure, she wasbrought to trial before that ghastliest den of human iniquity, anecclesiastical criminal court. The ministers were her accusers, who cameburning with hate to testify to the words she had spoken to them at theirown request, in the belief that the confidence she reposed was to be heldsacred. She had no jury to whose manhood she could appeal, and JohnWinthrop, to his lasting shame, was to prosecute her from the judgmentseat. She was soon to become a mother, and her health was feeble, but shewas made to stand till she was exhausted; and yet, abandoned and forlorn, before those merciless judges, through two long, weary days of hunger andof cold, the intrepid woman defended her cause with a skill and couragewhich even now, after two hundred and fifty years, kindles the heart withadmiration. The case for the government was opened by John Winthrop, thepresiding justice, the attorney-general, the foreman of the jury, and thechief magistrate of Massachusetts Bay. He upbraided the prisoner with hermany evil courses, with having spoken things prejudicial to the honor ofthe ministers, with holding an assembly in her house, and with divulgingthe opinions held by those who had been censured by that court; closing inthese words, which sound strangely in the mouth of a New England judge:--

 * * * * *

We have thought good to send for you . . . That if you be in an erroneousway we may reduce you that so you may become a profitable member hereamong us, otherwise if you be obstinate . . . That then the court may takesuch course that you may trouble us no further, therefore I would entreatyou . . . Whether you do not justify Mr. Wheelwright's sermon and thepetition. 

_Mrs. H. _ I am called here to answer before you, but I hear no thingslaid to my charge. 

_Gov. _ I have told you some already, and more I can tell you. 

_Mrs. H. _ Name one, sir. 

_Gov. _ Have I not named some already?

_Mrs. H. _ What have I said or done?. . . 

_Gov. _ You have joined with them in the faction. 

_Mrs. H. _ In what faction have I joined with them?

_Gov. _ In presenting the petition. . . . 

_Mrs. H. _ But I had not my hand to the petition. 

_Gov. _ You have counselled them. 

_Mrs. H. _ Wherein?

_Gov. _ Why, in entertaining them. 

_Mrs. H. _ What breach of law is that, sir?

_Gov. _ Why, dishonoring of parents. . . . 

_Mrs. H. _ I may put honor upon them as the children of God and as they dohonor the Lord. 

_Gov. _ We do not mean to discourse with those of your sex but only this;you do adhere unto them, and do endeavor to set forward this faction, andso you do dishonor us. 

_Mrs. H. _ I do acknowledge no such thing, neither do I think that I everput any dishonor upon you. 

 * * * * *

And, on the whole, the chief justice broke down so hopelessly in hisexamination, that the deputy governor, or his senior associate upon thebench, thought it necessary to interfere. 

 * * * * *

_Dep. Gov. _ I would go a little higher with Mrs. Hutchinson. Now . . . Ifshe in particular hath disparaged all our ministers in the land that theyhave preached a covenant of works, and only Mr. Cotton a covenant ofgrace, why this is not to be suffered. . . 

_Mrs. H. _ I pray, sir, prove it, that I said they preached nothing but acovenant of works. . . . 

_Dep. Gov. _ If they do not preach a covenant of grace, clearly, then, theypreach a covenant of works. 

_Mrs. H. _ No, sir, one may preach a covenant of grace more clearly thananother, so I said. 

 * * * * *

Dudley was faring worse than Winthrop, and the divines, who had beenbursting with impatience, could hold no longer. The Rev. Hugh Peters brokein: "That which concerns us to speak unto, as yet we are sparing in, unless the court command us to speak, then we shall answer to Mrs. Hutchinson, notwithstanding our brethren are very unwilling to answer. "And without further urging, that meek servant of Christ went on to tellhow he and others had heard that the prisoner said they taught a covenantof works, how they had sent for her, and though she was "very tender" atfirst, yet upon being begged to speak plainly, she had explained thatthere "was a broad difference between our Brother Mr. Cotton andourselves. I desired to know the difference. She answered 'that hepreaches the covenant of grace and you the covenant of works, and that youare not able ministers of the New Testament, and know no more than theapostles did before the resurrection. '". . . 

 * * * * *

_Mrs. H. _ If our pastor would show his writings you should see what Isaid, and that many things are not so as is reported. 

_Mr. Wilson. _ Sister Hutchinson, for the writings you speak of I have themnot. . . . 

 * * * * *

Five more divines followed, who, though they were "loth to speak in thatassembly concerning that gentlewoman, " yet to ease their consciences in"the relation wherein" they stood "to the Commonwealth and. . . Unto God, "felt constrained to state that the prisoner had said they were not ableministers of the New Testament, and that the whole of the evidence of HughPeters was true, and in so doing they came to an issue of veracity withCotton. 

An adjournment soon followed till next day, and the presiding justiceseems to have considered his case against his prisoner as closed. 

In the morning Mrs. Hutchinson opened her defence by calling threewitnesses, Leverett, Coggeshall, and John Cotton. 

 * * * * *

_Gov. _ Mr. Coggeshall was not present. 

_Mr. C. _ Yes, but I was, only I desired to be silent till I should becalled. 

_Gov. _ Will you . . . Say that she did not say so?

_Mr. C. _ Yes, I dare say that she did not say all that which they layagainst her. 

_Mr. Peters. _ How dare you look into the court to say such a word?

_Mr. C. _ Mr. Peters takes upon him to forbid me. I shall be silent. . . . 

_Gov. _ Well, Mr. Leverett, what were the words? I pray speak. 

_Mr. L. _ To my best remembrance . . . Mr. Peters did with much vehemency andentreaty urge her to tell what difference there was between Mr. Cotton andthem, and upon his urging of her she said: "The fear of man is a snare, but they that trust upon the Lord shall be safe. " And . . . That they didnot preach a covenant of grace so clearly as Mr. Cotton did, and she gavethis reason of it, because that as the apostles were for a time withoutthe Spirit so until they had received the witness of the Spirit they couldnot preach a covenant of grace so clearly. 

 * * * * *

The Rev. John Cotton was then called. He was much embarrassed in givinghis evidence, but, if he is to be believed, his brethren, in their anxietyto make out a case, had colored material facts. He closed his account ofthe interview in these words: "I must say that I did not find her sayingthey were under a covenant of works, nor that she said they did preach acovenant of works. "

 * * * * *

_Gov. _ You say you do not remember, but can you say she did not speak so?

_Mr. C. _ I do remember that she looked at them as the apostles before theascension. . . . 

_Dep. Gov. _ They affirm that Mrs. Hutchinson did say they were not ableministers of the New Testament. 

_Mr. C. _ I do not remember it. 

 * * * * *

Mrs. Hutchinson had shattered the case of the government in a style worthyof a leader of the bar, but she now ventured on a step for which she hasbeen generally condemned. She herself approached the subject of herrevelations. To criticise the introduction of evidence is always simplerthan to conduct a cause, but an analysis of her position tends to show notonly that her course was the result of mature reflection, but that herjudgment was in this instance correct. She probably assumed that when themore easily proved charges had broken down she would be attacked here; andin this assumption she was undoubtedly right. The alternative presented toher, therefore, was to go on herself, or wait for Winthrop to move. If shewaited she knew she should give the government the advantage of choosingthe ground, and she would thus be subjected to the danger of having fatalcharges proved against her by hearsay or distorted evidence. If she tookthe bolder course, she could explain her revelations as monitions comingto her through texts in Scripture, and here she was certain of Cotton'ssupport. Before that tribunal she could hardly have hoped for anacquittal; but if anything could have saved her it would have been thesanction given to her doctrines by the approval of John Cotton. At allevents, she saw the danger, for she closed her little speech in thesetouching words: "Now if you do condemn me for speaking what in myconscience I know to be truth, I must commit myself unto the Lord. "

_Mr. Nowell. _ How do you know that that was the Spirit?

_Mrs. H. _ How did Abraham know that it was God?. . . 

_Dep. Gov. _ By an immediate voice. 

_Mrs. H. _ So to me by an immediate revelation. 

 * * * * *

Then she proceeded to state how, through various texts which she cited, the Lord showed her what He would do; and she particularly dwelt on onefrom Daniel. So far all was well; she had planted herself on ground uponwhich orthodox opinion was at least divided; but she now committed the onegrave error of her long and able defence. As she went on her excitementgained upon her, and she ended by something like a defiance anddenunciation: "You have power over my body, but the Lord Jesus hath powerover my body and soul; and assure yourselves thus much, you do as much asin you lies to put the Lord Jesus Christ from you, and if you go on inthis course you begin, you will bring a curse upon you and your posterity, and the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. "

 * * * * *

_Gov. _ Daniel was delivered by miracle. Do you think to be delivered sotoo?

_Mrs. H. _ I do here speak it before the court. I look that the Lord shoulddeliver me by his providence. . . . 

_Dep. Gov. _ I desire Mr. Cotton to tell us whether you do approve of Mrs. Hutchinson's revelations as she hath laid them down. 

_Mr. C. _ I know not whether I do understand her, but this I say, if shedoth expect a deliverance in a way of providence, then I cannot deny it. 

_Gov. _ . . . I see a marvellous providence of God to bring things to thispass. . . . God by a providence hath answered our desires, and made her tolay open herself and the ground of all these disturbances to be byrevelations. . . . 

_Court. _ We all consent with you. 

_Gov. _ Ey, it is the most desperate enthusiasm in the world. . . . 

_Mr. Endicott. _ I speak in reference to Mr. Cotton. . . . Whether do youwitness for her or against her. 

_Mr. C. _ This is that I said, sir, and my answer is plain, that if shedoth look for deliverance from the hand of God by his providence, and therevelation be . . . According to a word [of Scripture] that I cannot deny. 

_Mr. Endicott. _ You give me satisfaction. 

_Dep. Gov. _ No, no, he gives me none at all. . . . 

_Mr. C. _ I pray, sir, give me leave to express myself. In that sense thatshe speaks I dare not bear witness against it. 

_Mr. Nowell. _ I think it is a devilish delusion. 

_Gov. _ Of all the revelations that ever I read of I never read the likeground laid as is for this. The enthusiasts and Anabaptists had never thelike. . . . 

_Mr. Peters. _ I can say the same . . . And I think that is very disputablewhich our brother Cotton hath spoken. . . . 

_Gov. _ I am persuaded that the revelation she brings forth is delusion. 

All the court but some two or three ministers cry out, We all believe it, we all believe it. . . . 

 * * * * *

And then Coddington stood up before that angry meeting like the brave manhe was, and said, "I beseech you do not speak so to force things along, for I do not for my own part see any equity in the court in all yourproceedings. Here is no law of God that she hath broken, nor any law ofthe country that she hath broke, and therefore deserves no censure; and ifshe say that the elders preach as the apostles did, why they preached acovenant of grace and what wrong is that to them, . . . Therefore I prayconsider, what you do, for here is no law of God or man broken. "

 * * * * *

_Mr. Peters. _ I profess I thought Mr. Cotton would never have took herpart. 

_Gov. _ The court hath already declared themselves satisfied . . . Concerningthe troublesomeness of her spirit and the danger of her course amongst uswhich is not to be suffered. Therefore if it be the mind of the court thatMrs. Hutchinson . . . Shall be banished out of our liberties and imprisonedtill she be sent away let them hold up their hands. 

All but three consented. 

Those contrary minded hold up yours. Mr. Coddington and Colburn only. 

_Gov. _ Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you arebanished from out of our jurisdiction as being a woman not fit for oursociety, and are to be imprisoned till the court shall send you away. 

_Mrs. H. _ I desire to know wherefore I am banished. 

_Gov. _ Say no more, the court knows wherefore and is satisfied. [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ vol. Ii. App. 2. ]

 * * * * *

With refined malice she was committed to the custody of Joseph Welde ofRoxbury, the brother of the Rev. Thomas Welde who thought her a Jezebel. Here "divers of the elders resorted to her, " and under this daily tormentrapid progress was made. Probably during that terrible interval her reasonwas tottering, for her talk came to resemble ravings. [Footnote: _BriefApologie_, p. 59. ] When this point was reached the divines saw theirobject attained, and that "with sad hearts" they could give her up toSatan. [Footnote: _Brief Apologie_, p. 59. ] Accordingly they "wrote to thechurch at Boston, offering to make proof of the same, " whereupon she wassummoned and the lecture appointed to begin at ten o'clock. [Footnote:Winthrop, i. 254. ]

"When she was come one of the ruling elders called her forth before theassembly, " and read to her the twenty-nine errors of which she wasaccused, all of which she admitted she had maintained. "Then she asked bywhat rule such an elder would come to her pretending to desire light andindeede to entrappe her. " He answered that he came not to "entrap her butin compassion to her soule. . . . "

"Then presently she grew into passion . . . Professing withall that she heldnone of these things . . . Before her imprisonment. " [Footnote: _BriefApol. _ pp. 59-61. ]

The court sat till eight at night, when "Mr. Cotton pronounced thesentence of admonition . . . With much zeal and detestation of her errorsand pride of spirit. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 256. ] An adjournment wasthen agreed on for a week and she was ordered to return to Roxbury; butthis was more than she could bear, and her distress was such that thecongregation seem to have felt some touch of compassion, for she wascommitted to the charge of Cotton till the next lecture day, when thetrial was to be resumed. [Footnote: _Brief Apol. _ p. 62. ] At his househer mind recovered its tone and when she again appeared she not onlyretracted the wild opinions she had broached while at Joseph Welde's, butadmitted "that what she had spoken against the magistrates at the court(by way of revelation) was rash and ungrounded. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 258. ]

But nothing could avail her. She was in the hands of men determined tomake her expiation of her crimes a by-word of terror; her fate was sealed. The doctrines she now professed were less objectionable, so she wasexamined as to former errors, among others "that she had denied inherentrighteousness;" she "affirmed that it was never her judgment; and thoughit was proved by many testimonies . . . Yet she impudently persisted in heraffirmation to the astonishment of all the assembly. So that . . . Thechurch with one consent cast her out. . . . After she was excommunicated herspirit, which seemed before to be somewhat dejected, revived again and shegloried in her sufferings. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 258. ] And all thistime she had been alone; her friends were far away. 

That no circumstances of horror might be lost, she and one of her mostdevoted followers, Mary Dyer, were nearing their confinements during thistime of misery. Both cases ended in misfortunes over whose sickeningdetails Thomas Welde and his reverend brethren gloated with a savage joy, declaring that "God himselfe was pleased to step in with his casting vote. . . As clearly as if he had pointed with his finger. " [Footnote: _ShortStory_, Preface, Section 5. ] Let posterity draw a veil over the shockingscene. 

Two or three days after her condemnation "the governor sent [her] awarrant . . . To depart . . . She went by water to her farm at the Mount . . . And so to the island in the Narragansett Bay which her husband and therest of that sect had purchased of the Indians. " [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 259. ]

This pure and noble but most unhappy woman had sinned against the clergy, past forgiveness here or hereafter. They gibbeted her as Jezebel, and hername became a reproach in Massachusetts through two hundred years. But hercrimes and the awful ending of her life are best read in the Christianwords of the Rev. Thomas Welde, whose gentle spirit so adorned his holyoffice. 

"For the servants of God who came over into New England . . . Seeing theirministery was a most precious sweete savour to all the saints before shecame hither, it is easie to discerne from what sinke that ill vapour hathrisen which hath made so many of her seduced party to loath now the smellof those flowers which they were wont to find sweetnesse in. [Footnote:_Short Story_, p. 40. ] . . . The Indians set upon them, and slew her and allthe family. [Footnote: Mrs. Hutchinson and her family were killed in ageneral massacre of the Dutch and English by the Indians on Long Island. Winthrop, ii. 136. ] . . . Some write that the Indians did burne her to deathwith fire, her house and all the rest named that belonged to her; but I amnot able to affirme by what kind of death they slew her, but slaine itseemes she is, according to all reports. I never heard that the Indians inthose parts did ever before this, commit the like outrage . . . ; andtherefore God's hand is the more apparently seene herein, to pick out thiswofull woman, to make her and those belonging to her, an unheard of heavieexample of their cruelty above al others. " [Footnote: _Short Story_, Preface. ]

CHAPTER III. 

THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM. 

With the ruin of the Antinomians, opposition to the clergy ceased withinthe church itself, but many causes combined to prevent the bulk of thepeople from participating in the communion. Of those who were excluded, perhaps even the majority might have found it impossible to have securedtheir pastor's approbation, but numbers who would have been gladlyreceived were restrained by conscientious scruples; and more shrank fromundergoing the ordeal to which they would have been obliged to submit. Itwas no light matter for a pious but a sincerely honest man to profess hisconversion, and how God had been pleased to work "in the inward parts ofhis soul, " when he was not absolutely certain that he had indeed beenvisited by the Spirit. And it is no exaggeration to say that to sensitivenatures the initiation was appalling. The applicant had first to convincethe minister of his worthiness, then his name was openly propounded, andthose who knew of any objection to his character, either moral orreligious, were asked to give notice to the presbytery of elders. If thecandidate succeeded in passing this private examination as to his fitnessthe following scene took place in church:--

"The party appearing in the midst of the assembly . . . The ruling elderspeaketh in this manner: Brethren of this congregation, this man or woman. . . Hath beene heretofore propounded to you, desiring to enter into churchfellowship with us, and we have not since that heard anything from any ofyou to the contrary of the parties admittance but that we may goe on toreceive him: therefore now, if any of you know anything against him, whyhe may not be admitted, you may yet speak. . . . Whereupon, sometimes men dospeak to the contrary . . . And so stay the party for that time also tillthis new offence be heard before the elders, so that sometimes there is aspace of divers moneths between a parties first propounding and receiving, and some are so bashfull as that they choose rather to goe without thecommunion than undergoe such publique confessions and tryals, but that isheld their fault. " [Footnote: Lechford, _Plain Dealing_, pp. 6, 7. ]

Those who were thus disfranchised, Lechford, who knew what he was talkingabout, goes on to say, soon began to complain that they were "ruled likeslaves;" and there can be no doubt that they had to submit to verysubstantial grievances. The administration of justice especially seems tohave been defective. "Now the most of the persons at New England are notadmitted of their church, and therefore are not freemen, and when theycome to be tryed there, be it for life or limb, name or estate, orwhatsoever, they must bee tryed and judged too by those of the church, whoare in a sort their adversaries: how equall that hath been, or may be, some by experience doe know, others may judge. " [Footnote: _PlainDealing_, p. 23. ]

The government was in fact in the hands of a small oligarchy of saints, [Footnote: "Three parts of the people of the country remaine out of thechurch. " _Plain Dealing_, p. 73. A. D. 1642. ] who were, in their turn, ruled by their priests, and as the repression of thought inevitable undersuch a system had roused the Antinomians, who were voters, to demand alarger intellectual freedom, so the denial of ordinary political rightsto the majority led to discontent. 

Since under the theocracy there was no department of human affairs inwhich the clergy did not meddle, they undertook as a matter of course tointerfere with the militia, and the following curious letter written tothe magistrates by the ministers of Rowley shows how far they carriedtheir supervision even so late as 1689. 

 * * * * *

ROWLEY, _July_ 24th, 1689. 

_May it please your honors, _

The occasion of these lines is to inform you that whereas our militarycompany have nominated Abel Platts, for ensign, we conceive that it is ourduty to declare that we cannot approve of their choice in that he iscorrupt in his judgment with reference to the Lord's Supper, declaringagainst Christ's words of justification, and hereupon hath withdrawnhimself from communion with the church in that holy ordinance some years, besides some other things wherein he hath shown no little vanity in hisconversation and hath demeaned himself unbecomingly toward the word andtoward the dispensers of it. . . . 

SAMUEL PHILLIPS. EDWARD PAISON. [Footnote: _History of Newbury_, p. 80. ]

 * * * * *

A somewhat similar difficulty, which happened in Hingham in 1645, producedvery serious consequences. A new captain had been chosen for theircompany; but a dispute having arisen, the magistrates, on the questionbeing submitted to them, set the election aside and directed the oldofficers to keep their places until the General Court should meet. Notwithstanding this order the commotion continued to increase, and thepastor, Mr. Peter Hubbert, "was very forward to have excommunicated thelieutenant, " who was the candidate the magistrates favored. [Footnote:Winthrop, ii. 222, 223. ] Winthrop happened to be deputy governor thatyear, and the aggrieved officer applied to him for protection; whereupon, as the defendants seemed inclined to be recalcitrant, several werecommitted in open court, among whom were three of Mr. Hubbert's brothers. 

Forthwith the clergyman in great wrath headed a petition to which heobtained a large number of signatures, in which he prayed the GeneralCourt to take cognizance of the cause, since it concerned the publicliberty and the liberty of the church. 

At its next session, the legislature proceeded to examine the whole case, and Winthrop was brought to trial for exceeding his jurisdiction as amagistrate. A contest ensued between the deputies and assistants, whichwas finally decided by the influence of the elders. The result was thatWinthrop was acquitted and Mr. Hubbert and the chief petitioners werefined. [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 227. ]

In March the constable went to Hingham to collect the money, [Footnote:1645-46, 18 March. ] but he found the minister indisposed to submit insilence. About thirty people had collected, and before them all Mr. Hubbert demanded the warrant; when it was produced he declared itworthless because not in the king's name, and then went on to add that thegovernment "was not more then a corporation in England, and . . . Had notpower to put men to death . . . That for himself he had neither horn norhoofe of his own, nor anything wherewith to buy his children cloaths . . . If he must pay the fine he would pay it in books, but that he knew not forwhat they were fined, unlesse it were for petitioning: and if they were sowaspish they might not be petitioned, then he could not tell what to say. "[Footnote: _New Eng. Jonas_, Marvin's ed. P. 5. ]

Unluckily for Mr. Hubbert he had taken the popular side in this disputeand had thus been sundered from his brethren, who sustained Winthrop, andin the end carried him through in triumph; and not only this, but he wassuspected of Presbyterian tendencies, and a committee of the elders whohad visited Hingham to reconcile some differences in the congregation hadfound him in grave fault. The government was not sorry, therefore, to makehim a public example, as appeared not only by these proceedings, but bythe way he was treated in the General Court the next autumn. He wasaccordingly indicted for sedition, tried and convicted in June, finedtwenty pounds, and bound over to good behavior in forty pounds more. [Footnote: _New Eng. Jonas_, p. 6. , 2 June, 1646. ] Such a disturbanceas this seems to have been all that was needed to bring the latentdiscontent to a focus. 

William Vassal had been an original patentee and was a member of the firstBoard of Assistants, who were appointed by the king. Being, however, a manof liberal views he had not found Massachusetts congenial; he had returnedto England after a stay of only a month, and when he came again to Americain 1635, he had settled at Scituate, the town adjoining Hingham, but inthe Plymouth jurisdiction. Having both wealth and social position hepossessed great influence, and he now determined to lead an agitation forequal rights and liberty of conscience in both colonies at once, bypetitioning the legislatures, and in case of failure there, presentingsimilar petitions to Parliament. 

Bradford was this year [Footnote: 1645. ] governor of Plymouth, and EdwardWinslow was an assistant. Winslow himself had been governor repeatedly, was a thorough-going churchman, and deep in all the councils of theconservative party. There was, however, no religious qualification for thesuffrage in the old colony, and the complexion of its politics wastherefore far more liberal than in Massachusetts; so Vassal was able tocommand a strong support when he brought forward his proposition. Winslow, writing to his friend Winthrop at Boston, gives an amusing account of hisown and Bradford's consternation, and the expedients to which they wereforced to resort in the legislature to stave off a vote upon the petition, when Vassal made his motion in October, 1645. 

"After this, the first excepter [Vassal] having been observed to tenderthe view of a scroule from man to man, it came at length to be tendered tomyself, and withall, said he, it may be you will not like this. Havingread it, I told him I utterly abhorred it as such as would make us odiousto all Christian commonweales: But at length he told the governor[Bradford] he had a written proposition to be propounded to the court, which he desired the court to take into consideration, and according toorder, if thought meet, to be allowed: To this the deputies were most madebeforehand, and the other three assistants, who applauded it as theirDiana; and the sum of it was, to allow and maintaine full and freetollerance of religion to all men that would preserve the civill peace andsubmit unto government; and there was no limitation or exception againstTurke, Jew, Papist, Arian, Socinian, Nicholaytan, Familist, or any other, &c. But our governor and divers of us having expressed the sadconsequences would follow, especially myselfe and Mr. Prence, yetnotwithstanding it was required, according to order, to be voted: But thegovernor would not suffer it to come to vote, as being that indeed wouldeate out the power of Godlines, &c. . . . You would have admired to have seenhow sweet this carrion relished to the pallate of most of the deputies!What will be the issue of these things, our all ordering God onelyknows. . . . But if he have such a judgment for this place, I trust we shallfinde (I speake for many of us that groane under these things) a restingplace among you for the soales of our feet. " [Footnote: _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. I. 174. ]

As just then nothing more could be done in Plymouth, proceedings weretransferred to Massachusetts. Samuel Maverick is a bright patch of coloron the sad Puritan background. He had a dwelling at Winnisime, that "inthe yeare 1625 I fortified with a pillizado and fflankers and gunnes bothbelowe and above in them which awed the Indians who at that time had amind to cutt off the English. " [Footnote: Mass. _Hist. Soc. Proceedings_, Oct. 1884, p. 236. ] When Winthrop landed, he found him keeping open house, so kindly and freehanded that even the grim Johnson relaxes when he speaksof him: "a man of very loving and curteous behaviour, very ready toentertaine strangers, yet an enemy to the reformation in hand, beingstrong for the lordly prelatical power. " [Footnote: _Wonder-WorkingProvidence_, Poole's ed. P. 37. ]

This genial English churchman entertained every one at his home onNoddle's Island, which is now East Boston: Vane and Lord Ley, and La Tourwhen he came to Boston ruined, and even Owen when he ran off with anotherman's wife, and so brought a fine of £100 on his host. Josselyn says withmuch feeling: "I went a shore upon Noddles Island to Mr. Samuel Maverick, . . . The only hospitable man in the whole countrey. " He was charitablealso, and Winthrop relates how, when the Indians were dying of thesmallpox, he, "his wife and servants, went daily to them, ministered totheir necessities, and buried their dead, and took home many of theirchildren. " He was generous, too, with his wealth; and when the town had torebuild the fort on Castle Island much of the money came from him. 

But, as Endicott told the Browns, when he shipped them to England, becausetheir practice in adhering to their Episcopal orders tended to "mutiny, ""New England was no place for such as they. " One by one they had gone, --the Browns first, and afterward William Blackstone, who had found it bestto leave Boston because he could not join the church; and now the pressureon Maverick began to make him restive. Though he had been admitted afreeman in the early days, he was excluded from all offices of importance;he was taxed to support a church of which he disapproved, yet was forcedto attend, though it would not baptize his children; and he was sosuspected that, in March, 1635, he had been ordered to remove to Boston, and was forbidden to lodge strangers for more than one night without leavefrom a magistrate. Under such circumstances he could not but sympathizewith Vassal in his effort to win for all men equal rights before the law. Next after him in consequence was Dr. Robert Childe, who had taken adegree at Padua, and who, though not a freeman, had considerable interestsin the country, --a man of property and standing. There were five moresigners of the petition: Thomas Burton, John Smith, David Yale, ThomasFowle, and John Dand, but they do not require particular notice. Theyprayed that "civil liberty and freedome be forthwith granted to all trulyEnglish, equall to the rest of their countrymen, as in all plantations isaccustomed to be done, and as all free-borne enjoy in our nativecountry. . . . Further that none of the English nation . . . Be banishedunlesse they break the known lawes of England. . . . We therefore humblyintreat you, in whose hands it is to help . . . For the glory of God . . . Togive liberty to the members of the churches of England not scandalous intheir lives . . . To be taken into your congregations, and to enjoy with youall those liberties and ordinances Christ hath purchased for them, andinto whose name they are baptized. . . Or otherwise to grant liberty tosettle themselves here in a church way according to the best reformationsof England and Scotland. If not, we and they shall be necessitated toapply our humble desires to the Honorable Houses of Parliament. "[Footnote: _New Eng. Jonas_, Marvin's ed. Pp. 13-15. ]

This petition was presented to the court on May 19, 1646; but the sessionwas near its close, and it was thought best to take no immediate steps. The elders, however, became satisfied that the moment had come for athorough organization of the church, and they therefore caused thelegislature to issue a general invitation to all the congregations to sendrepresentatives to a synod to be held at Cambridge. But notwithstandingthe inaction of the authorities, the clergy were perfectly aware of thedanger, and they passed the summer in creating the necessary indignationamong the voters: they bitterly denounced from their pulpits "the sons ofBelial, Judasses, sons of Corah, " "with sundry appellations of that nature. . . Which seemed not to arise from a gospel spirit. " Sometimes theydevoted "a whole sermon, and that not very short, " to describing theimpending ruin and exhorting the magistrates "to lay hold upon" theoffenders. [Footnote: _New Eng. Jonas_, Marvin's ed. P. 19. ] Winthrophad been chosen governor in May, and, when the legislature met in October, he was made chairman of a committee to draft an answer to Childe. Thisdocument may be found in Hutchinson's Collection. As a state paper devotedto the discussion of questions of constitutional law it has little merit, but it may have been effective as a party manifesto. A short adjournmentfollowed till November, when, on reassembling, the elders were asked fortheir advice upon this absorbing topic. 

"Mr. Hubbard of Hingham came with the rest, but the court being informedthat he had an hand in a petition, which Mr. Vassall carried into Englandagainst the country in general, the governour propounded, that if anyelder present had any such hand, &c. , he would withdraw himself. " Mr. Hubbert sitting still a good space, one of the deputies stated that he wassuspected, whereupon he rose and said he knew nothing of such a petition. 

Then Winthrop replied that he "must needs deliver his mind about him, " andthough he had no proof about the petition, "yet in regard he had so muchopposed authority and offered such contempt to it, . . . He thought he would(in discretion) withdraw himself, &c. , whereupon he went out. " [Footnote:Winthrop, ii. 278. ]

The ministers who remained then proceeded to define the relations ofMassachusetts toward England, and the position they assumed was verysimple. 

"I. We depend upon the state of England for protection and immunities ofEnglishmen. . . . II. We conceive . . . We have granted by patent such full andample power . . . Of making all laws and rules of our obedience, and of afull and final determination of all cases in the administration ofjustice, that no appeals or other ways of interrupting our proceedings dolie against us. " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 282. ]

In other words, they were to enjoy the privileges and safeguards ofBritish subjects without yielding obedience to British law. 

Under popular governments the remedy for discontent is free discussion;under despotisms it is repression. In Massachusetts energetic steps werepromptly taken to punish the ring-leaders in what the court now declaredto be a conspiracy. The petitioners were summoned, and on being questionedrefused to answer until some charge was made. A hot altercation followed, which ended in the defendants tendering an appeal, which was refused; andthey were committed for trial. [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 285. ] A species ofindictment was then prepared in which they were charged with publishingseditious libels against the Church of Christ and the civil government. The gravamen of the offence was the attempt to persuade the people "thatthe liberties and privileges in our charter belong to all freebornEnglishmen inhabitants here, whereas they are granted only to such as thegovernour and company shall think fit to receive into that fellowship. "[Footnote: _Idem_. ] The appeal was held criminal because a denial ofthe jurisdiction of the government. The trial resembled Wheelwright's. Like him the defendants refused to make submission, but persisted"obstinately and proudly in their evil practice;" that is to say, theymaintained the right of petition and the legality of their course. Theywere therefore fined: Childe £50; Smith £40; Maverick, because he had notyet appealed, £10; and the others £30 each; three magistrates dissented. 

Childe at once began hasty preparations to sail. To prevent him Winthropcalled the assistants together, without, however, giving the dissentingmagistrates notice, and arranged to have him arrested and searched. 

One striking characteristic of the theocracy was its love for inflictingmental suffering upon its victims. The same malicious vindictiveness whichsent Morton to sea in sight of his blazing home, and which imprisoned AnneHutchinson in the house of her bitterest enemy, now suggested a scheme formaking Childe endure the pangs of disappointment, by allowing him toembark, and then seizing him as the ship was setting sail. And though theplan miscarried, and the arrest had to be made the night before, yet evenas it was the prisoner took his confinement very "grievously, but he couldnot help it. " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 294. ]

Nothing criminating was found in his possession, but in Dand's study, which was ransacked, copies of two petitions were discovered, with anumber of queries relating to certain legal aspects of the charter, andintended to be submitted to the Commissioners for the Plantations atLondon. 

These petitions were substantially those already presented, except that, by way of preamble, the story of the trial was told; and how the ministers"did revile them, &c. , as far as the wit or malice of man could, and thatthey meddled in civil affaires beyond their calling, and were mastersrather than ministers, and ofttimes judges, and that they had stirred upthe magistrates against them, and that a day of humiliation was appointed, wherein they were to pray against them. " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 293. ]

Such words had never been heard in Massachusetts. The saints were aghast. Winthrop speaks of the offence as "being in nature capital, " and Johnsonthought the Lord's gracious goodness alone quelled this malice against hispeople. 

Of course no mercy was shown. It is true that the writings were lawfulpetitions by English subjects to Parliament; that, moreover, they hadnever been published, but were found in a private room by means of adespotic search. Several of the signers were imprisoned for six months andthen were punished in May:--

 Doctor Childe, (imprisonment till paid, ) £200 John Smith, " " " 100 John Dand, " " " 200 Tho. Burton, " " " 100 Samuel Maverick, for his offence in being party to ye conspiracy, (imprisonment till paid, ) 100 Samuel Maverick, for his offence in breaking his oath and in appealing against ye intent of his oath of a freeman, 50[Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ iii, 113. May 26, 1647. £200 was the equivalent ofabout $5, 000. ]

The conspirators of the poorer class were treated with scant ceremony. Acarpenter named Joy was in Dand's study when the officers entered. Heasked if the warrant was in the king's name. "He was laid hold on, andkept in irons about four or five days, and then he humbled himself. . . Formeddling in matters belonging not to him, and blessed God for these ironsupon his legs, hoping they should do him good while he lived. " [Footnote:Winthrop, ii. 294. ]

But though the government could oppress the men, they could not make theirprinciples unpopular, and the next December after Vassal and his friendshad left the colony, the orthodox Samuel Symonds of Ipswich wrotemournfully to Winthrop: "I am informed that coppies of the petition arespreading here, and divers (specially young men and women) are taken withit, and are apt to wonder why such men should be troubled that speake asthey doe: not being able suddenly to discerne the poyson in the sweetwine, nor the fire wrapped up in the straw. " [Footnote: Felt's _Eccl. Hist. _ i. 593. ] The petitioners, however, never found redress. EdwardWinslow had been sent to London as agent, and in 1648 he was able to writethat their "hopes and endeavours . . . Had been blasted by the specialprovidence of the Lord who still wrought for us. " And Winthrop piouslyadds: "As for those who went over to procure us trouble, God met with themall. Mr. Vassall, finding no entertainment for his petitions, went toBarbadoes, " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 321. ] . . . "God had brought" ThomasFowle "very low, both in his estate and in his reputation, since he joinedin the first petition. " And "God had so blasted" Childe's "estate as hewas quite broken. " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 322. ]

Maverick remained some years in Boston, being probably unable to abandonhis property; during this interval he made several efforts to have hisfine remitted, and he did finally secure an abatement of one half. He thenwent to England and long afterward came back as a royal commissioner totry his fortune once again in a contest with the theocracy. 

Dr. Palfrey has described this movement as a plot to introduce a directgovernment by England by inducing Parliament to establish Presbyterianism. By other than theological reasoning this inference cannot be deduced fromthe evidence. All that is certainly known about the leaders is that theywere not of any one denomination. Maverick was an Episcopalian; Vassal wasprobably an Independent like Cromwell or Milton; and though the eldersaccused Childe of being a Jesuit, there is some ground to suppose that heinclined toward Geneva. So far as the testimony goes, everything tends toprove that the petitioners were perfectly sincere in their effort to gainsome small measure of civil and religious liberty for themselves and forthe disfranchised majority. 

Viewed from the standpoint of history and not of prejudice, the events ofthese early years present themselves in a striking and unmistakablesequence. 

They are the phenomena that regularly attend a certain stage of humandevelopment, --the absorption of power by an aristocracy. The clergy's rulewas rigid, and met with resistance, which was crushed with an iron hand. Was it defection from their own ranks, the deserters met the fate ofWheelwright, of Williams, of Cotton, or of Hubbert; were politicianscontumacious, they were defeated or exiled, like Vane, or Aspinwall, orCoddington; were citizens discontented, they were coerced like Maverickand Childe. The process had been uninterrupted alike in church and state. The congregations, which in theory should have included all theinhabitants of the towns, had shrunk until they contained only a third ora quarter of the people; while the churches themselves, which weresupposed to be independent of external interference and to regulate theiraffairs by the will of the majority, had become little more than thechattels of the priests, and subject to the control of the magistrates whowere their representatives. This system has generally prevailed; in likemanner the Inquisition made use of the secular arm. The condition ofecclesiastical affairs is thus described by the highest living authorityon Congregationalism:--

"Our fathers laid it down--and with perfect truth--that the will ofChrist, and not the will of the major or minor part of a church, ought togovern that church. But somebody must interpret that will. And theyquietly assumed that Christ would reveal his will to the elders, but wouldnot reveal it to the church-members; so that when there arose a differenceof opinion as to what the Master's will might be touching any particularmatter, the judgment of the elders, rather than the judgment even of amajority of the membership, must be taken as conclusive. To all intentsand purposes, then, this was precisely the aristocracy which they affirmedthat it was not. For the elders were to order business in the assurancethat every truly humble and sincere member would consent thereto. If anydid not consent, and after patient debate remained of another judgment, hewas 'partial' and 'factious, ' and continuing 'obstinate, ' he was'admonished' and his vote 'nullified;' so that the elders could have theirway in the end by merely adding the insult of the apparent but illusiveoffer of cooperation to the injury of their absolute control. As SamuelStone of Hartford no more tersely than truly put it, this kind ofCongregationalism was simply a 'speaking Aristocracy in the face of asilent Democracy. '" [Footnote: _Early New England Congregationalism, asseen in its Literature_, p. 429. Dr. Dexter. ]

It is true that Vassal's petition was the event which made the ministersdecide to call a synod [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 264. ] by means of aninvitation of the General Court; but it is also certain that under nocircumstances would the meeting of some such council have been longdelayed. For sixteen years the well-known process had been going on, ofthe creation of institutions by custom, having the force of law; the stageof development had now been reached when it was necessary that thoseusages should take the shape of formal enactments. The Cambridge platformtherefore marks the completion of an organization, and as such is thecentral point in the history of the Puritan Commonwealth. The work wasdone in August, 1648: the Westminster Confession was promulgated as thecreed; the powers of the clergy were minutely defined, and the duty of thelaity stated to be "obeying their elders and submitting themselves untothem in the Lord. " [Footnote: _Cambridge Platform, _ ch. X. Section 7. ] Themagistrate was enjoined to punish "idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, " and tocoerce any church becoming "schismatical. "

In October, 1649, the court commended the platform to the consideration ofthe congregations; in October, 1651, it was adopted; and when church andstate were thus united by statute the theocracy was complete. 

The close of the era of construction is also marked by the death of thosetwo remarkable men whose influence has left the deepest imprint upon theinstitutions they helped to mould: John Winthrop, who died in 1649, andJohn Cotton in 1652. 

Winthrop's letters to his wife show him to have been tender and gentle, and that his disposition was one to inspire love is proved by theaffection those bore him who had suffered most at his hands. Williams andVane and Coddington kept their friendship for him to the end. But thesevery qualities, so amiable in themselves, made him subject to theinfluence of men of inflexible will. His dream was to create on earth acommonwealth of saints whose joy would be to walk in the ways of God. Butin practice he had to deal with the strongest of human passions. In 1634, though supported by Cotton, he was defeated by Dudley, and there can be nodoubt that this was caused by the defection of the body of the clergy. Theevidence seems conclusive, for the next year Vane brought about aninterview between the two at which Haynes was present, and there Haynesupbraided him with remissness in administering justice. [Footnote:Winthrop, i. 178. ] Winthrop agreed to leave the question to the ministers, who the next morning gave an emphatic opinion in favor of strictdiscipline. Thenceforward he was pliant in their hands, and with that dayopened the dark epoch of his life. By leading the crusade against theAntinomians he regained the confidence of the elders and they never againfailed him; but in return they exacted obedience to their will; and therancor with which he pursued Anne Hutchinson, Gorton, and Childe cannot beextenuated, and must ever be a stain upon his fame. 

As Hutchinson points out, in early life his tendencies were liberal, butin America he steadily grew narrow. The reason is obvious. The leader ofan intolerant party has himself to be intolerant. His claim to eminence asa statesman must rest upon the purity of his moral character, his calmtemper, and his good judgment; for his mind was not original or brilliant, nor was his thought in advance of his age. Herein he differed from hiscelebrated contemporary, for among the long list of famous men, who arethe pride of Massachusetts, there are few who in mere intellectualcapacity outrank Cotton. He was not only a profound scholar, an eloquentpreacher, and a famous controversialist, but a great organizer, and anatural politician. He it was who constructed the Congregationalhierarchy; his publications were the accepted authority both abroad and athome; and the system which he developed in his books was that which wasmade law by the Cambridge Platform. 

Of medium height, florid complexion, and as he grew old some tendency tobe stout, but with snowy hair and much personal dignity, he seems to havehad an irresistible charm of manner toward those whom he wished toattract. 

Comprehending thoroughly the feelings and prejudices of the clergy, heinfluenced them even more by his exquisite tact than by his commandingability; and of easy fortune and hospitable alike from inclination andfrom interest, he entertained every elder who went to Boston. Heunderstood the art of flattery to perfection; or, as Norton expressed it, "he was a man of ingenuous and pious candor, rejoicing (as opportunityserved) to take notice of and testifie unto the gifts of God in hisbrethren, thereby drawing the hearts of them to him. . . . " [Footnote:Norton's _Funeral Sermon_, p. 37. ] No other clergyman has ever been ableto reach the position he held with apparent ease, which amounted to asort of primacy of New England. His dangers lay in the very fecundity ofhis mind. Though hampered by his education and profession, he wasnaturally liberal; and his first miscalculation was when, almostimmediately on landing, he supported Winthrop, who was in disgrace for themildness of his administration, against the austerer Dudley. 

The consciousness of his intellectual superiority seems to have given himan almost overweening confidence in his ability to induce his brethren toaccept the broader theology he loved to preach; nor did he apparentlyrealize that comprehension was incompatible with a theocratic government, and that his success would have undermined the organization he waslaboring to perfect. He thus committed the error of his life inundertaking to preach a religious reformation, without having theresolution to face a martyrdom. But when he saw his mistake, the way inwhich he retrieved himself showed a consummate knowledge of human natureand of the men with whom he had to deal. Nor did he ever forget thelesson. From that time forward he took care that no one should be able topick a flaw in his orthodoxy; and whatever he may have thought of much ofthe policy of his party, he was always ready to defend it withoutflinching. 

Neither he nor Winthrop died too soon, for with the completion of the taskof organization the work that suited them was finished, and they wereunfit for that which remained to be done. An oligarchy, whose power restson faith and not on force, can only exist by extirpating all who openlyquestion their pretensions to preeminent sanctity; and neither of thesemen belonged to the class of natural persecutors, --the one was too gentle, the other too liberal. An example will show better than much argument howlittle in accord either really was with that spirit which, in the regularcourse of social development, had thenceforward to dominate overMassachusetts. 

Captain Partridge had fought for the Parliament, and reached Boston at thebeginning of the winter of 1645. He was arrested and examined as aheretic. The magistrates referred the case to Cotton, who reported that"he found him corrupt in judgment, " but "had good hope to reclaim him. "[Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 251. ] An instant recantation was demanded; it wasof course refused, and, in spite of all remonstrance, the family wasbanished in the snow. Winthrop's sad words were: "But sure, the rule ofhospitality to strangers, and of seeking to pluck out of the fire such asthere may be hope of, . . . Do seem to require more moderation andindulgence of human infirmity where there appears not obstinacy againstthe clear truth. " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 251. ]

But in the savage and bloody struggle that was now at hand there was noplace for leaders capable of pity or remorse, and the theocracy foundsupremely gifted chieftains in John Norton and John Endicott. 

Norton approaches the ideal of the sterner orders of the priesthood. Agentleman by birth and breeding, a ripe scholar, with a keen thoughpolished wit, his sombre temper was deeply tinged with fanaticism. Unlikeso many of his brethren, temporal concerns were to him of but littlemoment, for every passion of his gloomy soul was intensely concentrated onthe warfare he believed himself waging with the fiend. Doubt or compassionwas impossible, for he was commissioned by the Lord. He was Christ'selected minister, and misbelievers were children of the devil whom it washis sacred duty to destroy. He knew by the Word of God that all save theorthodox were lost, and that heretics not only perished, but were thehirelings of Satan, who tempted the innocent to their doom; he thereforehated and feared them more than robbers or murderers. Words seemed to failhim when he tried to express his horror: "The face of death, the King ofTerrours, the living man by instinct turneth his face from. An unusualshape, a satanical phantasm, a ghost, or apparition, affrights thedisciples. But the face of heresie is of a more horrid aspect than all . . . Put together, as arguing some signal inlargement of the power of darknessas being diabolical, prodigeous, portentous. " [Footnote: _Heart of NewEng. Rent_, p. 46. ] By nature, moreover, he had in their fullest measurethe three attributes of a preacher of a persecution, --eloquence, resolution, and a heart callous to human suffering. To this formidablechurchman was joined a no less formidable magistrate. 

No figure in our early history looms out of the past like Endicott's. Theharsh face still looks down from under the black skull-cap, the graymoustache and pointed beard shading the determined mouth, but throwinginto relief the lines of the massive jaw. He is almost heroic in hisferocious bigotry and daring, --a perfect champion of the church. 

The grim Puritan soldier is almost visible as, standing at the head of hismen, he tears the red cross from the flag, and defies the power ofEngland; or, in that tremendous moment, when the people were hangingbreathless on the fate of Christison, when insurrection seemed burstingout beneath his feet, and his judges shrunk aghast before the peril, weyet hear the savage old man furiously strike the table, and, thanking Godthat he at least dares to do his duty, we see him rise alone before thatthreatening multitude to condemn the heretic to death. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE ANABAPTISTS. 

The Rev. Thomas Shepard, pastor of Charlestown, was such an example, "inword, in conversation, in civility, in spirit, in faith, in purity, thathe did let no man despise his youth;" [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. Ix. Section 6. ] and yet, preaching an election sermon before thegovernor and magistrates, he told them that "anabaptisme . . . Hath everbeen lookt at by the godly leaders of this people as a scab. " [Footnote:_Eye Salve_, p. 24. ] While the Rev. Samuel Willard, president of Harvard, declared that "such a rough thing as a New England Anabaptist is not to behandled over tenderly. " [Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 10. ]

So early as 1644, therefore, the General Court "Ordered and agreed, yt ifany person or persons within ye iurisdiction shall either openly condemneor oppose ye baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce othersfrom ye app'bation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart yecongregation at ye administration of ye ordinance, . . . And shall appear toye Co't willfully and obstinately to continue therein after due time andmeanes of conviction, every such person or persons shallbe sentenced tobanishment. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ ii. 85. 13 November, 1644. ]

The legislation, however, was unpopular, for Winthrop relates that inOctober, 1645, divers merchants and others petitioned to have the actrepealed, because of the offense taken thereat by the godly in England, and the court seemed inclined to accede, "but many of the elders . . . Entreated that the law might continue still in force, and the execution ofit not suspended, though they disliked not that all lenity and patienceshould be used for convincing and reclaiming such erroneous persons. Whereupon the court refused to make any further order. " [Footnote:Winthrop, ii. 251. ] And Edward Winslow assured Parliament in 1646, whensent to England to represent the colony, that, some mitigation beingdesired, "it was answered in my hearing. 'T is true we have a severe law, but wee never did or will execute the rigor of it upon any. . . . But thereason wherefore wee are loath either to repeale or alter the law is, because wee would have it . . . To beare witnesse against their judgment, . . . Which we conceive . . . To bee erroneous. " [Footnote: _HypocrisieUnmasked_, 101. ]

Unquestionably, at that time no one had been banished; but in 1644 "onePainter, for refusing to let his child be baptized, . . . Was brought beforethe court, where he declared their baptism to be anti-Christian. He wassentenced to be whipped, which he bore without flinching, and boasted thatGod had assisted him. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 208, note. ] Nor washis a solitary instance of severity. Yet, notwithstanding the scorn andhatred which the orthodox divines felt for these sectaries, many veryeminent Puritans fell into the errors of that persuasion. Roger Williamswas a Baptist, and Henry Dunster, for the same heresy, was removed fromthe presidency of Harvard, and found it prudent to end his days within thePlymouth jurisdiction. Even that great champion of infant baptism, Jonathan Mitchell, when thrown into intimate relations with Dunster, haddoubts. 

"That day . . . After I came from him I had a strange experience; I foundhurrying and pressing suggestions against Pædobaptism, and injectedscruples and thoughts whether the other way might not be right, and infantbaptism an invention of men; and whether I might with good consciencebaptize children and the like. And these thoughts were darted in with someimpression, and left a strange confusion and sickliness upon my spirit. Yet, methought, it was not hard to discern that they were from the _EvilOne_; . . . And it made me fearful to go needlessly to Mr. D. ; for methoughtI found a venom and poison in his insinuations and discourses againstPædobaptism. " [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. Iv. Section 10. ]

Henry Dunster was an uncommon man. Famed for piety in an age offanaticism, learned, modest, and brave, by the unremitting toil ofthirteen years he raised Harvard from a school to the position which ithas since held; and though very poor, and starving on a wretched and ill-paid pittance, he gave his beloved college one hundred acres of land atthe moment of its sorest need. [Footnote: Quincy's _History of Harvard_, i. 15. ] Yet he was a criminal, for he would not baptize infants, and hemet with the "lenity and patience" which the elders were not unwillingshould be used toward the erring. 

He was indicted and convicted of disturbing church ordinances, anddeprived of his office in October, 1654. He asked for leave to stay in thehouse he had built for a few months, and his petition in November ought tobe read to understand how heretics were made to suffer:--

"1st. The time of the year is unseasonable, being now very near theshortest day, and the depth of winter. 

"2d. The place unto which I go is unknown to me and my family, and theways and means of subsistance. . . . 

"3d. The place from which I go hath fire, fuel, and all provisions for manand beast, laid in for the winter. . . . The house I have builded upon verydamageful conditions to myself, out of love for the college, takingcountry pay in lieu of bills of exchange on England, or the house wouldnot have been built. . . . 

"4th. The persons, all beside myself, are women and children, on whomlittle help, now their minds lie under the actual stroke of affliction andgrief. My wife is sick, and my youngest child extremely so, and hath beenfor months, so that we dare not carry him out of doors, yet much worse nowthan before. . . . Myself will willingly bow my neck to any yoke of personaldenial, for I know for what and for whom, by grace I suffer. " [Footnote:_History of Harvard_, i. 18. ]

He had before asked Winthrop to cause the government to pay him what itowed, and he ended his prayer in these words: "Considering the poverty ofthe country, I am willing to descend to the lowest step; and if nothingcan comfortably be allowed, I sit still appeased; desiring nothing morethan to supply me and mine with food and raiment. " [Footnote: _Idem_, i. 20. ] He received that mercy which the church has ever shown to thosewho wander from her fold; he was given till March, and then, with duesunpaid, was driven forth a broken man, to die in poverty and neglect. 

But Jonathan Mitchell, pondering deeply upon the wages he saw paid at hisvery hearthstone, to the sin of his miserable old friend, snatched his ownsoul from Satan's jaws. And thenceforward his path lay in pleasant places, and he prospered exceedingly in the world, so that "of extream lean hegrew extream fat; and at last, in an extream hot season, a fever arrestedhim, just after he had been preaching. . . . Wonderful were the lamentationswhich this deplorable death fill'd the churches of New England withal. . . . Yea . . . All New England shook when that pillar fell to the ground. "[Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. Iv. Section 16. ]

Notwithstanding, therefore, clerical promises of gentleness, Massachusettswas not a comfortable place of residence for Baptists, who, for the mostpart, went to Rhode Island; and John Clark [Footnote: For sketch ofClark's life see _Allen's Biographical Dictionary_. ] became thepastor of the church which they formed at Newport about 1644. He had beenborn about 1610, and had been educated in London as a physician. In 1637he landed at Boston, where he seems to have become embroiled in theAntinomian controversy; at all events, he fared so ill that, with severalothers, he left Massachusetts 'resolving, through the help of Christ, toget clear of all [chartered companies] and be of ourselves. ' In the courseof their wanderings they fell in with Williams, and settled near him. 

Clark was perhaps the most prominent man in the Plantations, filled manypublic offices, and was the commissioner who afterward secured for thecolony the famous charter that served as the State Constitution till 1842. 

Obediah Holmes, who succeeded him as Baptist minister of Newport, is lesswell known. He was educated at Oxford, and when he emigrated he settled atSalem; from thence he went to Seaconk, where he joined the church underMr. Newman. Here he soon fell into trouble for resisting what hemaintained was an "unrighteous act" of his pastor's; in consequence he andseveral more renounced the communion, and began to worship by themselves;they were baptized and thereafter they were excommunicated; the inevitableindictment followed, and they, too, took refuge in Rhode Island. [Footnote: Holmes's Narrative, Backus, i. 213. ]

William Witter [Footnote: For the following events, see "_Ill Newes fromNew England" Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fourth series, vol. Ii. ] of Lynn was anaged Baptist, who had already been prosecuted, but, in 1651, being blindand infirm, he asked the Newport church to send some of the brethren tohim, to administer the communion, for he found himself alone inMassachusetts. [Footnote: Backus, i. 215. ] Accordingly Clark undertook themission, with Obediah Holmes and John Crandall. 

They reached Lynn on Saturday, July 19, 1651, and on Sunday stayed withindoors in order not to disturb the congregation. A few friends werepresent, and Clark was in the midst of a sermon, when the house wasentered by two constables with a warrant signed by Robert Bridges, commanding them to arrest certain "erroneous persons being strangers. " Thetravellers were at once seized and carried to the tavern, and after dinnerthey were told that they must go to church. 

Gorton, like many another, had to go through this ordeal, and he speaks ofhis Sundays with much feeling: "Only some part of those dayes they broughtus forth into their congregations, to hear their sermons . . . Which wasmeat to be digested, but only by the heart or stomacke of an ostrich. "[Footnote: _Simplicitie's Defence_, p. 57. ]

The unfortunate Baptists remonstrated, saying that were they forced intothe meeting-house, they should be obliged to dissent from the service, butthis, the constable said, was nothing to him, and so he carried them away. On entering, during the prayer, the prisoners took off their hats, butpresently put them on again and began reading in their seats. WhereuponBridges ordered the officers to uncover their heads, which was done, andthe service was then quietly finished. When all was over, Clark askedleave to speak, which, after some hesitation, was granted, on condition hewould not discuss what he had heard. He began to explain how he had put onhis hat because he could not judge that they were gathered according tothe visible order of the Lord; but here he was silenced, and the threewere committed to custody for the night. On Tuesday they were taken toBoston, and on the 31st were brought before Governor Endicott. Their trialwas of the kind reserved by priests for heretics. No jury was impanelled, no indictment was read, no evidence was heard, but the prisoners werereviled by the bench as Anabaptists, and when they repudiated the namewere asked if they did not deny infant baptism. The theological argumentwhich followed was cut short by a recommitment to await sentence. 

That afternoon John Cotton exhorted the judges from the pulpit. Heexpounded the law, and commanded them to do their duty; he told them thatthe rejection of infant baptism would overthrow the church; that this wasa capital crime, and therefore the captives were "foul murtherers. "[Footnote: _Ill Newes_, p. 56. ] Thus inspired, the court came in towardevening. 

The record recites a number of misdemeanors, such as wearing the hat inchurch, administering the communion to the excommunicated, and the like, but no attempt was made to prove a single charge. [Footnote: _Ill Newes_, pp. 31-44. ] The reason is obvious: the only penalty provided by statutefor the offence of being a Baptist was banishment, hence the only legalcourse would have been to dismiss the accused. Endicott condemned them tofines of twenty, thirty, and five pounds, respectively, or to be whipped. Clark understood his position perfectly, and from the first had demandedto be shown the law under which he was being tried. He now, aftersentence, renewed the request. Endicott well knew that in acting as themouthpiece of the clergy he was violating alike justice, his oath ofoffice, and his honor as a judge; and, being goaded to fury, he broke out:You have deserved death; I will not have such trash brought into ourjurisdiction. [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 33. ] Holmes tells the rest: "As Iwent from the bar, I exprest myself in these words, --I blesse God I amcounted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus; whereupon John Wilson(their pastor, as they call him) strook me before the judgement seat, andcursed me, saying, The curse of God . . . Goe with thee; so we were carriedto the prison. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 47. ]

All the convicts maintained that their liberty as English subjects hadbeen violated, and they refused to pay their fines. Clark's friends, however, alarmed for his safety, settled his for him, and he wasdischarged. 

Crandall was admitted to bail, but being misinformed as to the time ofsurrender, he did not appear, his bond was forfeited, and on his return toBoston he found himself free. 

Thus Holmes was left to face his punishment alone. Actuated apparently bya deep sense of duty toward himself and his God, he refused the help offriends, and steadfastly awaited his fate. As he lay in prison he sufferedkeenly as he thought of his birth and breeding, his name, his worldlycredit, and the humiliation which must come to his wife and children fromhis public shame; then, too, he began to fear lest he might not be able tobear the lash, might flinch or shed tears, and bring contempt on himselfand his religion. Yet when the morning came he was calm and resolute;refusing food and drink, that he might not be said to be sustained byliquor, he betook himself to prayer, and when his keeper called him, withhis Bible in his hand, he walked cheerfully to the post. He would havespoken a few words, but the magistrate ordered the executioner to do hisoffice quickly, for this fellow would delude the people; then he wasseized and stripped, and as he cried, "Lord, lay not this sin unto theircharge, " he received the first blow. [Footnote: _Ill Newes_, pp. 48, 56. ]

They gave him thirty lashes with a three-thonged whip, of such horribleseverity that it was many days before he could endure to have hislacerated body touch the bed, and he rested propped upon his hands andknees. [Footnote: Backus, i. 237, note. MS. Of Gov. Jos. Jencks. ] Yet, inspite of his torture, he stood firm and calm, showing neither pain norfear, breaking out at intervals into praise to God; and his dignity andcourage so impressed the people that, in spite of the danger, numbersflocked about him when he was set free, in sympathy and admiration. JohnSpur, being inwardly affected by what he saw and heard, took him by thehand, and, with a joyful countenance, said: "Praised be the Lord, " and sowent back with him. That same day Spur was arrested, charged with thecrime of succoring a heretic. Then said the undaunted Spur: "ObediahHolmes I do look upon as a godly man: and do affirm that he carriedhimself as did become a Christian, under so sad an affliction. " "We willdeal with you as we have dealt with him, " said Endicott. "I am in thehands of God, " answered Spur; and then his keeper took him to his prison. [Footnote: _Ill Newes_, p. 57. ]

Perhaps no persecutor ever lived who was actuated by a single motive:Saint Dominic probably had some trace of worldliness; Henry VIII. Sometouch of bigotry; and this was preeminently true of the Massachusettselders. Doubtless there were among them men like Norton, whose fanaticismwas so fierce that they would have destroyed the heretic like the wildbeast, as a child of the devil, and an abomination to God. But with themajority worldly motives predominated: they were always protesting thatthey did not constrain men's consciences, but only enforced orderlyliving. Increase Mather declared: in "the same church there have beenPresbyterians, Independents, Episcopalians, and Antipædobaptists, allwelcome to the same table of the Lord when they have manifested to thejudgment of Christian charity a work of regeneration in their souls. "[Footnote: _Vindication of New Eng. _ p. 19. ] And Winslow solemnlyassured Parliament, "Nay, some in our churches" are "of that judgment, andas long as they [Baptists] carry themselves peaceably as hitherto theydoe, wee will leave them to God. " [Footnote: _Hypocrisie Unmasked_, p. 101. A. D. 1646. ]

Such statements, although intended to convey a false impression, containedthis much truth: provided a man conformed to all the regulations of thechurch, paid his taxes, and held his tongue, he would not, in ordinarycircumstances, have been molested under the Puritan Commonwealth. But themoment he refused implicit obedience, or, above all, if he withdrew fromhis congregation, he was shown no mercy, because such acts tended to shakethe temporal power. John Wilson, pastor of Boston, was a good example ofthe average of his order. On his death-bed he was asked to declare what hethought to be the worst sins of the country. "'I have long feared severalsins, whereof one, ' he said, 'was Corahism: that is, when people rise upas Corah against their ministers, as if they took too much upon them, whenindeed they do but rule for Christ, and according to Christ. '" [Footnote:_Magnalia_, bk. 3, ch. Iii. Section 17. ] Permeated with this love ofpower, and possessed of a superb organization, the clergy never failed toact on public opinion with decisive effect whenever they saw their worldlyinterests endangered. Childe has described the attack which overwhelmedhim, and Gorton gives a striking account of their process of inciting acrusade:--

"These things concluded to be heresies and blasphemies. . . . The ministersdid zealously preach unto the people the great danger of such things, andthe guilt such lay under that held them, stirring the people up to labourto find such persons out and to execute death upon them, making persons soexecrable in the eyes of the people, whom they intimated should hold suchthings, yea some of them naming some of us in their pulpits, that thepeople that had not seen us thought us to be worse by far in any respectthen those barbarous Indians are in the country. . . . Whereupon we heard arumor that the Massachusets was sending out an army of men to cut us off. "[Footnote: _Simplicitie's Defence_, p. 32. ]

The persecution of the Baptists lays bare this selfish clerical policy. The theory of the suppression of heresy as a sacred duty breaks down whenit is conceded that the heretic may be admitted to the orthodox communionwithout sin; therefore the motives for cruelty were sordid. The ministersfelt instinctively that an open toleration would impair their power; notonly because the congregations would divide, but because these sectarieslistened to "John Russell the shoemaker. " [Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 26. ]Obviously, were cobblers to usurp the sacerdotal functions, thesuperstitious reverence of the people for the priestly office would notlong endure: and it was his crime in upholding this sacrilegious practicewhich made the Rev. Thomas Cobbett cry out in his pulpit "against Gorton, that arch-heretick, who would have al men to be preachers. " [Footnote:_Simplicities Defence_, p. 32. See _Ne Sutor_, p. 26. ]

Therefore, though Winslow solemnly protested before the Commissioners atLondon that Baptists who lived peaceably would be left unmolested, yetsuch of them as listened to "foul-murtherers" [Footnote: "_Ill Newes_, "_Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fourth series, vol. Ii. P. 56. ] were denounced by thedivines as dangerous fanatics who threatened to overthrow the government, and were hunted through the country like wolves. 

Thomas Gould was an esteemed citizen of Charles-town, but, unfortunatelyfor himself, he had long felt doubt concerning infant baptism; so when, in1655, a child was born to him, he "durst not" have it christened. "Theelder pressed the church to lay me under admonition, which the church wasbackward to do. Afterward I went out at the sprinkling of children, whichwas a great trouble to some honest hearts, and they told me of it. But Itold them I could not stay, for I lookt upon it as no ordinance of Christ. They told me that now I had made known my judgment I might stay. . . . So Istayed and sat down in my seat when they were at prayer and administringthe service to infants. Then they dealt with me for my unreverentcarriage. " [Footnote: Gould's Narrative, Backus, i. 364-366. ] That is tosay, his pastor, Mr. Symmes, caused him to be admonished and excluded fromthe communion. In October, 1656, he was presented to the county court for"denying baptism to his child, " convicted, admonished, and given till thenext term to consider of his error; and gradually his position atCharlestown became so unpleasant that he went to church at Cambridge, which was a cause of fresh offence to Mr. Symmes. [Footnote: _History ofCharlestown_, Frothingham, p. 164. ]

From this time forward for several years, though no actual punishmentseems to have been inflicted, Gould was subjected to perpetual annoyance, and was repeatedly summoned and admonished, both by the courts and thechurch, until at length he brought matters to a crisis by withdrawing, andwith eight others forming a church, on May 28, 1665. 

He thus tells his story: "We sought the Lord to direct us, and takingcounsel of other friends who dwelt among us, who were able and godly, theygave us counsel to congregate ourselves together; and so we did, . . . Towalk in the order of the gospel according to the rule of Christ, yetknowing it was a breach of the law of this country. . . . After we had beencalled into one or two courts, the church understanding that we weregathered into church order, they sent three messengers from the church tome, telling me the church required me to come before them the next Lord'sday. " [Footnote: Gould's Narrative, Backus, i. 369. ] That Sunday he couldnot go, but he promised to attend on the one following; [Footnote: Gould'sNarrative, Backus, i. 371. ] and his wife relates what was then done: "Theword was carried to the elder, that if they were alive and well they wouldcome the next day, yet they were so hot upon it that they could not stay, but master Sims, when he was laying out the sins of these men, before hehad propounded it to the church, to know their mind, the church having noliberty to speak, he wound it up in his discourse, and delivered them upto Satan, to the amazement of the people, that ever such an ordinance ofChrist should be so abused, that many of the people went out; and thesewere the excommunicated persons. " [Footnote: Mrs. Gould's Answer, Backus, i. 384. ] The sequence is complete: so long as Gould confined his heresy topure speculation upon dogma he was little heeded; when he withheld hischild from baptism and went out during the ceremony he was admonished, denied the sacrament, and treated as a social outcast; but when heseparated, he was excommunicated and given to the magistrate to becrushed. 

Passing from one tribunal to another the sectaries came before the GeneralCourt in October, 1665: such as were freemen were disfranchised, and allwere sentenced, upon conviction before a single magistrate of continuedschism, to be imprisoned until further order. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 291. ] The following April they were fined four poundsand put in confinement, where they lay till the 11th of September, whenthe legislature, after a hearing, ordered them to be discharged uponpayment of fines and costs. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 316. ]

How many Baptists were prosecuted, and what they suffered, is not known, as only an imperfect record remains of the fortunes of even the leaders ofthe movement; this much, however, is certain, they not only continuedcontumacious, but persecution added to their numbers. So at length theclergy decided to try what effect a public refutation of these hereticswould have on popular opinion. Accordingly the governor and council, actuated by "Christian candor, " ordered the Baptists to appear at themeeting-house, at nine o'clock in the morning, on the 14th of April, 1668;and six ministers were deputed to conduct the disputation. [Footnote:Backus, i. 375. ]

During the immolation of Dunster the Rev. Mr. Mitchell had made up hismind that he "would have an argument able to remove a mountain" before hewould swerve from his orthodoxy; he had since confirmed his faith bypreaching "more than half a score ungainsayable sermons" "in defence ofthis comfortable truth, " and he was now prepared to maintain it againstall comers. Accordingly this "worthy man was he who did most service inthis disputation; whereof the effect was, that although the erringbrethren, as is usual in such cases, made this their last answer to thearguments which had cast them into much confusion: 'Say what you will wewill hold our mind. ' Yet others were happily established in the right waysof the Lord. " [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. Iv. Section 10. ]

Such is the account of Cotton Mather: but the story of the Baptistspresents a somewhat different view of the proceedings. "It is true therewere seven elders appointed to discourse with them. . . . And when they weremet, there was a long speech made by one of them of what vile persons theywere, and how they acted against the churches and government here, andstood condemned by the court. The others desiring liberty to speak, theywould not suffer them, but told them they stood there as delinquents andought not to have liberty to speak. . . . Two days were spent to littlepurpose; in the close, master Jonathan Mitchel pronounced that dreadfulsentence against them in Deut. Xvii. 8, to the end of the 12th, and thiswas the way they took to convince them, and you may see what a good effectit had. " [Footnote: Mrs. Gould's Answer, Backus, i. 384, 385. ]

The sentence pronounced by Mitchell was this: "And the man that will dopresumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth tominister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that manshall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. " [Footnote:_Deut. _ xvii. 12. ]

On the 27th of May, 1668, Gould, Turner, and Farnum, "obstinate &turbulent Annabaptists, " were banished under pain of perpetualimprisonment. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. Ii, pp. 373-375. ]They determined to stay and face their fate: afterward they wrote to themagistrates:--

 * * * * *

HONOURED SIRS: . . . After the tenders of our service according to Christ, his command to your selves and the country, wee thought it our duty andconcernment to present your honours with these few lines to put you inremembrance of our bonds: and this being the twelfth week of ourimprisonment, wee should be glad if it might be thought to stand with thehonour and safety of the country, and the present government thereof, tobe now at liberty. For wee doe hereby seriously profess, that as farre aswee are sensible or know anything of our own hearts, wee do prefer theirpeace and safety above our own, however wee have been resented otherwise:and wherein wee differ in point of judgment wee humbly beeseech you, letthere be a bearing with us, till god shal reveale otherwise to us; forthere is a spirit in man and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth themunderstanding, therefore if wee are in the dark, wee dare not say that weedoe see or understand, till the Lord shall cleare things up to us. And tohim wee can appeale to cleare up our innocency as touching the government, both in your civil and church affaires. That it never was in our hearts tothinke of doing the least wrong to either: but have and wee hope, by yourassistance, shal alwaies indeavour to keepe a conscience void of offencetowards god and men. And if it shal be thought meete to afforde us ourliberty, that wee may take that care, as becomes us, for our families, weeshal engage ourselves to be alwayes in a readines to resigne up ourpersons to your pleasure. Hoping your honours will be pleased seriously toconsider our condition, wee shall commend both you and it to the wisedisposing and blessing of the Almighty, and remaine your honours faithfulservants in what we may. 

THO: GOLDWILL: TURNERJOHN FARNUM. [Footnote: _Mass. Archives_, x. 220. ]

 * * * * *

Such were the men whom the clergy daily warned their congregations "wouldcertainly undermine the churches, ruine order, destroy piety, andintroduce prophaneness. " [Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 11. ] And when theyappealed to their spotless lives and their patience under affliction, theywere told "that the vilest hereticks and grossest blasphemers haveresolutely and cheerfully (at least sullenly and boastingly) suffered aswell as the people of God. " [Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 9. ]

The feeling of indignation and of sympathy was, notwithstanding, strong;and in spite of the danger of succoring heretics, sixty-six inhabitants, among whom were some of the most respected citizens of Charlestown, petitioned the legislature for mercy: "They being aged and weakly men; . . . The sense of this their . . . Most deplorable and afflicted condition hathsadly affected the hearts of many . . . Christians, and such as neitherapprove of their judgment or practice; especially considering that the menare reputed godly, and of a blameless conversation. . . . We therefore mosthumbly beseech this honored court, in their Christian mercy and bowels ofcompassion, to pity and relieve these poor prisoners. " [Footnote: Backus, i. 380, 381. ] On November 7, 1668, the petition was voted "scandalous &reproachful, " the two chief promoters were censured, admonished, and finedten and five pounds respectively; the others were made, under their ownhands, to express their sorrow, "for giving the court such just ground ofoffence. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 413. ]

The shock was felt even in England. In March, 1669, thirteen of the mostinfluential dissenting ministers wrote from London earnestly begging formoderation lest they should be made to suffer from retaliation; but theirremonstrance was disregarded. [Footnote: Backus, i. 395. ] What followed isnot exactly known; the convicts would seem to have lain in jail about ayear, and they are next mentioned in a letter to Clark written inNovember, 1670, in which he was told that Turner had been again arrested, but that Gould had eluded the officers, who were waiting for him inBoston; and was on Noddle's Island. Subsequently all were taken andtreated with the extremest rigor; for in June, 1672, Russell was soreduced that it was supposed he could not live, and he was reported tohave died in prison. Six months before Gould and Turner had been thoughtpast hope; their sufferings had brought them all to the brink of thegrave. [Footnote: Backus, i. 398-404, 405. ] But relief was at hand: thevictory for freedom had been won by the blood of heretics, as devoted, asfearless, but even unhappier than they; and the election of Leverett, in1673, who was opposed to persecution, marks the moment when the hierarchyadmitted their defeat. During his administration the sectaries usually metin private undisturbed; and soon every energy of the theocracy becameconcentrated on the effort to repulse the ever contracting circle ofenemies who encompassed it. 

During the next few years events moved fast. In 1678 the ecclesiasticalpower was so shattered that the Baptists felt strong enough to build achurch; but the old despotic spirit lived even in the throes of death, andthe legislature passed an act forbidding the erection of unlicensedmeeting-houses under penalty of confiscation. Nevertheless it wasfinished, but on the Sunday on which it was to have been opened themarshal nailed the doors fast and posted notices forbidding all persons toenter, by order of the court. After a time the doors were broken open, andservices were held; a number of the congregation were summoned before thecourt, admonished, and forbidden to meet in any public place; [Footnote:June 11, 1680. _Mass. Rec. _ v. 271. ] but the handwriting was now glowingon the wall, priestly threats had lost their terror; the order wasdisregarded; and now for almost two hundred years Massachusetts has beenforemost in defending the equal rights of men before the law. 

The old world was passing away, a new era was opening, and a few words aredue to that singular aristocracy which so long ruled New England. For twocenturies Increase Mather has been extolled as an eminent example of theabilities and virtues which then adorned his order. In 1681, when all wasover, he published a solemn statement of the attitude the clergy had heldtoward the Baptists, and from his words posterity may judge of theirstandard of morality and of truth. 

"The Annabaptists in New England have in their narrative lately published, endeavoured to . . . Make themselves the innocent persons and the Lord'sservants here no better than persecutors. . . . I have been a poor labourerin the Lord's Vineyard in this place upward of twenty years; and it ismore than I know, if in all that time, any of those that scruple infantbaptism, have met with molestation from the magistrate merely on accountof their opinion. " [Footnote: Preface to _Ne Sutor_. ]

CHAPTER V. 

THE QUAKERS. 

The lower the organism, the less would seem to be the capacity forphysical adaptation to changed conditions of life; the jelly-fish dies inthe aquarium, the dog has wandered throughout the world with his master. The same principle apparently holds true in the evolution of theintellect; for while the oyster lacks consciousness, the bee modifies thestructure of its comb, and the swallow of her nest, to suit unforeseencontingencies, while the dog, the horse, and the elephant are capable of ahigh degree of education. [Footnote: _Menial Evolution in Animals_, Romanes, Am. Ed. Pp. 203-210. ]

Applying this law to man, it will be found to be a fact that, whereas thebarbarian is most tenacious of custom, the European can adopt new fashionswith comparative ease. The obvious inference is, that in proportion as thebrain is feeble it is incapable of the effort of origination; therefore, savages are the slaves of routine. Probably a stronger nervous system, ora peculiarity of environment, or both combined, served to exciteimpatience with their surroundings among the more favored races, fromwhence came a desire for innovation. And the mental flexibility thusslowly developed has passed by inheritance, and has been strengthened byuse, until the tendency to vary, or think independently, has become anirrepressible instinct among some modern nations. Conservatism is theconverse of variation, and as it springs from mental inertia it is alwaysa progressively salient characteristic of each group in the descendingscale. The Spaniard is less mutable than the Englishman, the Hindoo thanthe Spaniard, the Hottentot than the Hindoo, and the ape than theHottentot. Therefore, a power whose existence depends upon the fixity ofcustom must be inimical to progress, but the authority of a sacred casteis altogether based upon an unreasoning reverence for tradition, --inshort, on superstition; and as free inquiry is fatal to a belief in thosefables which awed the childhood of the race, it has followed thatestablished priesthoods have been almost uniformly the most conservativeof social forces, and that clergymen have seldom failed to slay theirvariable brethren when opportunity has offered. History teems with suchslaughters, some of the most instructive of which are related in the OldTestament, whose code of morals is purely theological. 

Though there may be some question as to the strict veracity of the authorof the Book of Kings, yet, as he was evidently a thorough churchman, therecan be no doubt that he has faithfully preserved the traditions of thehierarchy; his chronicle therefore presents, as it were, a perfect mirror, wherein are reflected the workings of the ecclesiastical mind through manygenerations. According to his account, the theocracy only triumphed aftera long and doubtful struggle. Samuel must have been an exceptionally ableman, for, though he failed to control Saul, it was through his intriguesthat David was enthroned, who was profoundly orthodox; yet Solomon lapsedagain into heresy, and Jeroboam added to schism the even blacker crime ofmaking "priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons ofLevi, " [Footnote: I Kings xii. 31. ] and in consequence he has come down toposterity as the man who made Israel to sin. Ahab married Jezebel, whointroduced the worship of Baal, and gave the support of government to arival church. She therefore roused a hate which has made her immortal; butit was not until the reign of her son Jehoram that Elisha apparently feltstrong enough to execute a plot he had made with one of the generals toprecipitate a revolution, in which the whole of the house of Ahab shouldbe murdered and the heretics exterminated. The awful story is told withwonderful power in the Bible. 

"And Elisha the prophet called one of the children of the prophets, andsaid unto him, Gird up thy loins, and take this box of oil in thine hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead: and when thou comest thither, look out thereJehu, . . . And make him arise up . . . And carry him to an inner chamber;then take the box of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, Thus saith theLord, I have anointed thee king over Israel. . . . 

"So the young man . . . Went to Ramoth-gilead. . . . And he said, I have anerrand to thee, O captain. . . . 

"And he arose, and went into the house; and he poured the oil on his head, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I have anointed theeking over the people of the Lord, even over Israel. 

"And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge theblood of my servants the prophets. . . . 

"For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: . . . And I will make the houseof Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, . . . And the dogsshall eat Jezebel. . . . 

"Then Jehu came forth to the servants of his lord: . . . And he said, Thusspake he to me, saying, Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed thee kingover Israel. 

"Then they hasted, . . . And blew with trumpets, saying, Jehu is king. SoJehu . . . Conspired against Joram. . . . 

"But king Joram was returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds whichthe Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria. . . . 

"So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there. . . . 

"And Joram . . . Went out . . . In his chariot, . . . Against Jehu. . . . And itcame to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And heanswered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel andher witchcrafts are so many?

"And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There istreachery, O Ahaziah. 

"And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between hisarms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in hischariot. . . . 

"But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of thegarden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in thechariot. And they did so. . . . 

"And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she paintedher face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window. 

"And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slewhis master?. . . 

"And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: and some of herblood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trod her underfoot. . . . 

"And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. And Jehu wrote letters, . . . To theelders, and to them that brought up Ahab's children, saying, . . . If ye bemine, . . . Take ye the heads of . . . Your master's sons, and come to me toJezreel by to-morrow this time. . . . And it came to pass, when the lettercame to them, that they took the king's sons, and slew seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. . . . 

"And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gateuntil the morning. . . . 

"So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and allhis great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him noneremaining. 

"And he arose and departed, and came to Samaria. And as he was at theshearing house in the way, Jehu met with the brethren of Ahaziah king ofJudah. . . . 

"And he said, Take them alive. And they took them alive, and slew them atthe pit of the shearing house, even two and forty men; neither left he anyof them. . . . 

"And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab inSamaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the Lord, which he spake to Elijah. 

"And Jehu gathered all the people together, and said unto them, Ahabserved Baal a little; but Jehu shall serve him much. Now therefore callunto me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests;let none be wanting: for I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal; whosoevershall be wanting, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in subtilty, to theintent that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal. . . . 

"And Jehu sent through all Israel: and all the worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left that came not. And they came into thehouse of Baal; and the house of Baal was full from one end to another. . . . 

"And it came to pass, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burntoffering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, Go in, and slaythem; let none come forth. And they smote them with the edge of the sword;and the guard and the captains cast them out. . . . 

"Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel. " [Footnote: 2 _Kings_ ix. , x. ]

Viewed from the standpoint of comparative history, the policy oftheocratic Massachusetts toward the Quakers was the necessary consequenceof antecedent causes, and is exactly parallel with the massacre of thehouse of Ahab by Elisha and Jehu. The power of a dominant priesthooddepended on conformity, and the Quakers absolutely refused to conform; norwas this the blackest of their crimes: they believed that the Deitycommunicated directly with men, and that these revelations were thehighest rule of conduct. Manifestly such a doctrine was revolutionary. Theinfluence of all ecclesiastics must ultimately rest upon the popularbelief that they are endowed with attributes which are denied to commonmen. The syllogism of the New England elders was this: all revelation iscontained in the Bible; we alone, from our peculiar education, are capableof interpreting the meaning of the Scriptures: therefore we only candeclare the will of God. But it was evident that, were the dogma of "theinner light" once accepted, this reasoning must fall to the ground, andthe authority of the ministry be overthrown. Necessarily those who held sosubversive a doctrine would be pursued with greater hate than less harmfulheretics, and thus contemplating the situation there is no difficulty inunderstanding why the Rev. John Wilson, pastor of Boston, should havevociferated in his pulpit, that "he would carry fire in one hand andfaggots in the other, to burn all the Quakers in the world;" [Footnote:_New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 124. ] why the Rev. John Higginsonshould have denounced the "inner light" as "a stinking vapour from hell;"[Footnote: _Truth and Innocency Defended_, ed. 1703, p. 80. ] why theastute Norton should have taught that "the justice of God was the devil'sarmour;" [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 9. ] and whyEndicott sternly warned the first comers, "Take heed you break not ourecclesiastical laws, for then ye are sure to stretch by a halter. "[Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9. ]

Nevertheless, this view has not commended itself to those learnedclergymen who have been the chief historians of the Puritan commonwealth. They have, on the contrary, steadily maintained that the sectaries werethe persecutors, since the company had exclusive ownership of the soil, and acted in self-defence. 

The case of Roger Williams is thus summed up by Dr. Dexter: "In allstrictness and honesty he persecuted them--not they him; just as themodern 'Come-outer, ' who persistently intrudes his bad manners andpestering presence upon some private company, making himself, uponpretence of conscience, a nuisance there; is--if sane--the persecutor, rather than the man who forcibly assists, as well as courteously requires, his desired departure. " [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 90. ]

Dr. Ellis makes a similar argument regarding the Quakers: "It might appearas if good manners, and generosity and magnanimity of spirit, would havekept the Quakers away. Certainly, by every rule of right and reason, theyought to have kept away. They had no rights or business here. . . . Mostclearly they courted persecution, suffering, and death; and, as themagistrates affirmed, 'they rushed upon the sword. ' Those magistratesnever intended them harm, . . . Except as they believed that all theirsuccessive measures and sharper penalties were positively necessary tosecure their jurisdiction from the wildest lawlessness and absoluteanarchy. " [Footnote: _Mass. And its Early History_, p. 110] His conclusionis: "It is to be as frankly and positively affirmed that their Quakertormentors were the aggressive party; that they wantonly initiated thestrife, and with a dogged pertinacity persisted in outrages which drovethe authorities almost to frenzy. . . . " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 104]

The proposition that the Congregationalists owned the territory granted bythe charter of Charles I. As though it were a private estate, has beenconsidered in an earlier chapter; and if the legal views there advancedare sound, it is incontrovertible, that all peaceful British subjects hada right to dwell in Massachusetts, provided they did not infringe themonopoly in trade. The only remaining question, therefore, is whether theQuakers were peaceful. Dr. Ellis, Dr. Palfrey, and Dr. Dexter havecarefully collected a certain number of cases of misconduct, with the viewof proving that the Friends were turbulent, and the government hadreasonable grounds for apprehending such another outbreak as one whichoccurred a century before in Germany and is known as the Peasants' War. Before, however, it is possible to enter upon a consideration of theevidence intelligently, it is necessary to fix the chronological order ofthe leading events of the persecution. 

The twenty-one years over which it extended may be conveniently dividedinto three periods, of which the first began in July, 1656, when MaryFisher and Anne Austin came to Boston, and lasted till December, 1661, when Charles II. Interfered by commanding Endicott to send those underarrest to England for trial. Hitherto John Norton had been preeminent, butin that same December he was appointed on a mission to London, and as hedied soon after his return, his direct influence on affairs then probablyceased. He had been chiefly responsible for the hangings of 1659 and 1660, but under no circumstances could they have been continued, for after fourheretics had perished, it was found impossible to execute WenlockChristison, who had been condemned, because of popular indignation. 

Nevertheless, the respite was brief. In June, 1662, the king, in a letterconfirming the charter, excluded the Quakers from the general tolerationwhich he demanded for other sects, and the old legislation was forthwithrevived; only as it was found impossible to kill the schismatics openly, the inference, from what occurred subsequently, is unavoidable, that theelders sought to attain their purpose by what their reverend historianscall "a humaner policy, " [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 134. ]or, in plain English, by murdering them by flogging and starvation. Norwas the device new, for the same stratagem had already been resorted to bythe East India Company, in Hindostan, before they were granted fullcriminal jurisdiction. [Footnote: Mill's _British India_, i. 48, note. ]

The Vagabond Act was too well contrived for compassing such an end, tohave been an accident, and portions of it strongly suggest the hand ofNorton. It was passed in May, 1661, when it was becoming evident thathanging must be abandoned, and its provisions can only be explained on thesupposition that it was the intention to make the infliction of deathdiscretionary with each magistrate. It provided that any foreign Quaker, or any native upon a second conviction, might be ordered to receive anunlimited number of stripes. It is important also to observe that the whipwas a two-handed implement, armed with lashes made of twisted and knottedcord or catgut. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 357, note. ]There can be no doubt, moreover, that sundry of the judgments afterwardpronounced would have resulted fatally had the people permitted theirexecution. During the autumn following its enactment this statute wassuspended, but it was revived in about ten months. 

Endicott's death in 1665 marks the close of the second epoch, and tencomparatively tranquil years followed. Bellingham's moderation may havebeen in part due to the interference of the royal commissioners, but amore potent reason was the popular disgust, which had become so strongthat the penal laws could not be enforced. 

A last effort was made to rekindle the dying flame in 1675, by finingconstables who failed in their duty to break up Quaker meetings, andoffering one third of the penalty to the informer. Magistrates wererequired to sentence those apprehended to the House of Correction, wherethey were to be kept three days on bread and water, and whipped. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 60. ] Several suffered during this revival, the last of whom was Margaret Brewster. At the end of twenty-one years thepolicy of cruelty had become thoroughly discredited and a generaltoleration could no longer be postponed; but this great liberal triumphwas only won by heroic courage and by the endurance of excruciatingtorments. Marmaduke Stevenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and WilliamLeddra were hanged, several were mutilated or branded, two at least areknown to have died from starvation and whipping, and it is probable thatothers were killed whose fate cannot be traced. The number tortured underthe Vagabond Act is unknown, nor can any estimate be made of the miseryinflicted upon children by the ruin and exile of parents. 

The early Quakers were enthusiasts, and therefore occasionally spoke andacted extravagantly; they also adopted some offensive customs, the mostobjectionable of which was wearing the hat; all this is immaterial. Thequestion at issue is not their social attractiveness, but the cause whoseconsequence was a virulent persecution. This can only be determined by ananalysis of the evidence. If, upon an impartial review of the cases ofoutrage which have been collected, it shall appear probable that theconduct of the Friends was sufficiently violent to make it credible thatthe legislature spoke the truth, when it declared that "the prudence ofthis court was exercised onely in making provission to secure the peace &order heere established against theire attempts, whose designe (wee werewell assured by our oune experjence, as well as by the example of theirepredecessors in Munster) was to vndermine & ruine the same;" [Footnote:_Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 1, p. 385. ] then the reverend historians ofthe theocracy must be considered to have established their proposition. But if, on the other hand, it shall seem apparent that the intensevindictiveness of this onslaught was due to the bigotry and greed of powerof a despotic priesthood, who saw in the spread of independent thought amenace to the ascendency of their order, then it must be held to bedemonstrated that the clergy of New England acted in obedience to thosenatural laws, which have always regulated the conduct of mankind. 

CHRONOLOGY. 

1656, July. First Quakers came to Boston. 

1656, 14 Oct. First act against Quakers passed. Providing that ship-masters bringing Quakers should be fined £100. Quakers to be whipped andimprisoned till expelled. Importers of Quaker books to be fined. Anydefending Quaker opinions to be fined, first offence, 40s. ; second, £4;third, banishment. 

1657, 14 Oct. By a supplementary act; Quakers returning after oneconviction for first offence, for men, loss of one ear; imprisonment tillexile. Second offence, loss other ear, like imprisonment. For females;first offence, whipping, imprisonment. Second offence, idem. Thirdoffence, men and women alike; tongue to be bored with a hot iron, imprisonment, exile. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 1, p. 309. ]

1658. In this year Rev. John Norton actively exerted himself to securemore stringent legislation; procured petition to that effect to bepresented to court. 

1658, 19 Oct. Enacted that undomiciled Quakers returning from banishmentshould be hanged. Domiciled Quakers upon conviction, refusing toapostatize, to be banished, under pain of death on return. [Footnote:_Idem_, p. 346. ]

Under this act the following persons were hanged:

1659, 27 Oct. Robinson and Stevenson hanged. 

1660, 1 June. Mary Dyer hanged. (Previously condemned, reprieved, andexecuted for returning. )

1660-1661, 14 Mar. William Leddra hanged. 

1661, June. Wenlock Christison condemned to death; released. 

1661, 22 May. Vagabond Act. Any person convicted before a countymagistrate of being an undomiciled or vagabond Quaker to be stripped nakedto the middle, tied to the cart's tail, and flogged from town to town tothe border. Domiciled Quakers to be proceeded against under Act of 1658 tobanishment, and then treated as vagabond Quakers. The death penalty wasstill preserved but not enforced. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 3. ]

1661, 9 Sept. King Charles II. Wrote to Governor Endicott directing thecessation of corporal punishment in regard to Quakers, and ordering theaccused to be sent to England for trial. 

1661. 27 Nov. Vagabond Act suspended. 

1662. 28 June. The company's agents, Bradstreet and Norton, received fromthe king his letter of pardon, etc. , wherein, however, Quakers areexcepted from the demand made for religious toleration. 

1662, 8 Oct. Encouraged by the above letter the Vagabond law revived. 

1664-5, 15 March. Death of John Endicott. Bellingham governor. Commissioners interfere on behalf of Quakers in May. The persecutionsubsides. 

1672, 3 Nov. Persecution revived by passage of law punishing persons foundat Quaker meeting by fine or imprisonment and flogging. Also finingconstables for neglect in making arrests and giving one third the fine toinformers. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 60. ]

1677, Aug. 9. Margaret Brewster whipped for entering the Old South insackcloth. 

TURBULENT QUAKERS. 

1656, Mary Prince. 1662, Deborah Wilson. 1658, Sarah Gibbons. 1663, Thomas Newhouse. " Dorothy Waugh. " Edward Wharton. 1660, John Smith. 1664, Hannah Wright. [Footnote: Uncertain. ]1661, Katherine Chatham. " Mary Tomkins. " George Wilson. 1665, Lydia Wardwell. 1662, Elizabeth Hooton. 1677, Margaret Brewster. 

"It was in the month called July, of this present year [1656] when MaryFisher and Ann Austin arrived in the road before Boston, before ever a lawwas made there against the Quakers; and yet they were very ill treated;for before they came ashore, the deputy governor, Richard Bellingham (thegovernor himself being out of town) sent officers aboard, who searchedtheir trunks and chests, and took away the books they found there, whichwere about one hundred, and carried them ashore, after having commandedthe said women to be kept prisoners aboard; and the said books were, by anorder of the council, burnt in the market-place by the hangman. . . . Andthen they were shut up close prisoners, and command was given that noneshould come to them without leave; a fine of five pounds being laid on anythat should otherwise come at, or speak with them, tho' but at the window. Their pens, ink, and paper were taken from them, and they not suffered tohave any candle-light in the night season; nay, what is more, they werestript naked, under pretence to know whether they were witches [a truetouch of sacerdotal malignity] tho' in searching no token was found uponthem but of innocence. And in this search they were so barbarously misusedthat modesty forbids to mention it: And that none might have communicationwith them a board was nailed up before the window of the jail. And seeingthey were not provided with victuals, Nicholas Upshal, one who had livedlong in Boston, and was a member of the church there, was so concernedabout it, (liberty being denied to send them provision) that he purchasedit of the jailor at the rate of five shillings a week, lest they shouldhave starved. And after having been about five weeks prisoners, WilliamChichester, master of a vessel, was bound in one hundred pound bond tocarry them back, and not suffer any to speak with them, after they wereput on board; and the jailor kept their beds . . . And their Bible, for hisfees. " [Footnote: Sewel, p. 160. ]

Endicott was much dissatisfied with the forbearance of Bellingham, anddeclared that had he "been there . . . He would have had them well whipp'd. "[Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 10. ] No exertion was spared, nevertheless, to get some hold upon them, the elders examining them as tomatters of faith, with a view to ensnare them as heretics. In this, however, they were foiled. 

On the authority of Hutchinson, Dr. Dexter [Footnote: _As to RogerWilliams_, p. 127. ] and r. Palfrey complain [Footnote: Palfrey, ii. 464. ] that Mary Prince reviled two of the ministers, who "with muchmoderation and tenderness endeavored to convince her of her errors. "[Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 181. ] A visitation of the clergy was aform of torment from which even the boldest recoiled; Vane, Gorton, Childe, and Anne Hutchinson quailed under it, and though the Quakersabundantly proved that they could bear stripes with patience, they couldnot endure this. She called them "Baal's priests, the seed of theserpent. " Dr. Ellis also speaks of "stinging objurgations screamed out . . . From between the bars of their prisons. " [Footnote: _Mem. Hist. OfBoston_, i. 182. ] He cites no cases, but he probably refers to the samewoman who called to Endicott one Sunday on his way from church: "Woe untothee, thou art an oppressor. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 181. ] Ifshe said so she spoke the truth, for she was illegally imprisoned, wasdeprived of her property, and subjected to great hardship. 

In October, 1656, the first of the repressive acts was passed, by whichthe "cursed" and "blasphemous" intruders were condemned to be "comitted tothe house of correction, and at theire entrance to be seuerely whipt andby the master thereof to be kept constantly to worke, and none suffered toconverse or speak with them;" [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 1, p. 278. ] and any captain knowingly bringing them within the jurisdictionto be fined one hundred pounds, with imprisonment till payment. 

"When this law was published at the door of the aforenamed NicholasUpshall, the good old man, grieved in spirit, publickly testified againstit; for which he was the next morning sent for to the General Court, wherehe told them that: 'The execution of that law would be a forerunner of ajudgment upon their country, and therefore in love and tenderness which hebare to the people and place, desired them to take heed, lest they werefound fighters against God. ' For this, he, though one of their church-members, and of a blameless conversation, was fined £20 and £3 more fornot coming to church, whence the sense of their wickedness had induced himto absent himself. They also banished him out of their jurisdiction, allowing him but one month for his departure, though in the winter season, and he a weakly ancient man: Endicott the governor, when applied to on hisbehalf for a mitigation of his fine, churlishly answered, 'I will not batehim a groat. '" [Footnote: Besse, ii. 181. ]

Although, after the autumn of 1656, whippings, fines, and banishmentsbecame frequent, no case of misconduct is alleged until the 13th of thesecond month, 1658, when Sarah Gibbons and Dorothy Waugh broke two bottlesin Mr. Norton's church, after lecture, to testify to his emptiness;[Footnote: This charge is unproved. ] both had previously been imprisonedand banished, but the ferocity with which Norton at that moment wasforcing on the persecution was the probable incentive to the trespass. "They were sent to the house of correction, where, after being kept threedays without any food, they were cruelly whipt, and kept three days longerwithout victuals, though they had offered to buy some, but were notsuffered. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 184. ]

In 1661 Katharine Chatham walked through Boston, in sackcloth. This wasduring the trial of Christison for his life, when the terror culminated, and hardly needs comment. 

George Wilson is charged with having "rushed through the streets ofBoston, shouting: 'The Lord is coming with fire and sword!'" [Footnote:_As to Roger Williams_, p. 133. ] The facts appear to be these: in 1661, just before Christison's trial, he was arrested, without any apparentreason, and, as he was led to prison, he cried, that the Lord was comingwith fire and sword to plead with Boston. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 351. ] At the general jail delivery [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 19. Order passed 28 May, 1661. ] in anticipation of theking's order, he was liberated, but soon rearrested, "sentenced to be tiedto the cart's tail, " and flogged with so severe a whip that the Quakerswanted to buy it "to send to England for the novelty of the cruelty, butthat was not permitted. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 224. ]

Elizabeth Hooton coming from England in 1661, with Joan Brooksup, "theywere soon clapt up in prison, and, upon their discharge thence, beingdriven with the rest two days' journey into the vast, howling wilderness, and there left . . . Without necessary provisions. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 228, 229. ] They escaped to Barbadoes. "Upon their coming again to Boston, they were presently apprehended by a constable, an ignorant and furiouszealot, who declared, 'It was his delight, and he could rejoice infollowing the Quakers to their execution as much as ever. '" Wishing toreturn once more, she obtained a license from the king to buy a house inany plantation. Though about sixty, she was seized at Dover, where theRev. Mr. Rayner was settled, put into the stocks, and imprisoned four daysin the dead of winter, where she nearly perished from cold. [Footnote:Besse, ii. 229. ] Afterward, at Cambridge, she exhorted the people torepentance in the streets, [Footnote: "Repentance! Repentance! A day ofhowling and sad lamentation is coming upon you all from the Lord. "] andfor this crime, which is cited as an outrage to Puritan decorum, [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 133. ] she was once more apprehendedand "imprisoned in a close, stinking dungeon, where there was nothingeither to lie down or sit on, where she was kept two days and two nightswithout bread or water, " and then sentenced to be whipped through threetowns. "At Cambridge she was tied to the whipping-post, and lashed withten stripes with a three-stringed whip, with three knots at the end: AtWatertown she was laid on with ten stripes more with rods of willow: AtDedham, in a cold frosty morning, they tortured her aged body with tenstripes more at a cart's tail. " The peculiar atrocity of flogging fromtown to town lay in this: that the victim's wounds became cold between thetimes of punishment, and in winter sometimes frozen, which made thetorture intolerably agonizing. Then, as hanging was impossible, othermeans were tried to make an end of her: "Thus miserably torn and beaten, they carried her a weary journey on horseback many miles into thewilderness, and toward night left her there among wolves, bears, and otherwild beasts, who, though they did sometimes seize on living persons, wereyet to her less cruel than the savage-professors of that country. Whenthose who conveyed her thither left her, they said, 'They thought theyshould never see her more. '" [Footnote: Besse, ii. 229. See _New EnglandJudged_, p. 413. ]

The intent to kill is obvious, and yet Elizabeth Hooton suffered less thanmany of those convicted and sentenced after public indignation had forcedthe theocracy to adopt what their reverend successors are pleased to callthe "humaner policy" of the Vagabond Act. [Footnote: _As to RogerWilliams_, p. 134. ]

Any want of deference to a clergyman is sure to be given a prominent placein the annals of Massachusetts; and, accordingly, the breaking of bottlesin church, which happened twice in twenty-one years, is never omitted. 

In 1663 "John Liddal, and Thomas Newhouse, having been at meeting" (atSalem), "were apprehended and . . . Sentenced to be whipt through threetowns as vagabonds, " which was accordingly done. 

"Not long after this, the aforesaid Thomas Newhouse was again whiptthrough the jurisdiction of Boston for testifying against the persecutorsin their meeting-house there; at which time he, in a prophetick manner, having two glass bottles in his hands, threw them down, saying, 'so shallyou be dashed in pieces. '" [Footnote: Besse, ii. 232. ]

The next turbulent Quaker is mentioned in this way by Dr. Dexter: "EdwardWharton was 'pressed in spirit' to repair to Dover and proclaim 'Wo, vengeance, and the indignation of the Lord' upon the court in sessionthere. " [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 133. ] This happened inthe summer of 1663, and long ere then he had seen and suffered theoppression that makes men mad. He was a peaceable and industriousinhabitant of Salem; in 1659 he had seen Robinson and Stevenson done todeath, and, being deeply moved, he said, "the guilt of [their] blood wasso great that he could not bear it;" [Footnote: Besse, ii. 205. ] he wastaken from his home, given twenty lashes and fined twenty pounds; the nextyear, just at the time of Christison's trial, he was again seized, ledthrough the country like a notorious offender, and thrown into prison, "where he was kept close, night and day, with William Leddra, sometimes ina very little room, little bigger than a saw-pit, having no libertygranted them. "

"Being brought before their court, he again asked, 'What is the cause, andwherefore have I been fetcht from my habitation, where I was following myhonest calling, and here laid up as an evil-doer?' They told him, that'his hair was too long, and that he had disobeyed that commandment whichsaith, Honour thy father and mother. ' He asked, 'Wherein?' 'In that youwill not, ' said they, 'put off your hat to magistrates. ' Edward replied, 'I love and own all magistrates and rulers, who are for the punishment ofevil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. '" [Footnote: Besse, ii. 220. ]

Then Rawson pronounced the sentence: "You are upon pain of death to departthis jurisdiction, it being the 11th of this instant March, by the one andtwentieth of the same, on the pain of death. . . . 'Nay [said Wharton], Ishall not go away; therefore be careful what you do. '" [Footnote: Besse, ii. 221. ]

And he did not go, but was with Leddra when he died upon the tree. On theday Leddra suffered, Christison was brought before Endicott, and commandedto renounce his religion; but he answered: "Nay, I shall not change myreligion, nor seek to save my life; . . . But if I lose my life for Christ'ssake and the preaching of the gospel, I shall save it. " They then sent himback to prison to await his doom. At the next court he was brought to thebar, where he demanded an appeal to England; but in the midst a letter wasbrought in from Wharton, signifying, "That whereas they had banished himon pain of death, yet he was at home in his own house at Salem, andtherefore proposing, 'That they would take off their wicked sentence fromhim, that he might go about his occasions out of their jurisdiction. '"[Footnote: Besse, ii. 222, 223. ]

Endicott was exasperated to frenzy, for he felt the ground crumblingbeneath him; he put the fate of Christison to the vote, and failed tocarry a condemnation. "The governor seeing this division, said, 'I couldfind it in my heart to go home;' being in such a rage, that he flungsomething furiously on the table. . . . Then the governor put the court tovote again; but this was done confusedly, which so incensed the governorthat he stood up and said, 'You that will not consent record it: I thankGod I am not afraid to give judgment. . . Wenlock Christison, hearken to yoursentence: You must return unto the place from whence you came, and fromthence to the place of execution, and there you must be hang'd until youare dead, dead, dead. '" [Footnote: Sewel, p. 279. ] Thereafter Whartoninvoked the wrath of God against the theocracy. 

To none of the enormities committed, during these years are the divinesmore keenly alive than to the crime of disturbing what they call "publicSabbath worship;" [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 139. ] and sincetheir language conveys the impression that such acts were not only verycommon, but also unprovoked, whereas the truth is that they were rare, itcannot fail to be instructive to relate the causes which led to theinterruption of the ordination of that Mr. Higginson, who called the"inner light" "a stinking vapour from hell. " [Footnote: Ordained July 8, 1660. _Annals of Salem_. ]

John and Margaret Smith were members of the Salem church, and John was afreeman. In 1658, Margaret became a Quaker, and though in feeble health, she was cast into prison, and endured the extremities of privation; hersufferings and her patience so wrought upon her husband that he too becamea convert, and a few weeks before the ceremony wrote to Endicott:

"O governour, governour, do not think that my love to my wife is at allabated, because I sit still silent, and do not seek her . . . Freedom, whichif I did would not avail. . . . Upon examination of her, there being nothingjustly laid to her charge, yet to fulfil your wills, it was determined, that she must have ten stripes in the open market place, it being verycold, the snow lying by the walls, and the wind blowing cold. . . . My loveis much more increased to her, because I see your cruelty so much enlargedto her. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 208, 209. ]

Yet, though laboring under such intense excitement, the only act ofinsubordination wherewith this man is charged was saying in a loud voiceduring the service, "What you are going about to set up, our God ispulling down. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 187. ]

Dr. Dexter also speaks with pathos of the youth of some of the criminals. 

"Hannah Wright, a mere girl of less than fifteen summers, toiled . . . FromOyster Bay . . . To Boston, that she might pipe in the ears of the court 'awarning in the name of the Lord. '" [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams, _ p. 133. ] This appears to have happened in 1664, [Footnote: Besse, ii. 234. _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 461. ] yet the name of Hannah Wright isrecorded among those who were released in the general jail delivery in1661, [Footnote: Besse, ii. 224. ] when she was only twelve; and her sisterhad been banished. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 461. ]

But of all the scandals which have been dwelt on for two centuries withsuch unction, none have been made more notorious than certainextravagances committed by three women; and regarding them, the reasoningof Dr. Dexter should be read in full. 

"The Quaker of the seventeenth century . . . Was essentially a coarse, blustering, conceited, disagreeable, impudent fanatic; whose religiongained subjective comfort in exact proportion to the objective comfort ofwhich it was able to deprive others; and which broke out into its choicestexhibitions in acts which were not only at that time in the nature of apublic scandal and nuisance, but which even in the brightest light of thisnineteenth century . . . Would subject those who should be guilty of them tothe immediate and stringent attention of the police court. The disturbanceof public Sabbath worship, and the indecent exposure of the person--whether conscience be pleaded for them or not--are punished, and rightlypunished, as crimes by every civilized government. " [Footnote: _As toRoger Williams_, pp. 138, 139. ]

This paragraph undoubtedly refers to Mary Tomkins, who "on the First Dayof the week at Oyster River, broke up the service of God's house . . . Thescene ending in deplorable confusion;" [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 133. ] and to Lydia Wardwell and Deborah Wilson, who appeared in publicnaked. 

Mary Tomkins and Alice Ambrose came to Massachusetts in 1662; landing atDover, they began preaching at the inn, to which a number of peopleresorted. Mr. Rayner, hearing the news, hurried to the spot, and in muchirritation asked them what they were doing there? This led to an argumentabout the Trinity, and the authority of ministers, and at last theclergyman "in a rage flung away, calling to his people, at the window, togo from amongst them. " [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 362. ]Nothing was done at the moment, but toward winter the two came back fromMaine, whither they had gone, and then Mr. Rayner saw his opportunity. Hecaused Richard Walden to prosecute them, and as the magistrate wasignorant of the technicalities of the law, the elder acted as clerk, anddrew up for him the following warrant:--

 * * * * *

To the Constables of Dover, Hampton, Salisbury, Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, Wenham, Linn, Boston, Roxbury, Dedham, and until these vagabond Quakersare carried out of this jurisdiction. You and every of you are required, in the King's Majesty's name, to take these vagabond Quakers, AnneColeman, Mary Tomkins and Alice Ambrose, and make them fast to the cart'stail, and driving the cart through your several towns, to whip them ontheir backs, not exceeding ten stripes apiece on each of them in eachtown, and so to convey them from constable to constable, till they comeout of this jurisdiction, as you will answer it at your peril: and thisshall be your warrant. 

Per me RICHARD WALDEN. At Dover, dated December the 22d, 1662. [Footnote: Besse, ii. 227. ]

 * * * * *

The Rev. John Rayner pronounced judgment of death by flogging, for theweather was bitter, the distance to be walked was eighty miles, and thelashes were given with a whip, whose three twisted, knotted thongs cut tothe bone. 

"So, in a very cold day, your deputy, Walden, caused these women to bestripp'd naked from the middle upward, and tyed to a cart, and after awhile cruelly whipp'd them, whilst the priest stood and looked, andlaughed at it. . . . They went with the executioner to Hampton, and throughdirt and snow at Salisbury, half way the leg deep, the constable forcedthem after the cart's tayl at which he whipp'd them. " [Footnote: _NewEngland Judged_, pp. 366, 367. ]

Had the Reverend John Rayner but followed the cart, to see that his threehundred and thirty lashes were all given with the same ferocity whichwarmed his heart to mirth at Dover, before his journey's end he wouldcertainly have joyed in giving thanks to God over the women's gorycorpses, freezing amid the snow. His negligence saved their lives, forwhen the ghastly pilgrims passed through Salisbury, the people to theireternal honor set the captives free. 

Soon after, on Sunday, --"Whilst Alice Ambrose was at prayer, twoconstables . . . Came . . . And taking her . . . Dragged her out of doors, andthen with her face toward the snow, which was knee deep, over stumps andold trees near a mile; when they had wearied themselves they . . . Left theprisoner in an house . . . And fetched Mary Tomkins, whom in like mannerthey dragged with her face toward the snow. . . . On the next morning, whichwas excessive cold, they got a canoe . . . And so carried them to theharbour's mouth, threatning, that 'They would now so do with them, as thatthey would be troubled with them no more. ' The women being unwilling togo, they forced them down a very steep place in the snow, dragging MaryTomkins over the stumps of trees to the water side, so that she was muchbruised, and fainted under their hands: They plucked Alice Ambrose intothe water, and kept her swimming by the canoe in great danger of drowning, or being frozen to death. They would in all probability have proceeded intheir wicked purpose to the murthering of those three women, had they notbeen prevented by a sudden storm, which drove them back to the houseagain. They kept the women there till near midnight, and then cruellyturned them out of doors in the frost and snow, Alice Ambrose's clothesbeing frozen hard as boards. . . . It was observable that those constables, though wicked enough of themselves, were animated by a ruling elder oftheir church, whose name corresponded not with his actions, for he wascalled Hate-evil Nutter, he put those men forward, and by his presenceencouraged them. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 228. ]

Subsequently, Mary Tomkins committed the breach of the peace complainedof, which was an interruption of a sermon against Quaker preaching. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 386. ]

Deborah Wilson, one of the women who went abroad naked, was insane, thefact appearing of record subsequently as the judgment of the court. Shewas flogged. [Footnote: _Quaker Invasion_, p. 104. ]

Lydia Wardwell was the daughter of Isaac Perkins, a freeman. She marriedEliakim Wardwell, son of Thomas Wardwell, who was also a citizen. Theybecame Quakers; and the story begins when the poor young woman had been awife just three years. "At Hampton, Priest Seaborn Cotton, understandingthat one Eliakim Wardel had entertained Wenlock Christison, went with someof his herd to Eliakim's house, having like a sturdy herdsman put himselfat the head of his followers, with a truncheon in his hand. " Eliakim wasfined for harboring Christison, and "a pretty beast for the saddle, worthabout fourteen pound, was taken . . . The overplus of [Footnote: Sewel, p. 340. ] which to make up to him, your officers plundred old William Marstonof a vessel of green ginger, which for some fine was taken from him, andforc'd it into Eliakim's house, where he let it lie and touched it not;. . . And notwithstanding he came not to your invented worship, but wasfined ten shillings a day's absence, for him and his wife, yet was heoften rated for priest's hire; and the priest (Seaborn Cotton, old JohnCotton's son) to obtain his end and to cover himself, sold his rate to aman almost as bad as himself, . . . Who coming in pretence of borrowing alittle corn for himself, which the harmless honest man willingly lent him;and he finding thereby that he had corn, which was his design, Judas-like, he went . . . And measured it away as he pleased. "

"Another time, the said Eliakim being rated to the said priest, SeabornCotton, the said Seaborn having a mind to a pied heifer Eliakim had, asAhab had to Naboth's vineyard, sent his servant nigh two miles to fetchher; who having robb'd Eliakim of her, brought her to his master. ". . . 

"Again the said Eliakim was had to your court, and being by them fined, they took almost all his marsh and meadow-ground from him to satisfie it, which was for the keeping his cattle alive in winter . . . And [so] seizedand took his estate, that they plucked from him most of that he had. "[Footnote: _New England Judged, _ ed. 1703, pp. 374-376. ] Lydia Wardwell, thus reduced to penury, and shaken by the daily scenes of unutterablehorror through which she had to pass, was totally unequal to endure thestrain under which the masculine intellect of Anne Hutchinson had reeled. She was pursued by her pastor, who repeatedly commanded her to come tochurch and explain her absence from communion. [Footnote: Besse, ii. 235. ]The miserable creature, brooding over her blighted life and the tormentsof her friends, became possessed with the delusion that it was her duty totestify against the barbarity of flogging naked women; so she herself wentin among them naked for a sign. There could be no clearer proof ofinsanity, for it is admitted that in every other respect her conduct wasexemplary. 

Her judges at Ipswich had her bound to a rough post of the tavern, inwhich they sat, and then, while the splinters tore her bare breasts, theyhad her flesh cut from her back with the lash. [Footnote: _New EnglandJudged_, ed. 1703, p. 377. ]

"Thus they served the wife, and the husband escaped not free; . . . Hetaxing Simon Broadstreet, . . . For upbraiding his wife . . . And tellingSimon of his malitious reproaching of his wife who was an honest woman . . . And of that report that went abroad of the known dishonesty of Simon'sdaughter, Seaborn Cotton's wife; Simon in a fierce rage, told the court, 'That if such fellows should be suffered to speak so in the court, hewould sit there no more:' So to please Simon, Eliakim was sentenc'd to bestripp'd from his waste upward, and to be bound to an oak-tree that stoodby their worship-house, and to be whipped fifteen lashes; . . . As they werehaving him out . . . He called to Seaborn Cotton . . . To come and see thework done (so far was he from being daunted by their cruelty), who hastnedout and followed him thither, and so did old Wiggins, one of themagistrates, who when Eliakim was tyed to the tree and stripp'd, said . . . To the whipper. . . 'Whip him a good;' which the executioner cruellyperformed with cords near as big as a man's little finger;. . . PriestCotton standing near him . . . Eliakim . . . When he was loosed from the tree, said to him, amongst the people, 'Seaborn, hath my py'd heifer calv'dyet?' Which Seaborn, the priest, hearing stole away like a thief. "[Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, pp. 377-379. ]

As Margaret Brewster was the last who is known to have been whipped, so isshe one of the most famous, for she has been immortalized by SamuelSewall, an honest, though a dull man. 

"July 8, 1677. New Meeting House Mane: In sermon time there came in afemale Quaker, in a canvas frock, her hair disshevelled and loose like aPeriwigg, her face as black as ink, led by two other Quakers, and twoother followed. It occasioned the greatest and most amazing uproar that Iever saw. Isaiah 1. 12, 14. " [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fifth series, v. 43. ]

In 1675 the persecution had been revived, and the stories the woman heardof the cruelties that were perpetrated on those of her own faith inspiredher with the craving to go to New England to protest against the wrong; soshe journeyed thither, and entered the Old South one Sunday morningclothed in sackcloth, with ashes on her head. 

At her trial she asked for leave to speak: "Governour, I desire thee tohear me a little, for I have something to say in behalf of my friends inthis place: . . . Oh governour! I cannot but press thee again and again, toput an end to these cruel laws that you have made to fetch my friends fromtheir peaceable meetings, and keep them three days in the house ofcorrection, and then whip them for worshipping the true and living God:Governour! Let me entreat thee to put an end to these laws, for the desireof my soul is, that you may act for God, and then would you prosper, butif you act against the Lord and his blessed truth, you will assuredly cometo nothing, the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. " . . . 

"Margaret Brewster, You are to have your clothes stript off to the middle, and to be tied to a cart's tail at the South Meeting House, and to bedrawn through the town, and to receive twenty stripes upon your nakedbody. "

"The will of the Lord be done: I am contented. " . . . 

_Governour. _ "Take her away. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 263, 264. ]

So ends the sacerdotal list of Quaker outrages, for, after MargaretBrewster had expiated her crime of protesting against the repression offree thought, there came a toleration, and with toleration a deeptranquillity, so that the very name of Quaker has become synonymous withquietude. The issue between them and the Congregationalists must be leftto be decided upon the legal question of their right as English subjectsto inhabit Massachusetts; and secondarily upon the opinion which shall beformed of their conduct as citizens, upon the testimony of those witnesseswhom the church herself has called. But regarding the great fundamentalstruggle for liberty of individual opinion, no presentation of theevidence could be historically correct which did not include at least oneexample of the fate that awaited peaceful families, under thisecclesiastical government, who roused the ire of the priests. 

Lawrence and Cassandra Southwick were an aged couple, members of the Salemchurch, and Lawrence was a freeman. Josiah, their eldest son, was a man;but they had beside a younger boy and girl named Daniel and Provided. 

The father and mother were first arrested in 1657 for harboring twoQuakers; Lawrence was soon released, but a Quaker tract was found uponCassandra. [Footnote: Besse, ii. 183. ] Although no attempt seems to havebeen made to prove heresy to bring the case within the letter of the law, the paper was treated as a heretical writing, and she was imprisoned forseven weeks and fined forty shillings. 

Persecution made converts fast, and in Salem particularly a numberwithdrew from the church and began to worship by themselves. All were soonarrested, and the three Southwicks were again sent to Boston, this time toserve as an example. They arrived on the 3d of February, 1657; withoutform of trial they were whipped in the extreme cold weather and imprisonedeleven days. Their cattle were also seized and sold to pay a fine of £4l3s. For six weeks' absence from worship on the Lord's day. 

The next summer, Leddra, who was afterwards hanged, and William Brend wentto Salem, and several persons were seized for meeting with them, amongwhom were the Southwicks. A room was prepared for the criminals in theBoston prison by boarding up the windows and stopping ventilation. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 64. ] They were refusedfood unless they worked to pay for it; but to work when wrongfullyconfined was against the Quaker's conscience, so they did not eat for fivedays. On the second day of fasting they were flogged, and then, withwounds undressed, the men and women together were once more locked in thedark, close room, to lie upon the bare boards, in the stifling July heat;for they were not given beds. On the fourth day they were told they mightgo if they would pay the jail fees and the constables; but they refused, and so were kept in prison. On the morrow the jailer, thinking to bringthem to terms, put Brend in irons, neck and heels, and he lay without foodfor sixteen hours upon his back lacerated with flogging. 

The next day the miserable man was ordered to work, but he lacked thestrength, had he been willing, for he was weak from starvation and pain, and stiffened by the irons. And now the climax came. The jailer seized atarred rope and beat him till it broke; then, foaming with fury, hedragged the old man down stairs, and, with a new rope, gave him ninety-seven blows, when his strength failed; and Brend, his flesh black andbeaten to jelly, and his bruised skin hanging in bags full of clottedblood, was thrust into his cell. There, upon the floor of that dark andfetid den, the victim fainted. But help was at hand; an outcry was raised, the people could bear no more, the doors were opened, and he was rescued. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 66. ]

The indignation was deep, and the government was afraid. Endicott sent hisown doctor, but the surgeon said that Brend's flesh would "rot from offhis bones, " and he must die. And now the mob grew fierce and demandedjustice on the ruffian who had done this deed, and the magistrates naileda paper on the church door promising to bring him to trial. 

Then it was that the true spirit of his order blazed forth in Norton, forthe jailer was fashioned in his own image, and he threw over him themantle of the holy church. He made the magistrates take the paper down, rebuking them for their faintness of heart, saying to them:--

William "Brend endeavoured to beat our gospel ordinances black and blue, if he then be beaten black and blue, it is but just upon him, and I willappear in his behalf that did so. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 186. ] And the manwas justified, and commanded to whip "the Quakers in prison . . . Twice aweek, if they refused to work, and the first time to add five stripes tothe former ten, and each time to add three to them. . . . Which order ye sentto the jaylor, to strengthen his hands to do yet more cruelly; beingsomewhat weakened by the fright of his former doings. " [Footnote: _NewEngland Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 67. ]

After this the Southwicks, being still unable to obtain their freedom, sent the following letter to the magistrates, which is a good example ofthe writings of these "coarse, blustering, . . . Impudent fanatics:"--[Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 138. ]

 * * * * *

_This to the Magistrates at Court in Salem. _

FRIENDS, Whereas it was your pleasures to commit us, whose names are under-written, to the house of correction in Boston, altho' the Lord, the righteous Judgeof heaven and earth, is our witness, that we had done nothing worthy ofstripes or of bonds; and we being committed by your court, to be dealtwithal as the law provides for foreign Quakers, as ye please to term us;and having some of us, suffered your law and pleasures, now that which wedo expect, is, that whereas we have suffered your law, so now to be setfree by the same law, as your manner is with strangers, and not to put usin upon the account of one law, and execute another law upon us, of which, according to your own manner, we were never convicted as the lawexpresses. If you had sent us upon the account of your new law, we shouldhave expected the jaylor's order to have been on that account, which thatit was not, appears by the warrant which we have, and the punishment whichwe bare, as four of us were whipp'd, among whom was one that had formerlybeen whipp'd, so now also according to your former law. Friends, let itnot be a small thing in your eyes, the exposing as much as in you lies, our families to ruine. It's not unknown to you the season, and the time ofthe year, for those that live of husbandry, and what their cattle andfamilies may be exposed unto; and also such as live on trade; we know ifthe spirit of Christ did dwell and rule in you, these things would takeimpression on your spirits. What our lives and conversations have been inthat place, is well known; and what we now suffer for, is much for falsereports, and ungrounded jealousies of heresie and sedition. These thinglie upon us to lay before you. As for our parts, we have true peace andrest in the Lord in all our sufferings, and are made willing in the powerand strength of God, freely to offer up our lives in this cause of God, for which we suffer; Yea and we do find (through grace) the enlargementsof God in our imprisoned state, to whom alone we commit ourselves andfamilies, for the disposing of us according to his infinite wisdom andpleasure, in whose love is our rest and life. 

From the House of Bondage in Boston wherein we are made captives by thewills of men, although made free by the Son, John 8, 36. In which wequietly rest, this 16th of the 5th month, 1658. 

LAWRENCE |CASSANDRA | SOUTHWICKJOSIAH |SAMUEL SHATTOCKJOSHUA BUFFUM. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 74. ]

 * * * * *

What the prisoners apprehended was being kept in prison and punished underan _ex post facto_ law, and this was precisely what was done. Whenbrought into court they demanded to be told the crime wherewith they werecharged. They were answered: "It was 'Entertaining the Quakers who weretheir enemies; not coming to their meetings; and meeting by themselves. 'They adjoyned, 'That as to those things they had already fastned their lawupon them. ' . . . So ye had nothing left but the hat, for which (then) yehad no law. They answered--that they intended no offence to ye in comingthither . . . For it was not their manner to have to do with courts. And asfor withdrawing from their meetings, or keeping on their hats, or doinganything in contempt of them, or their laws, they said, the Lord was theirwitness . . . That they did it not. So ye rose up, and bid the jaylor takethem away. " [Footnote: _New England Judged, _ ed. 1703, p. 85. ]

An acquittal seemed certain; yet it was intolerable to the clergy thatthese accursed blasphemers should elude them when they held them in theirgrasp; wherefore, the next day, the Rev. Charles Chauncy, preaching atThursday lecture, thus taught Christ's love for men: "Suppose ye shouldcatch six wolves in a trap . . . [there were six Salem Quakers] and yecannot prove that they killed either sheep or lambs; and now ye have themthey will neither bark nor bite: yet they have the plain marks of wolves. Now I leave it to your consideration whether ye will let them go alive, yea or nay. " [Footnote: _Idem_, pp. 85, 86. ]

Then the divines had a consultation, "and your priests were put to it, howto prove them as your law had said: and ye had them before you again, andyour priests were with you, every one by his side (so came ye to yourcourt) and John Norton must ask them questions, on purpose to ensnarethem, that by your standing law for hereticks, ye might condemn them (asyour priests before consulted) and when this would not do (for the Lordwas with them, and made them wiser than your teachers) ye made a law tobanish them, upon pain of death. . . . " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 87. ]

After a violent struggle, the ministers, under Norton's lead, succeeded, on the 19th of October, 1658, in forcing the capital act through thelegislature, which contained a clause making the denial of reverence tosuperiors, or in other words, the wearing the hat, evidence of Quakerism. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, pp. 100, 101; _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 1, p. 346. ]

On that very day the bench ordered the prisoners at Ipswich to be broughtto the bar, and the Southwicks were bidden to depart before the springelections. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 1, p. 349. ] They didnot go, and in May were once more in the felon's dock. They asked whatwrong they had done. The judges told them they were rebellious for notgoing as they had been commanded. The old man and woman piteously pleaded"that they had no otherwhere to go, " nor had they done anything to deservebanishment or death, though £100 (all they had in the world) had beentaken from them for meeting together. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 106. ]

"Major-General Dennison replied, that 'they stood against the authority ofthe country, in not submitting to their laws: that he should not go aboutto speak much concerning the error of their judgments: but, ' added he, 'you and we are not able well to live together, and at present the poweris in our hand, and therefore the stronger must send off. '" [Footnote:Besse, ii. 198. ]

The father, mother, and son were banished under pain of death. The agedcouple were sent to Shelter Island, but their misery was well-nigh done;they perished within a few days of each other, tortured to death byflogging and starvation. 

Josiah was shipped to England, but afterward returned, was seized, and inthe "seventh month, 1661, you had him before you, and at which accordingto your former law, he should have been tried for his life. "

"But the great occasion you took against him, was his hat, which youcommanded him to pull off: 'He told your governour he could not. ' Yousaid, 'He would not. ' He told you, 'It was a cross to his will to keep iton; . . . And that he could not do it for conscience sake. ' . . . But yourgovernour told him, 'That he was to have been tryed for his life, but thatyou had made your late law to save his life, which, you said, was mercy tohim. ' Then he asked you, 'Whether you were not as good to take his lifenow, as to whip him after your manner, twelve or fourteen times at thecart's tail, through your towns, and then put him to death afterward?'" Hewas condemned to be flogged through Boston, Roxbury, and Dedham; but he, when he heard the judgment, "with arms stretched out, and hands spreadbefore you, said, 'Here is my body, if you want a further testimony of thetruth I profess, take it and tear it in pieces . . . It is freely given up, and as for your sentence I matter it not. '" [Footnote: _New EnglandJudged_, ed. 1703, pp. 354-356. ]

This coarse, blustering, impudent fanatic had, indeed, "with a doggedpertinacity persisted in outrages which "had driven" the authoritiesalmost to frenzy; "therefore they tied him to a cart and lashed him forfifteen miles, and while he "sang to the praise of God, " his tormentorswung with all his might a tremendous two-handed whip, whose knottedthongs were made of twisted cat-gut; [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 357, note. ] thence he was carried fifteen miles from anytown into the wilderness. " [Footnote: Besse, ii. 225. ]

An end had been made of the grown members of the family, but the twochildren were still left. To reach them, the device was conceived ofenforcing the penalty for not attending church, since "it was well knownthey had no estate, their parents being already brought to poverty bytheir rapacious persecutors. " [Footnote: Sewel, p. 223. ]

Accordingly, they were summoned and asked to account for their absencefrom worship. Daniel answered "that if they had not so persecuted hisfather and mother perhaps he might have come. " [Footnote: _New EnglandJudged_, ed. 1703, p. 381. ] They were fined; and on the day on whichthey lost their parents forever, the sale as slaves of this helpless boyand girl was authorized to satisfy the debt. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _vol. Iv. Pt. 1, p. 366. ]

Edmund Batter, treasurer of Salem, brought the children to the town, andwent to a shipmaster who was about to sail, to engage a passage toBarbadoes. The captain made the excuse that they would corrupt his ship'scompany. "Oh, no, " said Batter, "you need not fear that, for they are poorharmless creatures, and will not hurt any body. " . . . "Will they not so?"broke out the sailor, "and will ye offer to make slaves of so harmlesscreatures?" [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 112. ]

Thus were free-born English subjects and citizens of Massachusetts dealtwith by the priesthood that ruled the Puritan Commonwealth. 

None but ecclesiastical partisans can doubt the bearing of such evidence. It was the mortal struggle between conservatism and liberality, betweenrepression and free thought. The elders felt it in the marrow of theirbones, and so declared it in their laws, denouncing banishment under painof death against those "adhering to or approoving of any knoune Quaker, orthe tenetts & practices of the Quakers, . . . Manifesting thereby theirecompliance with those whose designe it is to ouerthrow the orderestablished in church and commonwealth. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 1, p. 346. ]

Dennison spoke with an unerring instinct when he said they could not livetogether, for the faith of the Friends was subversive of a theocracy. Their belief that God revealed himself directly to man led with logicalcertainty to the substitution of individual judgment for the rules ofconduct dictated by a sacred class, whether they claimed to derive theirauthority from their skill in interpreting the Scriptures, or fromtraditions preserved by Apostolic Succession. Each man, therefore, became, as it were, a priest unto himself, and they repudiated an ordainedministry. Hence, their crime resembled that of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who "made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sonsof Levi;" [Footnote: Jeroboam's sin is discussed in _Ne Sutor_, p. 25; _Divine Right of Infant Baptism_, p. 26. ] and it was for thisreason that John Norton and John Endicott resolved upon theirextermination, even as Elisha and Jehu conspired to exterminate the houseof Ahab. 

That they failed was due to no mercy for their victims, nor remorse forthe blood they made to flow, but to their inability to control the people. Nothing is plainer upon the evidence, than that popular sympathy was neverwith the ecclesiastics in their ferocious policy; and nowhere does thecontrast of feeling shine out more clearly than in the story of thehanging of Robinson and Stevenson. 

The figure of Norton towers above his contemporaries. He held theadministration in the hollow of his hand, for Endicott was his mouthpiece;yet even he, backed by the whole power of the clergy, barely succeeded inforcing through the Chamber of Deputies the statute inflicting death. 

"The priests and rulers were all for blood, and they pursued it. . . . Thisthe deputies withstood, and it could not pass, and the opposition grewstrong, for the thing came near. Deacon Wozel was a man much affectedtherewith; and being not well at that time that he supposed the vote mightpass, he earnestly desired the speaker . . . To send for him when it was tobe, lest by his absence it might miscarry. The deputies that were againstthe . . . Law, thinking themselves strong enough to cast it out, forbore tosend for him. The vote was put and carried in the affirmative, --thespeaker and eleven being in the negative and thirteen in the affirmative:so one vote carried it; which troubled Wozel so . . . That he got to thecourt, . . . And wept for grief, . . . And said 'If he had not been able togo, he would have crept upon his hands and knees, rather than it shouldhave been. '" [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, pp. 101, 102. ]

After the accused had been condemned, the people, being strongly moved, flocked about the prison, so that the magistrates feared a rescue, and aguard was set. 

As the day approached the murmurs grew, and on the morning of theexecution the troops were under arms and the streets patrolled. Stevensonand Robinson were loosed from their fetters, and Mary Dyer, who also wasto die, walked between them; and so they went bravely hand in hand to thescaffold. The prisoners were put behind the drums, and their voicesdrowned when they tried to speak; for a great multitude was about them, and at a word, in their deep excitement, would have risen. [Footnote:_Idem_, pp. 122, 123. ]

As the solemn procession moved along, they came to where the Reverend JohnWilson, the Boston pastor, stood with others of the clergy. Then Wilson"fell a taunting at Robinson, and, shaking his hand in a light, scoffingmanner, said, 'Shall such Jacks as you come in before authority with yourhats on?' with many other taunting words. " Then Robinson replied, "Mindyou, mind you, it is for the not putting off the hat we are put to death. "[Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 124. ]

When they reached the gallows, Robinson calmly climbed the ladder andspoke a few words. He told the people they did not suffer as evil-doers, but as those who manifested the truth. He besought them to mind the lightof Christ within them, of which he testified and was to seal with hisblood. 

He had said so much when Wilson broke in upon him: "Hold thy tongue, besilent; thou art going to dye with a lye in thy mouth. " [Footnote:_Idem_, p. 125. ] Then they seized him and bound him, and so he died;and his body was "cast into a hole of the earth, " where it lay uncovered. 

Even the voters, the picked retainers of the church, were almost equallydivided, and beyond that narrow circle the tide of sympathy ran strong. 

The Rev. John Rayner stood laughing with joy to see Mary Tomkins and AliceAmbrose flogged through Dover, on that bitter winter day; but the men ofSalisbury cut those naked, bleeding women from the cart, and saved themfrom their awful death. 

The Rev. John Norton sneered at the tortures of Brend, and brazenlydefended his tormentor; but the Boston mob succored the victim as lie layfainting on the boards of his dark cell. 

The Rev. Charles Chauncy, preaching the word of God, told his hearers tokill the Southwicks like wolves, since he could not have their blood bylaw; but the honest sailor broke out in wrath when asked to traffic in theflesh of our New England children. 

The Rev. John Wilson jeered at Robinson on his way to meet his death, andreviled him as he stood beneath the gibbet, over the hole that was hisgrave; but even the savage Endicott knew well that all the trainbands ofthe colony could not have guarded Christison to the gallows from thedungeon where he lay condemned. 

Yet awful as is this Massachusetts tragedy, it is but a little fragment ofthe sternest struggle of the modern world. The power of the priesthoodlies in submission to a creed. In their onslaughts on rebellion they haveexhausted human torments; nor, in their lust for earthly dominion, havethey felt remorse, but rather joy, when slaying Christ's enemies and theirown. The horrors of the Inquisition, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, theatrocities of Laud, the abominations of the Scotch Kirk, the persecutionof the Quakers, had one object, --the enslavement of the mind. 

Freedom of thought is the greatest triumph over tyranny that brave menhave ever won; for this they fought the wars of the Reformation; for thisthey have left their bones to whiten upon unnumbered fields of battle; forthis they have gone by thousands to the dungeon, the scaffold, and thestake. We owe to their heroic devotion the most priceless of ourtreasures, our perfect liberty of thought and speech; and all who love ourcountry's freedom may well reverence the memory of those martyred Quakersby whose death and agony the battle in New England has been won. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE SCIRE FACIAS. 

Had the Puritan Commonwealth been in reality the thing which itshistorians have described; had it been a society guided by men devoted tocivil liberty, and as liberal in religion as was consistent with thetemper of their age, the early relations of Massachusetts toward GreatBritain might now be a pleasanter study for her children. Cordialitytoward Charles I. Would indeed have been impossible, for the Puritans wellknew the fate in store for them should the court triumph. Gorges was therepresentative of the despotic policy toward America, and so early as1634, probably at his instigation, Laud became the head of a commission, with absolute control over the plantations, while the next year a writ of_quo warranto_ was brought against the patent. [Footnote: See introductionto _New Canaan_, Prince Soc. Ed. ] With Naseby, however, these dangersvanished, and thenceforward there would have been nothing to mar anaffectionate confidence in both Parliament and the Protector. 

In fact, however, Massachusetts was a petty state, too feeble forindependence, yet ruled by an autocratic priesthood whose power restedupon legislation antagonistic to English law; therefore the ecclesiasticswere jealous of Parliament, and had little love for Cromwell, whom theyfound wanting in "a thorough testimony against the blasphemers of ourdays. " [Footnote: Diary of Hull, Palfrey, ii. 400, 401, and note. ]

The result was that the elders clung obstinately to every privilege whichserved their ends, and repudiated every obligation which conflicted withtheir ambition. Clerical political morality seldom fails to beinstructive, and the following example is typical of that peculiar mode ofreasoning. The terms of admission to ordinary corporations were fixed byeach organization for itself, but in case of injustice the courts couldgive relief by setting aside unreasonable ordinances, and sometimesParliament itself would interfere, as it did upon the petition against theexactions of the Merchant Adventurers. Now there was nothing upon whichthe theocracy more strongly insisted than that "our charter doeth expreslygive vs an absolute & free choyce of our oune members;" [Footnote:_Mass. Rec. _ v. 287. ] because by means of a religious test the ministerscould pack the constituencies with their tools; but on the other hand theyas strenuously argued "that no appeals or other ways of interrupting ourproceedings do lie against us, " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 283. ] becausethey well knew that any bench of judges before whom such questions mightcome would annul the most vital of their statutes as repugnant to theBritish Constitution. 

Unfortunately for these churchmen, their objects, as ecclesiasticalpoliticians, could seldom be reconciled with their duty as Englishsubjects. At the outset, though made a corporation within the realm, theyfelt constrained to organize in America to escape judicial supervision. They were then obliged to incorporate towns and counties, to form arepresentative assembly, and to levy general taxes and duties, none ofwhich things they had power to do. Still, such irregularities as these, had they been all, most English statesmen would have overlooked asunavoidable. But when it came to adopting a criminal code based on thePentateuch, and, in support of a dissenting form of worship, fining andimprisoning, whipping, mutilating, and hanging English subjects withoutthe sanction of English law; when, finally, the Episcopal Church itselfwas suppressed, and peaceful subjects were excluded from the corporationfor no reason but because they partook of her communion, and wereforbidden to seek redress by appealing to the courts of their king, itseems impossible that any self-respecting government could have long beenpassive. 

At the Restoration Massachusetts had grown arrogant from long impunity. She thought the time of reckoning would never come, and even in trivialmatters seemed to take a pride in slighting Great Britain and in vauntingher independence. Laws were enacted in the name of the Commonwealth, theking's name was not in the writs, nor were the royal arms upon the publicbuildings; even the oath of allegiance was rejected, though it wasunobjectionable in form. She had grown to believe that were offence takenshe had only to invent pretexts for delay, to have her fault forgotten insome new revolution. General Denison, at the Quaker trials, put thepopular belief in a nut-shell: "This year ye will go to complain to theParliament, and the next year they will send to see how it is; and thethird year the government is changed. " [Footnote: Sewel, p. 280. ]

But, beside these irritating domestic questions, the corporation wasbitterly embroiled with its neighbors. Samuel Gorton and his friends wereinhabitants of Rhode Island, and were, no doubt, troublesome to deal with;but their particular offence was ecclesiastical. An armed force was sentover the border and they were seized. They were brought to Boston andtried on the charge of being "blasphemous enemies of the true religion ofour Lord Jesus Christ, and of all his holy ordinances, and likewise of allcivil government among his people, and particularly within thisjurisdiction. " [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 146. ] All the magistrates butthree thought that Gorton ought to die, but he was finally sentenced to animprisonment of barbarous cruelty. The invasion of Rhode Island was aviolation of an independent jurisdiction, the arrest was illegal, thesentence an arbitrary outrage. [Footnote: See paper of Mr. Charles Deane, _New Eng. Historical and Genealogical Register_, vol. Iv. ]

Massachusetts was also at feud in the north, and none of her quarrelsbrought more serious results than this with the proprietors of NewHampshire and Maine. The grant in the charter was of all lands between theCharles and Merrimack, and also all lands within the space of three milesto the northward of the said Merrimack, or to the northward of any partthereof, and all lands lying within the limits aforesaid from the Atlanticto the South Sea. 

Clearly the intention was to give a margin of three miles beyond a riverwhich was then supposed to flow from west to east, and accordingly theterritory to the north, being unoccupied, was granted to Mason and Gorges. Nor was this construction questioned before 1639--the General Court havingat an early day measured off the three miles and marked the boundary bywhat was called the Bound House. 

Gradually, however, as it became known that the Merrimack rose to thenorth, larger claims were made. In 1641 the four New Hampshire towns wereabsorbed with the consent of their inhabitants, who thus gained a regulargovernment; another happy consequence was the settlement of sundry eminentdivines, by whose ministrations the people "were very much civilized andreformed. " [Footnote: Neal's New England, i. 210. ]

In 1652 a survey was made of the whole river, and 43° 40' 12" was fixed asthe latitude of its source. A line extended east from three miles north ofthis point came out near Portland, and the intervening space was forthwithannexed. The result of such a policy was that Charles had hardly beencrowned before complaints poured in from every side. Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians, all who had suffered persecution, flocked to the foot ofthe throne; and beside these came those who had been injured in theirestates, foremost of whom were the heirs of Mason and Gorges. The pressurewas so great and the outcry so loud that, in September, 1660, it wasthought in London a governor-general would be sent to Boston; [Footnote:Leverett to Endicott. Hutch. Coll. , Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 40. ] and, in pointof fact, almost the first communication between the king and his colonywas his order to spare the Quakers. 

The outlook was gloomy, and there was hesitation as to the course topursue. At length it was decided to send Norton and Bradstreet to Englandto present an address and protect the public interests. The mission wasnot agreeable; Norton especially was reluctant, and with reason, for hehad been foremost in the Quaker persecutions, and was probably aware thatin the eye of English law the executions were homicide. 

However, after long vacillation, "the Lord so encouraged and strengthened"his heart that he ventured to sail. [Footnote: Feb. 11, 1661-2. Palfrey, ii. 524. ] So far as the crown was concerned apprehension was needless, forLord Clarendon was prime minister, whose policy toward New England wasthroughout wise and moderate, and the agents were well received. Stillthey were restless in London, and Sewel tells an anecdote which may partlyaccount for their impatience to be gone. 

"Now the deputies of New England came to London, and endeavored to clearthemselves as much as possible, but especially priest Norton, who bowed noless reverently before the archbishop, than before the king. . . . 

"They would fain have altogether excused themselves; and priest Nortonthought it sufficient to say that he did not assist in the bloody trial, nor had advised to it. But John Copeland, whose ear was cut off at Boston, charged the contrary upon him: and G. Fox, the elder, got occasion tospeak with them in the presence of some of his friends, and asked SimonBroadstreet, one of the New England magistrates, 'whether he had not ahand in putting to death those they nicknamed Quakers?' He not being ableto deny this confessed he had. Then G. Fox asked him and his associatesthat were present, 'whether they would acknowledge themselves to besubjects to the laws of England? and if they did by what law they had puthis friends to death?' They answered, 'They were subjects to the laws ofEngland; and they had put his friends to death by the same law, as theJesuits were put to death in England. ' Hereupon G. Fox asked, 'whetherthey did believe that those his friends, whom they had put to death, wereJesuits, or jesuitically affected?' They said 'Nay. ' 'Then, ' replied G. Fox, 'ye have murdered them; for since ye put them to death by the lawthat Jesuits are put to death here in England, it plainly appears, youhave put them to death arbitrarily, without any law. ' Thus Broadstreet, finding himself and his company ensnar'd by their own words, ask'd, 'Areyou come to catch us?' But he told them 'They had catch'd themselves, andthey might justly be questioned for their lives; and if the father ofWilliam Robinson (one of those that were put to death) were in town, itwas probable he would question them, and bring their lives into jeopardy. For he not being of the Quakers persuasion, would perhaps not have so muchregard to the point of forbearance, as they had. ' Broadstreet seeinghimself thus in danger began to flinch and to sculk; for some of the oldroyalists were earnest with the Quakers to prosecute the New Englandpersecutors. But G. Fox and his friends said, 'They left them to the Lord, to whom vengeance belonged, and he would repay it. ' Broadstreet however, not thinking it safe to stay in England, left the city, and with hiscompanions went back again to New England. " [Footnote: Sewel, p. 288. ]

The following June the agents were given the king's answer [Footnote:1662, June 28. ] to their address and then sailed for home. It is certainlya most creditable state paper. The people of Massachusetts were thankedfor their good will, they were promised oblivion for the past, and wereassured that they should have their charter confirmed to them and be safein all their privileges and liberties, provided they would make certainreforms in their government. They were required to repeal such statutes aswere contrary to the laws of England, to take the oath of allegiance, andto administer justice in the king's name. And then followed twopropositions that were crucial: "And since the principle and foundation ofthat charter was and is the freedom of liberty of conscience, wee dohereby charge and require you that that freedom and liberty be duelyadmitted, " especially in favor of those "that desire to use the Book ofCommon Prayer. " And secondly, "that all the freeholders of competentestates, not vicious in conversations, orthodox in religion (though ofdifferent perswasions concerning church government) may have their vote inthe election of all officers civill or millitary. " [Footnote: Hutch. Coll. , Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 101-103. ]

However judicious these reforms may have been, or howsoever strictly theyconformed with the spirit of English law, was immaterial. They struck atthe root of the secular power of the clergy, and they roused deepindignation. The agents had braved no little danger, and had shown nolittle skill in behalf of the commonwealth; and the fate of John Nortonenables us to realize the rancor of theological feeling. The successor ofCotton, by general consent the leading minister, in some respects the mosteminent man in Massachusetts, he had undertaken a difficult missionagainst his will, in which he had acquitted himself well; yet on hisreturn he was so treated by his brethren and friends that he died in thespring of a broken heart. [Footnote: April 5, 1663. ]

The General Court took no notice of the king's demands except to order thewrits to run in the royal name. [Footnote: Oct. 8, 1662. _Mass. Rec. _vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 58. ] And it is a sign of the boldness, or else of theindiscretion, of those in power, that this crisis was chosen for strikinga new coin, [Footnote: 1662, May 7. ]--an act confessedly illegal andcertain to give offence in England, both as an assumption of sovereigntyand an interference with the currency. 

From the first Lord Clarendon paid some attention to colonial affairs, andhe appears to have been much dissatisfied with the condition in which hefound them. At length, in 1664, he decided to send a commission to NewEngland to act upon the spot. 

Great pressure must have been brought by some who had suffered, for SamuelMaverick, the Episcopalian, who had been fined and imprisoned in 1646 forpetitioning with Childe, was made a member. Colonel Richard Nichols, thehead of the board, was a man of ability and judgment; the choice of SirRobert Carr and Colonel George Cartwright was less judicious. 

The commissioners were given a public and private set of instructions, [Footnote: Public Instructions, Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 459. ] and both wereadmirable. They were to examine the condition of the country and its laws, and, if possible, to make some arrangement by which the crown might have anegative at least upon the choice of the governor; they were to urge thereforms already demanded by the king, especially a larger toleration, for"they doe in truth deny that liberty of conscience to each other, which isequally provided for and granted to every one of them by their charter. "[Footnote: Private Instructions _O'Callaghan Documents_, iii. 58. ]They were directed to be conciliatory toward the people, and under nocircumstances to meddle with public worship, nor were they to press forany sudden enforcement of the revenue acts. On one point alone they wereto insist: they were instructed to sit to hear appeals in causes in whichthe parties alleged they had been wronged by colonial decisions. 

Unquestionably the chancellor was right in principle. The only way wherebysuch powerful corporations as the trade-guilds or the East India Companycould be kept from acts of oppression was through the appellatejurisdiction, by which means their enactments could be brought before thecourts, and those annulled which in the opinion of the judges transcendedthe charters. The Company of Massachusetts Bay was a corporation havingjurisdiction over many thousand English subjects, only a minority of whomwere freemen and voters. So long, therefore, as she remained within theempire, the crown was bound to see that the privileges of the EnglishConstitution were not denied within her territory. Yet, though this istrue, it is equally certain that the erection of a commission of appealwithout an act of Parliament was irregular. The stretch of prerogative, nevertheless, cannot be considered oppressive when it is remembered thatMassachusetts was a corporation which had escaped from the realm to avoidjudicial process, and which refused to appear and plead; hence LordClarendon had but this alternative: he could send judges to sit upon thespot, or he could proceed against the charter in London. The course hechose may have been illegal, but it was the milder of the two. 

The commissioners landed on July 23, 1664, but they did not stay inBoston. Their first business was to subdue the Dutch at New York, and theysoon left to make the attack. The General Court now recurred, for thefirst time, to the dispatch which their agents had brought home, andproceeded to amend the law relating to the franchise. They extended thequalification by enacting that Englishmen who presented a certificateunder the hands of the minister of the town that they were orthodox inreligion and not vicious in life, and who paid, beside, 10s. At asingle rate, might become freemen, as well as those who were church-members. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 117. ] The effectof such a change could hardly have been toward liberality, rather, probably, toward concentration of power in the church. However slight, there was some popular control over the rejection of an applicant to joina congregation; but giving a certificate was an act that must havedepended on the pastor's will alone. 

The court then drew up an address to the king: "If your poore subjects, . . . Doe. . . Prostrate themselues at your royal feete, & begg yor favor, weehope it will be graciously accepted by your majestje, and that as the highplace you sustejne on earth doeth number you here among the gods, [priestscan cringe as well as torture] so you will jmitate the God of heaven, inbeing ready. . . To receive their crjes. . . , " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 129. ] And he was implored to reflect on the afflictionof heart it was to them, that their sins had provoked God to permit theiradversaries to procure a commission, under the great seal, to four personsto hear appeals. When this address reached London it caused surprise. Thechancellor was annoyed. He wrote to America, pointing out that His Majestywould hardly think himself well used at complaints before a beginning hadbeen made, and a demand that his commission should be revoked before hiscommissioners had been able to deliver their instructions. "I know, " hesaid, "they are expressly inhibited from intermedling with, or instructingthe administration of justice, according to the formes observed there; butif in truth, in any extraordinary case, the proceedings there have beenirregular, and against the rules of justice, as some particular cases, particularly recommended to them by His Majesty, seeme to be, it cannot bepresumed that His Majesty hath or will leave his subjects of New England, without hope of redresse by an appeale to him, which his subjects of allhis other kingdomes have free liberty to make. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _i. 465. ]

The campaign against New York was short and successful, and thecommissioners were soon at leisure. As they had reason to believe thatMassachusetts would prove stubborn, they judged it wiser to begin with themore tractable colonies first. They therefore went to Plymouth, [Footnote:Feb. 1664-5. ] and, on their arrival, according to their instructions, submitted the four following propositions:--

First. That all householders should take the oath of allegiance, and thatjustice should be administered in the king's name. 

Second. That all men of competent estates and civil conversation, thoughof different judgments, might be admitted to be freemen, and have libertyto choose and be chosen officers, both civil and military. 

Third. That all men and women of orthodox opinions, competent knowledge, and civil lives not scandalous, should be admitted to the Lord's Supper[and have baptism for their children, either in existing churches or theirown]. 

Fourth. That all laws . . . Derogatory to his majesty should be repealed. [Footnote: Palfrey, ii. 601. ]

Substantially the same proposals were made subsequently in Rhode Islandand Connecticut. They were accepted without a murmur. A few appeal caseswere heard, and the work was done. 

The commissioners reported their entire satisfaction to the government, the colonies sent loyal addresses, and Charles returned affectionateanswers. 

Massachusetts alone remained to be dealt with, but her temper was instriking contrast to that of the rest of New England. The reason isobvious. Nowhere else was there a fusion of church and state. The peoplehad, therefore, no oppressive statutes to uphold, nor anything to conceal. Provided the liberty of English subjects was secured to them they werecontent to obey the English Constitution. On the other hand, Massachusettswas a theocracy, the power of whose priesthood rested on enactmentscontrary to British institutions, and which, therefore, would have beenannulled upon appeal. Hence the clerical party were wild with fear andrage, and nerved themselves to desperate resistance. 

"But alasse, sir, the commission impowering those commisioners to heareand determine all cases whatever, . . . Should it take place, what wouldbecome of our civill government which hath binn, under God, the heade ofthat libertie for our consciences for which the first adventurers . . . Boreall . . . Discouragements that encountered them . . . In this wildernes. "Rather than submit, they protested they had "sooner leave our place andall our pleasant outward injoyments. " [Footnote: Court to Boyle. _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 113. ]

Under such conditions a direct issue was soon reached. The General Court, in answer to the commissioners' proposals, maintained that the observanceof their charter was inconsistent with appeals; that they had alreadyprovided an oath of allegiance; that they had conformed to his majesty'srequirements in regard to the franchise; and lastly, in relation totoleration, there was no equivocation. "Concerning the vse of the CommonPrayer Booke". . . We had not become "voluntary exiles from our deare nativecountry, . . . Could wee haue seene the word of God, warranting us toperforme our devotions in that way, & to haue the same set vp here; weeconceive it is apparent that it will disturbe our peace in our presentenjoyments. " [Footnote: 1665. _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 200]

Argument was useless. The so-called oath of allegiance was not thatrequired by Parliament; the alteration in the franchise was a sham; whilethe two most important points, appeals to England and toleration inreligion, were rejected. The commissioners, therefore, asked for a directanswer to this question: "Whither doe yow acknowledge his majestjescomission . . . To be of full force?" [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 204] They were met by evasion. On the 23d of May they gave noticethat they should sit the next morning to hear the case of Thos. Deane etal. Vs. The Gov. & Co. Of Mass. Bay, a revenue appeal. Forthwith theGeneral Court proclaimed by trumpet that the hearing would not bepermitted. 

Coercion was impossible, as no troops were at hand. The commissionersaccordingly withdrew and went to Maine, which they proceeded to sever fromMassachusetts. [Footnote: June, 1665] In this they followed the king'sinstructions, who himself acted upon the advice of the law officers of thecrown, who had given an opinion sustaining the claim of Gorges. [Footnote:Charles II. 's letter to Inhabitants of Maine. _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 110; Palf. Ii. 622. ]

The triumph was complete. All that the English government was then able todo was to recall the commissioners, direct that agents should be sent toLondon at once, and forbid interference with Maine. No notice was taken ofthe order to send agents; and in 1668 possession was again taken of theprovince, and the courts of the company once more sat in the county ofYork. [Footnote: July, 1668. Report of Com. _Mass. Rec. _ vol. Iv. Pt. 2, p. 401. ]

This was the culmination of the Puritan Commonwealth. The clergy wereexultant, and the Rev. Mr. Davenport of New Haven wrote in delight toLeverett:--

"Their claiming power to sit authoritatively as a court for appeales, andthat to be managed in an arbitrary way, was a manifest laying of agroundworke to undermine your whole government established by yourcharter. If you had consented thereunto, you had plucked downe with yourowne hands that house which wisdom had built for you and yourposterity. . . . As for the solemnity of publishing it, in three places, bysounding a trumpet, I believe you did it upon good advice, . . . Fordeclaring the courage and resolution of the whole countrey to defend theircharter liberties and priviledges, and not to yeeld up theire rightvoluntarily, so long as they can hold it, in dependence upon God inChrist, whose interest is in it, for his protection and blessing, who willbe with you while you are with him. " [Footnote: Davenport to Leverett. _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 119. ]

Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success, there wasnothing to fear. At no time before or since could England have been sosafely defied. In 1664 war was begun against Holland; 1665 was the year ofthe plague; 1666 of the fire. In June, 1667, the Dutch, having dispersedthe British fleets, sailed up the Medway, and their guns were heard inLondon. Peace became necessary, and in August Clarendon was dismissed fromoffice. The discord between the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty ofDover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in 1672, at Clifford'ssuggestion, the exchequer was closed and the debt repudiated to providefunds for the second Dutch war. In March fighting began, and thetremendous battles with De Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. 

Although during these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was notmolested by Great Britain, they were not all years during which thetheocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. 

So early as 1671 the movements of the Indians began to give anxiety; andin 1675 Philip's War broke out, which brought the colony to the brink ofruin, and in which the clergy saw the judgment of God against theCommonwealth, for tenderness toward the Quakers. [Footnote: _ReformingSynod, Magnalia_, bk. 5, pt. 4. ]

With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened, and, asusual, the attention of the government was fixed upon Massachusetts by theclamors of those who demanded redress for injuries alleged to have beenreceived at her hands. In 1674 the heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despairat the reoccupation of Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to theking, reserving one third of the product of the customs for themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under the systematicviolation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of complaint, and the commissioners hadreceived instructions relating thereto; but it was not till this year thatthese questions became serious. 

The first statute had been passed by the Long Parliament, but the one thatmost concerned the colonies was not enacted till 1663. The object was notonly to protect English shipping, but to give her the entire trade of herdependencies. To that end it was made illegal to import European produceinto any plantation except through England; and, conversely, colonialgoods could only be exported by being landed in England. 

The theory upon which this legislation was based is exploded; enforced, itwould have crippled commerce; but it was then, and always had been, a deadletter at Boston. New England was fast getting its share of the carryingtrade. London merchants already began to feel the competition of its cheapand untaxed ships, and manufacturers to complain that they were undersoldin the American market, by goods brought direct from the Continentalports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to carry the lawinto effect. No colonial office then existed; the affairs of thedependencies were assigned to a committee of the Privy Council, called theLords of Committee of Trade and Plantations; and on these questions beingreferred by them to the proper officers, the commissioners of customssustained the merchants; the attorney-general, the heirs of Mason andGorges. [Footnote: Palfrey, iii. 281; Chalmers's _Political Annals ofthe United Colonies_, p. 262. ] The famous Edward Randolph now appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to act with energy. Atemporizing policy was therefore adopted; and as the experiment of acommission had failed, Randolph was chosen as a messenger to carry thepetitions and opinions to Massachusetts; together with a letter from theking, directing that agents should be sent in answer thereto. Afterdelivering them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a reportupon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it was a timeof terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian war, the temper ofthe magistrates was harsher than ever. 

The repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles was notonly lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and they also believedhim to be so embroiled with Parliament as to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings, their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark hiscontempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but anunscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been difficult to havesecured his good-will. Far however from bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to make him the bitterest enemy the PuritanCommonwealth ever knew. 

Being admitted into the council chamber, he delivered the letter. [Footnote: Randolph's Narrative. _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 240. ] The governor opened it, glanced at the signature, and, pretendingnever to have heard of Henry Coventry, asked who he might be. He was toldhe was his majesty's principal secretary of state. He then read it aloudto the magistrates. Even the fierce Endicott, when he received the famous"missive" from the Quaker Shattock, "laid off his hat . . . [when] he look'dupon the papers, " [Footnote: Sewel, p. 282. ] as a mark of respect to hisking; but Leverett and his council remained covered. Then the governorsaid "that the matters therein contained were very inconsiderable thingsand easily answered, and it did no way concern that government to take anynotice thereof;" and so Randolph was dismissed. Five days after he wasagain sent for, and asked whether he "intended for London by that shipthat was ready to saile?" If so, he could have a duplicate of the answerto the king, as the original was to go by other hands. He replied that hehad other business in charge, and inquired whether they had wellconsidered the petitions, and fixed upon their agents so soon. Leverettdid not deign to answer, but told him "he looked upon me as Mr. Mason'sagent, and that I might withdraw. " The next day he saw the governor at hisown house, who took occasion, when Randolph referred to the NavigationActs, to expound the legal views of the theocracy. "He freely declared tome that the lawes made by your majestie and your Parliament obligeth themin nothing but what consists with the interest of that colony, that thelegislative power is and abides in them solely . . . And that all matters indifference are to be concluded by their finall determination, without anyappeal to your majestie, and that your majestie ought not to retrenchtheir liberties, but may enlarge them. " [Footnote: Randolph's Narrative. _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 243. ] One last interview tookplace when Randolph went for dispatches for England, after his return fromNew Hampshire; then he "was entertained by" Leverett "with a sharp reprooffor publishing the substance of my errand into those parts, contained inyour majestie's letters, . . . Telling me that I designed to make amutiny. . . . I told him, if I had done anything amisse, upon complaint madeto your majestie he would certainly have justice done him. ". . . 

"At my departure . . . He . . . Intreated me to give a favourable report ofthe country and the magistrates thereof, adding that those that blessedthem God would blesse, and those that cursed them God would curse. " Andthat "they were a people truely fearing the Lord and very obedient to yourmajestie. " [Footnote: _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 248. ] Andso the royal messenger was dismissed in wrath, to tell his story to theking. 

The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision had to be madeconcerning agents. On the whole, the clergy concluded it would be wiser toobey the crown, "provided they be, with vtmost care & caution, qualifiedas to their instructions. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 99. ]Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the General Court chose WilliamStoughton and Peter Bulkely; and having strictly limited their power to asettlement of the territorial controversy, they sent them on theirmission. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 114. ]

Almost invariably public affairs were seen by the envoys of the Company ina different light from that in which they were viewed by the clericalparty at home, and these particularly had not been long in London beforethey became profoundly alarmed. There was, indeed, reason for graveapprehension. The selfish and cruel policy of the theocracy had borne itsnatural fruit: without an ally in the world, Massachusetts was beset byenemies. Quakers, Baptists, and Episcopalians whom she had persecuted andexiled; the heirs of Mason and Gorges, whom she had wronged; Andros, whomshe had maligned; [Footnote: He had been accused of countenancing aid toPhilip when governor of New York. O'Callaghan Documents, iii. 258. ] andRandolph, whom she had insulted, wrought against her with a governmentwhose sovereign she had offended and whose laws she had defied. Even herEnglish friends had been much alienated. [Footnote: Palfrey, iii. 278, 279. ]

The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the two chiefjustices, who promptly decided against the Company; [Footnote: SeeOpinion; Chalmers's _Annals_, p. 504. ] and the easy acquiescence of theGeneral Court must raise a doubt as to their faith in the soundness oftheir claims. And now again the fatality which seemed to pursue thetheocracy in all its dealings with England led it to give freshprovocation to the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for twelvehundred and fifty pounds. [Footnote: May, 1677. Chalmers's _Annals_, pp. 396, 397. See notes, Palfrey, iii. 312. ]

Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of Monmouth. It was aworthless possession, whose revenue never paid for its defence; yet sostubborn was the colony that it made haste to anticipate the crown andthus become "Lord Proprietary" of a burdensome province at the cost of aslight which was never forgiven. Almost immediately the Privy Council hadbegun to open other matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and theattorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his opinion, werecontrary to the laws of England. The agents protested that they werelimited by their instructions, but were sharply told that his majesty didnot think of treating with his own subjects as with foreigners, and itwould be well to intimate the same to their principals. [Footnote:Palfrey, iii. 309. ] In December, 1677, Stoughton wrote in great alarm thatsomething must be done concerning the Navigation Acts or a breach would beinevitable. [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 288. ] And the General Courtsaw reason in this emergency to increase the tension by reviving theobnoxious oath of fidelity to the country, [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 154. ]--the substitute for the oath of allegiance, --and thus gave Randolpha new and potent weapon. In the spring [Footnote: Palfrey, iii. 316, 317;Chalmers's _Annals_, p. 439. ] the law officers gave an opinion thatthe misdemeanors alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoidher patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments andinjuries which she had continually practised on her neighbors, and hercontempt of his majesty's commands, advised that a _quo warranto_ shouldbe brought against the charter. Randolph was appointed collector atBoston. [Footnote: 1678, May 31. ]

Even Leverett now saw that some concessions must be made, and the GeneralCourt ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but perversityseems to have caused the long delay. [Footnote: Oct. 2, 1678. _Mass. Rec. _ v. 193. See Palfrey, iii. 320, note 2. ] The royal arms were alsocarved in the court-house; and this was all, for the clergy weredetermined upon those matters touching their authority. The agents weretold, "that which is farr more considerable then all these is the interestof the Lord Jesus & of his churches . . . Which ought to be farr dearer tous than our liues; and . . . Wee would not that by any concessions of ours, or of yours. . . The least stone should be put out of the wall. " [Footnote:_Mass. Rec. _ v. 202. ]

Both agents and magistrates were, nevertheless, thoroughly frightened, andbeing determined not to yield, in fact, they resorted to a policy ofmisrepresentation, with the hope of deceiving the English government. [Footnote: See Answers of Agents, Chalmers's _Annals_, p. 450. ] Stoughtonand Bulkely had already assured the Lords of Committee that the "rest ofthe inhabitants were very inconsiderable as to number, compared with thosethat were acknowledged church-members. " [Footnote: Palfrey, iii. 318. ]They were in fact probably as five to one. The General Court had beencensured for using the word Commonwealth in official documents, asintimating independence. They hastened to assure the crown that it hadnot of late been used, and should not be thereafter; [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 198. And see, in general, the official correspondence, pp. 197-203. ] yet in November, 1675, commissions were thus issued. [Footnote:Palfrey, iii. 322. ] But the breaking out of the Popish plot began toabsorb the whole attention of the government at London; and the agents, after receiving a last rebuke for the presumption of the colony in buyingMaine, were at length allowed to depart. [Footnote: Nov. 1679. ]

Nearly half a century had elapsed since the emigration, and with thegrowth of wealth and population changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been the head of the high-church party, died, and theelection of Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for theopposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had lost much ofits old despotic power, and the congregations were no longer united insupport of the policy of their pastors. This policy was singularlydesperate. Casting aside all but ecclesiastical considerations, the clergyconsistently rejected any compromise with the crown which threatened totouch the church. Almost from the first they had recognized thatsubstantial independence was necessary in order to maintain the theocracy. Had the colony been strong, they would doubtless have renounced theirallegiance; but its weakness was such that, without the protection ofEngland, it would have been seized by France. Hence they resorted toexpedients which could only end in disaster, for it was impossible forMassachusetts, while part of the British Empire, to refuse obedience ather pleasure to laws which other colonies cheerfully obeyed. 

Without an ally, no resistance could be made to England, when at lengthher sovereignty should be asserted; and an armed occupation and militarygovernment were inevitable upon a breach. 

Though such considerations are little apt to induce a priesthood tosurrender their temporal power, they usually control commercialcommunities. Accordingly, Boston and the larger towns favored concession, while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of thisdivergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to which Bradstreet andDudley belonged, predominated in the Board of Assistants, while thedeputies remained immovable. The branches of the legislature thus becameopposed; no course of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy driftedto its destruction. 

The duplicity characteristic of theological politics grew daily moremarked. In May, 1679, a law had been passed forbidding the building ofchurches without leave from the freemen of the town or the General Court. [Footnote: Mass. Rec. V. 213. ] On the 11th of June, 1680, three personsrepresenting the society of Baptists were summoned before the legislature, charged with the crime of erecting a meeting-house. They were admonishedand forbidden to meet for worship except with the establishedcongregations; and their church was closed. [Footnote: Mass. Rec. V. 271. ]That very day an address was voted to the king, one passage of which is asfollows: "Concerning liberty of conscience, . . . That after all, amultitude of notorious errors . . . Be openly broached, . . . Amongst us, asby the Quakers, &c. , wee presume his majesty doeth not intend; and as forother Prottestant dissenters, that carry it peaceably & soberly, wee trustthere shallbe no cause of just complaint against us on their behalfe. "[Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 287. ]

Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He declared that in spite ofpromises and excuses the revenue laws were not enforced; that his men werebeaten, and that he hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas inother colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect. [Footnote:June, 1680. Palfrey, iii. 340. ] There can be no doubt ingenuity was usedto devise means of annoyance, and certainly the life he was made to leadwas hard. In March [Footnote: March 15, 1680-1. ] he sailed for home, andwhile in London he made a series of reports to the government which seemto have produced the conviction that the moment for action had come. InDecember he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and auditor-generalfor all New England, except New Hampshire. When Stoughton and Bulkely weredismissed, the colony had been commanded to send new agents within sixmonths. In September, 1680, another royal letter had been written, inwhich the king dwelt upon the misconduct of his subjects, "when . . . Wesignified unto you our gracious inclination to have all past deedsforgotten. . . Wee then little thought that those markes of our grace andfavour should have found no better acceptance amoung you. . . . We doetherefore by these our letters, strictly command and require you, as youtender your allegiance unto us, and will deserve the effects of our graceand favour (which wee are enclyned to afford you) seriously to reflectupon our commands; . . . And particularly wee doe hereby command you to sendover, within three months after the receipt hereof, such. . . Persons as youshall think fitt to choose, and that you give them sufficient instructionsto attend the regulation and settlement of that our government. "[Footnote: Sept. 30. _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 261. ]

The General Court had not thought fit to regard these communications, andnow Randolph came charged with a long and stern dispatch, in which agentswere demanded forthwith, "in default whereof, we are fully resolved, inTrinity Term next ensuing, to direct our attorney-general to bring a quowarranto in our court of kings-bench, whereby our charter granted untoyou, with all the powers thereof, may be legally evicted and made void;and so we bid you farewel. " [Footnote: Chalmers's _Annals_, p. 449. ]

Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by the hope thatin the fierce struggle with the commons Charles might be overthrown; butthis dream ended with the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, andfurther inaction became impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards werechosen agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar tingeof ecclesiastical statesmanship. 

They were directed to represent that appeals would be intolerable; and, for their private guidance, the legislature used these words: "Wetherefore doe not vnderstand by the regulation of the gouernment, that anyalteration of the patent is intended; yow shall therefore neither doe norconsent to any thing that may violate or infringe the liberties &priuiledges granted to us by his majesties royall charter, or thegouernment established thereby; but if any thing be propounded that maytend therevnto, yow shall say, yow haue received no instruction in thatmatter. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 349. ] With reference to thecomplaints made against the colony, they were to inform the king "that weehaue no law prohibbiting any such as are of the perswasion of the churchof England, nor haue any euer desired to worship God accordingly that hauebeen denyed. " [Footnote: _Mass. Rec. _ v. 347. March 23. ]

Such a statement cannot be reconciled with the answer made thecommissioners; and the laws compelled Episcopalians to attend theCongregational worship, and denied them the right to build churches oftheir own. 

"As for the Annabaptists, they are now subject to no other poenal statutesthen those of the Congregational way. " This sophistry is typical. The lawunder which the Baptist church was closed applied in terms to allinhabitants, it is true; but it was contrived to suppress schism, it wasused to coerce heretics, and it was unrepealed. Moreover, it would seem asthough the statute inflicting banishment must then have still been inforce. 

The assurances given in regard to the reform of the suffrage wereprecisely parallel:--

"For admission of ffreemen, wee humbly conceive it is our liberty, bycharter, to chuse whom wee will admitt into our oune company, which yethath not binn restrayned to Congregational men, but others haue beenadmitted, who were also provided for according to his majestjesdirection. " [Footnote: 1681-2, March 23. ]

Such insincerity gave weight to Randolph's words when he wrote: "My lord, I have but one thing to reminde your lordship, that nothing their agentscan say or doe in England can be any ground for his majestie to dependupon. " [Footnote: Randolph to Clarendon. _Hutch. Coll. _, Prince Soc. Ed. Ii. 277]

With these documents and one thousand pounds for bribery, soon afterincreased to three, [Footnote: Chalmers's _Annals_, p. 461. ] Dudleyand Richards sailed. Their powers were at once rejected at London asinsufficient, and the decisive moment came. [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 413. ] The churchmen of Massachusetts had to determine whether to acceptthe secularization of their government or abandon every guaranty ofpopular liberty. The clergy did not hesitate before the momentousalternative: they exerted themselves to the utmost, and turned the scalefor the last time. [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 303, note. ] In freshinstructions the agents were urged to do what was possible to avert, or atleast delay, the stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, orto alterations in the qualifications required for the admission offreemen. [Footnote: 1683, March 30. _Mass. Rec. _ v. 390. ] They hadpreviously been directed to pacify the king by a present of two thousandpounds; and this ill-judged attempt at bribery had covered them withridicule. [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 303, note. ]

Further negotiation would have been futile. Proceedings were begun atonce, and Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of _quo warranto_;[Footnote: 1683, July 20. ] he was also charged with a royal declarationpromising that, even then, were submission made, the charter should berestored with only such changes as the public welfare demanded. [Footnote:_Mass. Rec. _ v. 422, 423. ] Dudley, who was a man of much politicalsagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The magistrates werenot without the instincts of statesmanship: they saw that a breach withEngland must destroy all safeguards of the common freedom, and they votedan address to the crown accepting the proffered terms. [Footnote: 1683, 15Nov. Hutch. _Hist. _ i. 304. ] But the clergy strove against them: theprivileges of their order were at stake; they felt that the loss of theirimportance would be "destructive to the interest of religion and ofChrist's kingdom in the colony, " [Footnote: Palfrey, iii. 381. ] and theyroused their congregations to resist. The deputies did not represent thepeople, but the church. They were men who had been trained from infancy bythe priests, who had been admitted to the communion and the franchise onaccount of their religious fervor, and who had been brought into publiclife because the ecclesiastics found them pliable in their hands. Theinfluence which had moulded their minds and guided their actionscontrolled them still, and they rejected the address. [Footnote: Nov. 30. Palfrey, iii. 385. ] Increase Mather took the lead. He stood up at a greatmeeting in the Old South, and exhorted the people, "telling them how theirforefathers did purchase it [the charter], and would they deliver it up, even as Ahab required Naboth's vineyard, Oh! their children would be boundto curse them. " [Footnote: Palfrey, iii. 388, note 1. ]

All that could be resolved on was to retain Robert Humphrys of the MiddleTemple to interpose such delays as the law permitted; but no attempt wasmade at defence upon the merits of their cause, probably because all knewwell that no such defence was possible. 

Meanwhile, for technical reasons, the _quo warranto_ had been abandoned, and a writ of _scire facias_ had been issued out of chancery. On June 18, 1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and plead on thefirst day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time allowed was too short foran answer from America, and judgment was entered by default. [Footnote:Decree entered June 21, 1684; confirmed, Oct. 23. Palfrey, iii. 393, note. ] The decree was arbitrary, but no effort was made to obtain relief. The story, however, is best told by Humphrys himself:--

"It is matter of astonishment to me, to think of the returnes I haue hadfrom you in the affaire of your charter; that a prudent people shouldthink soe little, in a thing of the greatest moment to them. 

"Which charge I humbly justify in the following particulars, and yet atthe same time confess that all you could haue done would but haue gainedmore time, and spent more money, since the breaches assigned against you, were as obvious as vnanswerable, soe as all the service your councill andfriends could haue done you here, would haue onely served to deplore, notprevent the inevitable loss. 

"When I sent you the lord keeper's order of the 18th of June 1684requireing your appeareing peromptorily the first day of Michaelmas Tearmethen next, and pleading to yssue . . . You may remember I sent with it suchdrafts of lettres of attorney, to pass vnder your comon seale as wereessentially necessary to empower and justify such appearance, and pleadingfor you here, which you could not imagine but that you must haue had duetime to returne them in, noe law compelling impossibilities. 

"When the first day of that Michaelmas Tearme came, and your lettres ofattorney neither were, nor indeed could be return'd . . . I applyd bycouncill to the Court of Chancery to enlarge that time urgeing theimpossibility of hauing a returne from you in the time allotted. . . . But itis true my lord keeper cutt the ground from under us which wee stood upon, by telling us the order of the 18th of June was a surprize upon hislordship and that he ought not to haue granted it, for that everycorporacon ought to haue an attorney in every court to appeare to hismajesties suite, and that London had such. . . . However certainely you oughtwhen my lettres were come to you, nunc pro tune, to haue past the lettresof attorney I sent you under your comon seale and sent them me, and not tohaue stopt them upon any private surmises from other hands then his youhad entrusted in that matter; and the rather for that the judgments oflaw, espetially those taken by defaults for non appearances, are not likethe laws of the Medes and Persians irrevocable, but are often on justgrounds sett aside by the court here, and the defendants admitted to pleadas if noe such judgments had been entred vp, and the very order it selfeof the 18th of June guies you a home instance of it. 

"And indeed I did therefore forbeare giueing you an account of a furthertime being denyd, and the entry of judgment against you, expecting youwould before such lettre could haue reacht you haue sent me the lettres ofattorney vnder your corporacon seale that the court might haue been movedto admitt your appearance and plea and waiued the judgment. 

"But instead of those lettres of attorney under your seale you sent me anaddress to his late majesty, I confess judiciously drawne. But it is mywonder in which of your capacityes you could imagine it should bepresented to his majesty, for if as a corporacon, a body politique, itshould have been putt under your corporacon seale if as a private comunityit should haue been signed by your order. But the paper has neitherprivate hand nor publique seale to it and soe must be lost. . . . 

"In this condicon what could a man doe for you, nothing publiquely for hehad noe warrant from you to justify the accon. " [Footnote: _Mass. Archives_, cvi. 343. ]

So perished the Puritan Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, itslife sprang from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this greatand noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a priesthood, andduring the supremacy of the clergy the government was doomed to be bothpersecuting and repressive. Under no circumstance could the theocracy haveendured: it must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack fromwithout. That Charles II. Did in fact cause its overthrow gives him aclaim to our common gratitude, for he then struck a decisive blow for theemancipation of Massachusetts; and thus his successor was enabled to openbefore her that splendid career of democratic constitutional liberty whichwas destined to become the basis of the jurisprudence of the AmericanUnion. 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE WITCHCRAFT. 

The history of the years between the dissolution of the Company ofMassachusetts Bay and the reorganization of the country by William III. In1692 has little bearing upon the development of the people; for thepresidency of Dudley and the administration of Andros were followed by arevolution that paralyzed all movement. During the latter portion of thisinterval the colony was represented at London by three agents, of whomIncrease Mather was the most influential, who used every effort to obtainthe reëstablishment of the old government; they met, however, withinsuperable obstacles. Quietly to resume was impossible; for the obstinacyof the clergy, in refusing all compromise with Charles II. , had caused thepatent to be cancelled; and thus a new grant had become necessary. Nor wasthis all, for the attorney and solicitor general, with whom the two chiefjustices concurred, [Footnote: _Parentator_, p. 139] gave it as theiropinion that, supposing no decree had been rendered, and the same powerswere exercised as before, a writ of _scire facias_ would certainly beissued, upon which a similar judgment would inevitably be entered. Theseconsiderations, however, became immaterial, as the king was a statesman, and had already decided upon his policy. His views had little in commonwith those held by the Massachusetts ecclesiastics, and when the Rev. Mr. Mather first read the instrument in which they had been embodied, hedeclared he "would sooner part with his life than consent unto suchminutes. " [Footnote: _Parentator_, p. 134. ] He grew calmer, however, whentold that his "consent was not expected nor desired;" and with thatenergy and decision for which he was remarkable, at once secured thepatronage. 

The constitutional aspect of the Provincial Charter is profoundlyinteresting, and it will be considered in its legal bearings hereafter. Its political tendencies, however, first demand attention, for it wroughta complete social revolution, since it overthrew the temporal power of thechurch. Massachusetts, Maine, and Plymouth were consolidated, and withinthem toleration was established, except in regard to Papists; thereligious qualification was swept away, and in its stead freeholders offorty shillings per annum, or owners of personal property to the value offorty pounds sterling, were admitted to the franchise; the towns continuedto elect the house of representatives, and the whole Assembly chose thecouncil, subject to the approval of the executive. [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ ii. 15, 16] The governor, lieutenant-governor, and secretarywere appointed by the crown; the governor had a veto, and the kingreserved the right to disallow legislation within three years of the dateof its enactment. Thus the theocracy fell at a single blow; and it isworthy of remark that thenceforward prosecutions for sedition becameunknown among the people of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Yet, thoughthe clerical oligarchy was no longer absolute, the ministers still exerteda prodigious influence upon opinion. Not only did they speak with all theauthority inherited with the traditions of the past; not only had they ortheir predecessors trained the vast majority of the people from theircradles to reverence them more than anything on earth, but their compactorganization was as yet unimpaired, and at its head stood the two Mathers, the pastors of the Old North Church. Thus venerated and thus led, theelders were still able to appeal to the popular superstition andfanaticism with terrible effect. 

Widely differing judgments have been formed of these two celebrateddivines; the ecclesiastical view is perhaps well summed up by the Rev. John Eliot, who thus describes the President of Harvard: "He was thefather of the New England clergy, and his name and character were held inveneration, not only by those, who knew him, but by succeedinggenerations. " [Footnote: _Biographical Dictionary_, p. 312. ] All mustadmit his ability and learning, while in sanctimoniousness of deportmenthe was unrivalled. His son Cotton says he had such a "gravity as made allsorts of persons, wherever he came, to be struck with a sensible awe ofhis presence, . . . Yea, if he laughed on them, they believed it not. " "Hisvery countenance carried the force of a sermon with it. " [Footnote:_Parentator_, p. 40. ] He kept a strict account of his mental condition, and always was pleased when able to enter in his diary at the end of theday, "heart serious. " He was unctuous in his preaching, and wept much inthe pulpit; he often mentions being "quickened at the Lord's table [duringwhich] tears gushed from me before the Lord, " [Footnote: _Parentator_, p. 48. ] but of his self-sacrifice, his mercy, and his truth, his own acts andwords are the best evidence that remain. 

When the new government was about to be put in operation, an extraordinaryamount of patronage lay at the disposal of the crown; for, beside theregular executive officers, the entire council had to be named, since theycould not be elected until a legislature had been organized to choosethem. Increase Mather, Elisha Cooke, and Thomas Oakes were acting asagents, and all had been bitterly opposed to the new charter; but of thethree, the English ministers thought Mather the most important to secure. And now an odd coincidence happened in the life of this singular man. Hesuddenly one day announced himself convinced that the king's project wasnot so intolerable as to be unworthy of support; and then it very shortlytranspired that he had been given all the spoil before the patent hadpassed the seals. [Footnote: Palfrey, iv. 85. ] The proximity of theseevents is interesting as bearing on the methods of ecclesiasticalstatesmen, and it is also instructive to observe how thorough a master ofthe situation this eminent divine proved himself to be. He not onlyappointed all his favorite henchmen to office, but he rigidly excluded hiscolleagues at London, who had continued their opposition, and every oneelse who had any disposition to be independent. His creature, Sir WilliamPhips, was made governor; William Stoughton, who was bred for the church, and whose savage bigotry endeared him to the clergy, was lieutenant-governor; and the council was so packed that his excellent son broke intoa shout of triumph when he heard the news:--

"The time has come! the set time has come! I am now to receive an answerof so many prayers. All the councellors of the province are of my ownfather's nomination; and my father-in-law, with several related unto me, and several brethren of my own church are among them. The governor of theprovince is not my enemy, but one whom I baptized; namely, Sir WilliamPhips, one of my own flock, and one of my dearest friends. " [Footnote:Cotton Mather's _Diary_; Quincy's _History of Harvard_, i. 60. ]Such was the government the theocracy left the country as its legacy whenits own power had passed away, and dearly did Massachusetts rue that fatalgift in her paroxysms of agony and blood. 

At the close of the seventeenth century the belief in witchcraft waswidespread, and among the more ignorant well-nigh universal. Thesuperstition was, moreover, fostered by the clergy, who, in adopting thispolicy, were undoubtedly actuated by mixed motives. Their credulityprobably made them for the most part sincere in the unbounded confidencethey professed in the possibility of compacts between the devil andmankind; but, nevertheless, there is abundant evidence in their writingsof their having been keenly alive to the fact that men horror-stricken atthe sight of the destruction of their wives and children by magic wouldgrovel in the submission of abject terror at the feet of the priest whopromised to deliver them. 

The elders began the agitation by sending out a paper of proposals forcollecting stories of apparitions and witchcrafts, and in obedience totheir wish Increase Mather published his "Illustrious Providences" in1683-4. Two chapters of this book were devoted to sorceries, and thereverend author took occasion to intimate his opinion that those who mightdoubt the truth of his relations were probably themselves either hereticsor wizards. This movement of the clergy seems to have highly inflamed thepopular imagination, [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ ii. 24. ] yet no immediatedisaster followed; and the nervous exaltation did not become deadly until1688. In the autumn of that year four children of a Boston mason namedGoodwin began to mimic the symptoms they had so often heard described; thefather, who was a pious man, called in the ministers of Boston andCharlestown, who fasted and prayed, and succeeded in delivering theyoungest, who was five. Meanwhile, one of the daughters had "cried outupon" an unfortunate Irish washerwoman, with whom she had quarrelled. Cotton Mather was now in his element. He took the eldest girl home withhim and tried a great number of interesting experiments as to the relativepower of Satan and the Lord; among others he gravely relates how when thesufferer was tormented elsewhere he would carry her struggling to his ownstudy, into which entering, she stood immediately upon her feet, and criedout, "They are gone! They are gone! They say they cannot--God won't let'em come here. " [Footnote: _Memorable Providences_, pp. 27, 28]

It is not credible that an educated and a sane man could ever havehonestly believed in the absurd stuff which he produced as evidence of thesupernatural; his description of the impudence of the children is amazing. 

"They were divers times very near burning or drowning of themselves, but. . . By their own pittiful and seasonable cries for help still procuredtheir deliverance: which made me consider, whether the little ones had nottheir angels, in the plain sense of our Saviour's intimation. . . . Andsometimes, tho' but seldome, they were kept from eating their meals, byhaving their teeth sett when they carried any thing to their mouthes. "[Footnote: _Idem_, pp. 15-17. ]

And it was upon such evidence that the washerwoman was hanged. There is aninstant in the battle as the ranks are wavering, when the calmness of theofficers will avert the rout; and as to have held their soldiers then isdeemed their highest honor, so to have been found wanting is theirindelible disgrace; the people stood poised upon the panic's brink, theirpastors lashed them in. 

Cotton Mather forthwith published a terrific account of the ghostlycrisis, mixed with denunciations of the Sadducee or Atheist whodisbelieved; and to the book was added a preface, written by the fourother clergymen who had assisted with their prayers, the character ofwhich may be judged by a single extract. "The following account willafford to him that shall read with observation, a further clearconfirmation, that, there is both a God, and a devil, and witchcraft: thatthere is no outward affliction, but what God may, (and sometimes doth)permit Satan to trouble his people withal. " [Footnote: _MemorableProvidences_, Preface. ] Not content with this, Mather goaded hiscongregation into frenzy from the pulpit. "Consider also, the misery ofthem whom witchcraft may be let loose upon. What is it to fall into thehands of devils?. . . O what a direful thing is it, to be prickt with pins, and stab'd with knives all over, and to be fill'd all over with brokenbones? 'Tis impossible to reckon up the varieties of miseries which thosemonsters inflict where they can have a blow. No less than death, and thata languishing and a terrible death will satisfie the rage of thoseformidable dragons. " [Footnote: _Discourse on Witchcraft_, p. 19. ] Thepest was sure to spread in a credulous community, fed by their naturalleaders with this morbid poison, and it next broke out in Salem village inFebruary, 1691-2. A number of girls had become intensely excited by thestories they had heard, and two of them, who belonged to the family of theclergyman, were seized with the usual symptoms. Of Mr. Parris it is enoughto say that he began the investigation with a frightful relish. Otherministers were called in, and prayer-meetings lasting all day were held, with the result of throwing the patients into convulsions. [Footnote:Calef's _More Wonders_, p. 90 _et seq. _] Then the name of the witch wasasked, and the girls were importuned to make her known. They refused atfirst, but soon the pressure became too strong, and the accusations began. Among the earliest to be arrested and examined was Goodwife Cory. Mr. Noyes, teacher of Salem, began with prayer, and when she was brought inthe sufferers "did vehemently accuse her of afflicting them, by biting, pinching, strangling, &c. , and they said, they did in their fits see herlikeness coming to them, and bringing a book for them to sign. " [Footnote:_Idem_, p. 92] By April the number of informers and of the suspected hadgreatly increased and the prisons began to fill. Mr. Parris behaved like amadman; not only did he preach inflammatory sermons, but he conducted theexaminations, and his questions were such that the evidence was in truthnothing but what he put in the mouths of the witnesses; yet he seems tohave been guilty of the testimony it was his sacred duty to truly record[Footnote: _Grounds of Complaint against Parris_, Section 6; _MoreWonders_, p. 96 (_i. E. _ 56). ]. And in all this he appears to have had theapproval and the aid of Mr. Noyes. Such was the crisis when Sir WilliamPhips landed on the 14th of May, 1692; he was the Mathers' tool, and theresult could have been foretold. Uneducated and credulous, he was as clayin the hands of his creators; and his first executive act was to cause themiserable prisoners to be fettered. Jonathan Cary has described whatbefell his wife: "Next morning the jaylor put irons on her legs (havingreceived such a command) the weight of them was about eight pounds; theseirons and her other afflictions, soon brought her into convulsion fits, sothat I thought she would have died that night. " [Footnote: _More Wonders_, p. 97]

At the beginning of June the governor, by an arbitrary act, created acourt to try the witches, and at its head put William Stoughton. Even nowit is impossible to read the proceedings of this sanguinary tribunalwithout a shudder, and it has left a stain upon the judiciary ofMassachusetts that can never be effaced. 

Two weeks later the opinion of the elders was asked, as it had been ofold, and they recommended the "speedy and vigorous prosecutions of such ashave rendered themselves obnoxious, " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ ii. 53. ]nor did their advice fall upon unwilling ears. Stoughton was alreadyat work, and certain death awaited all who were dragged before that crueland bloodthirsty bigot; even when the jury acquitted, the court refused toreceive the verdict. The accounts given of the legal proceedings seemmonstrous. The preliminary examinations were conducted amid such "hideousclamours and screechings, " that frequently the voice of the defendant wasdrowned, and if a defence was attempted at a trial, the victim wasbrowbeaten and mocked by the bench. [Footnote: _More Wonders_, p. 102. ]

The ghastly climax was reached in the case of George Burroughs, who hadbeen the clergyman at Wells. At his trial the evidence could hardly beheard by reason of the fits of the sufferers. "The chief judge asked theprisoner, who he thought hindered these witnesses from giving theirtestimonies? and he answered, he supposed it was the devil. Thathonourable person then replied, How comes the devil so loath to have anytestimony born against you? Which cast him into very great confusion. "Presently the informers saw the ghosts of his two dead wives, whom theycharged him with having murdered, stand before him "crying for vengeance;"yet though much appalled, he steadily denied that they were there. He alsoroused his judges' ire by asserting that "there neither are, nor everwere, witches. " [Footnote: _Idem_, pp. 115-119. ]

He and those to die with him were carried through the streets of Salem ina cart. As he climbed the ladder he called God to witness he was innocent, and his words were so pathetic that the people sobbed aloud, and it seemedas though he might be rescued even as he stood beneath the tree. Then whenat last he swung above them, Cotton Mather rode among the throng and toldthem of his guilt, and how the fiend could come to them as an angel oflight, and so the work went on. They cut him down and dragged him by hishalter to a shallow hole among the rocks, and threw him in, and there theylay together with the rigid hand of the wizard Burroughs still pointingupward through his thin shroud of earth. [Footnote: _More Wonders_, pp. 103, 104. ]

By October it seemed as though the bonds of society were dissolving;nineteen persons had been hanged, one had been pressed to death, and eightlay condemned; a number had fled, but their property had been seized andthey were beggars; the prisons were choked, while more than two hundredwere accused and in momentary fear of arrest; [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 110. ]even two dogs had been killed. The plague propagated itself; for theonly hope for those cried out upon was to confess their guilt and turninformers. Thus no one was safe. Mr. Willard, pastor of the Old South, whobegan to falter, was threatened; the wife of Mr. Hale, pastor of Beverly, who had been one of the great leaders of the prosecutions, was denounced;Lady Phips herself was named. But the race who peopled New England had amental vigor which even the theocracy could not subdue, and Massachusettshad among her sons liberal and enlightened men, whose voice was heard, even in the madness of the terror. Of these, the two Brattles, RobertCalef, and John Leverett were the foremost; and they served their motherwell, though the debt of gratitude and honor which she owes them she hasnever yet repaid. 

On the 8th, four days before the meeting of the legislature, and probablyat the first moment it could be done with safety, Thomas Brattle wrote anadmirable letter, [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ first series, v. 61. ] inwhich he exposed the folly and wickedness of the delusion with allthe energy the temper of the time would bear; had he miscalculated, hiserror of judgment would probably have cost him his life. At the meeting ofthe General Court the illegal and blood-stained commission came to an end, and as the reaction slowly and surely set in, Phips began to feel alarmlest he should he called to account in England; accordingly, he tried tothrow the blame on Stoughton: "When I returned, I found people muchdissatisfied at the proceedings of the court; . . . The deputy-governor, [Stoughton] notwithstanding, persisted vigorously in the same method. . . . When I put an end to the court, there was at least fifty persons inprison, in great misery by reason of the extreme cold and theirpoverty. . . . I permitted a special superior court to be held at Salem, . . . On the third day of January, the lieutenant-governor being chief judge. . . . All . . . Were cleared, saving three. . . . The deputy-governor signed awarrant for their speedy execution, and also of five others who werecondemned at the former court. . . . But . . . I sent a reprieve; . . . Thelieutenant-governor upon this occasion was enraged and filled withpassionate anger, and refused to sit upon the bench at a superior court, at that time held at Charlestown; and, indeed, hath from the beginninghurried on these matters with great precipitancy, and by his warrant hathcaused the estates, goods, and chattels of the executed to be seized anddisposed of without my knowledge or consent. " [Footnote: Phips to the Earlof Nottingham, Feb. 21, 1693. Palfrey, iv. 112, note 2. ] Some monthsearlier, also, just before the meeting of the legislature, he had calledon Cotton Mather to defend him against the condemnation he had even thenbegun to feel, and the elder had responded with a volume which remains asa memorial of him and his compeers [Footnote: _Wonders of the InvisibleWorld_. ] He gave thanks for the blood that had already flowed, andprayed to God for more. " They were some of the gracious words, inserted inthe advice, which many of the neighbouring ministers, did this summerhumbly lay before our honourable judges: 'We cannot but with allthankfulness, acknowledge the success which the merciful God has givenunto the sedulous and assiduous endeavours of our honourable rulers, todetect the abominable witchcrafts which have been committed in thecountry; humbly praying that the discovery of those mysterious andmischievous wickednesses, may be perfected. ' If in the midst of the manydissatisfactions among us, the publication of these trials, may promotesuch a pious thankfulness unto God, for justice being so far, executedamong us, I shall rejoyce that God is glorified; and pray that no wrongsteps of ours may ever sully any of his glorious works. " [Footnote:_Wonders of the Invisible World_, pp. 82, 83. ]

"These witches . . . Have met in hellish randez-vouszes. . . . In these hellishmeetings, these monsters have associated themselves to do no less a thingthan to destroy the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, in these parts ofthe world. . . . We are truly come into a day, which by being well managedmight be very glorious, for the exterminating of those, accursedthings, . . . But if we make this day quarrelsome, . . . Alas, O Lord, my fleshtrembles for fear of thee, and I am afraid of thy judgments. " [Footnote:_Idem_, pp. 49-60. ]

While reading such words the streets of Salem rise before the eyes, withthe cart dragging Martha Cory to the gallows while she protests herinnocence, and there, at her journey's end, at the gibbet's foot, standsthe Rev. Nicholas Noyes, pointing to the dangling corpses, and saying:"What a sad thing it is to see eight firebrands of hell hanging there. "[Footnote: _More Wonders_, p. 108. ]

The sequence of cause and effect is sufficiently obvious. Although at amoment when the panic had got beyond control, even the most ultra of theclergy had been forced by their own danger to counsel moderation, theconservatives were by no means ready to abandon their potent allies fromthe lower world; the power they gave was too alluring. "'Tis a strangepassage recorded by Mr. Clark, in the life of his father, That the peopleof his parish refusing to be reclaimed from their Sabbath breaking, by allthe zealous testimonies which that good man bore against it; at last [onenight] . . . There was heard a great noise, with rattling of chains, up anddown the town, and an horrid scent of brimstone. . . . Upon which the guiltyconsciences of the wretches, told them, the devil was come to fetch themaway; and it so terrify'd them, that an eminent reformation follow'd thesermons which that man of God preached thereupon. " [Footnote: _Wondersof the Invisible World_, p. 65. ] They therefore saw the constantacquittals, the abandonment of prosecutions, and the growth of incredulitywith regret. The next year Cotton Mather laid bare the workings of theirminds with cynical frankness. "The devils have with most horrendousoperations broke in upon our neighbourhood, and God has at such a rateoverruled all the fury and malice of those devils, that . . . The souls ofmany, especially of the rising generation, have been thereby waken'd untosome acquaintance with religion; our young people who belonged unto thepraying meetings, of both sexes, apart would ordinarily spend whole nightsby the whole weeks together in prayers and psalms upon these occasions;. . . And some scores of other young people, who were strangers to realpiety, were now struck with the lively demonstrations of hell . . . Beforetheir eyes. . . . In the whole--the devil got just nothing, but God gotpraises, Christ got subjects, the Holy Spirit got temples, the church gotaddition, and the souls of men got everlasting benefits. " [Footnote:_More Wonders_, p. 12. ]

Mather prided himself on what he had done. "I am not so vain as to saythat any wisdom or virtue of mine did contribute unto this good order ofthings; but I am so just as to say, I did not hinder this good. "[Footnote: _Idem_, p. 12. ] Men with such beliefs, and lured onward bysuch temptations, were incapable of letting the tremendous powersuperstition gave them slip from their grasp without an effort on theirown behalf; and accordingly it was not long before the Mathers were oncemore at work. On the 10th of September, 1693, or about nine months afterthe last spasms at Salem, and when the belief in enchantments was fastfalling into disrepute, a girl named Margaret Rule was taken with theaccustomed symptoms in Boston. Forthwith these two godly divines repairedto her bedside, and this is what took place:--

 * * * * *

Then Mr. M---- father and son came up, and others with them, in the wholewere about thirty or forty persons, they being sat, the father on a stool, and the son upon the bedside by her, the son began to question her:

Margaret Rule, how do you do? Then a pause without any answer. 

_Question. _ What. Do there a great many witches sit upon you?_Answer. _ Yes. 

_Question. _ Do you not know that there is a hard master?

Then she was in a fit. He laid his hand upon her face and nose, but, as hesaid, without perceiving breath; then he brush'd her on the face with hisglove, and rubb'd her stomach (her breast not being covered with the bedclothes) and bid others do so too, and said it eased her, then sherevived. 

_Q. _ Don't you know there is a hard master? _A. _ Yes. 

_Reply. _ Don't serve that hard master, you know who. 

_Q. _ Do you believe? Then again she was in a fit, and he again rub'dher breast &c. . . . He wrought his fingers before her eyes and asked her ifshe saw the witches? _A. _ No. . . . 

_Q. _ Who is it that afflicts you? _A. _ I know not, there is agreat many of them. . . . 

_Q. _ You have seen the black man, hant you? _A. _ No. 

_Reply. _ I hope you never shall. 

_Q. _ You have had a book offered you, hant you?

_A. _ No. 

_Q. _ The brushing of you gives you ease, don't it?

_A. _ Yes. She turn'd herselfe, and a little groan'd. 

_Q. _ Now the witches scratch you, and pinch you, and bite you, don'tthey? _A. _ Yes. Then he put his hand upon her breast and belly, viz. On the clothes over her, and felt a living thing, as he said; which movedthe father also to feel, and some others. 

_Q. _ Don't you feel the live thing in the bed?

_A. _ No. . . . 

_Q. _ Shall we go to pray . . . Spelling the word. 

_A. _ Yes. The father went to prayer for perhaps half an hour, chieflyagainst the power of the devil and witchcraft, and that God would bringout the afflicters. . . . After prayer he [the son] proceeded. 

_Q. _ You did not hear when we were at prayer did you? _A. _ Yes. 

_Q. _ You don't hear always? you don't hear sometimes past a word ortwo, do you? _A. _ No. Then turning him about said, this is justanother Mercy Short. . . . 

_Q. _ What does she eat or drink? _A. _ Not eat at all; but drinkrum. [Footnote: _More Wonders_, pp. 13, 14. ]

 * * * * *

To sanctify to the godly the ravings of this drunken and abandoned wenchwas a solemn joy to the heart of this servant of Christ, who gave his lifeto "unwearied cares and pains, to rescue the miserable from the lions andbears of hell, " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 10. ] therefore he preparedanother tract. But his hour was well-nigh come. Though it was impossiblethat retribution should be meted out to him for his crimes, at least hedid not escape unscathed, for Calef and the Brattles, who had long been onhis father's track and his, now seized him by the throat. He knew wellthey had been with him in the chamber of Margaret Rule, that they hadgathered all the evidence; and so when Calef sent him a challenge to standforth and defend himself, he shuffled and equivocated. 

At length a rumor spread abroad that a volume was to be published exposingthe whole black history, and then the priest began to cower. His Diary isfull of his prayers and lamentations. "The book is printed, and theimpression is this week arrived here. . . . I set myself to humble myselfbefore the Lord under these humbling and wondrous dispensations, andobtain the pardon of my sins, that have rendered me worthy of suchdispensations. . . . 

"28d. 10m. Saturday. --The Lord has permitted Satan to raise anextraordinary storm upon my father and myself. All the rage of Satanagainst the holy churches of the Lord falls upon us. First Calf's book, and then Coleman's, do set the people in a mighty ferment. All theadversaries of the churches lay their heads together, as if, by blastingof us, they hoped utterly to blow up all. The Lord fills my soul withconsolations, inexpressible consolations, when I think on my conformity tomy Lord Jesus Christ in the injuries and reproaches that are cast uponme. . . . 

"5d. 2m. Saturday [1701]. --I find the enemies of the churches are set withan implacable enmity against myself; and one vile fool, namely, R. Calf, is employed by them to go on with more of his filthy scribbles to hurt myprecious opportunities of glorifying my Lord Jesus Christ. I had need bemuch in prayer unto my glorious Lord that he would preserve his poorservant from the malice of this evil generation, and of that vile manparticularly. " [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. _ 1855-58, pp. 290-293. ]

"More Wonders of the Invisible World" appeared in 1700, and such was theterror the clergy still inspired it is said it had to be sent to London tobe printed, and when it was published no bookseller in Boston dared tooffer it in his shop. [Footnote: _Some Few Remarks_, p. 9. ] Yet though itwas burnt in the college yard by the order of Increase Mather, it waswidely read, and dealt the deathblow to the witchcraft superstitionof New England. It did more than this: it may be said to mark an era inthe intellectual development of Massachusetts, for it shook to its centrethat moral despotism which the pastors still kept almost unimpaired overthe minds of their congregations, by demonstrating to the people thenecessity of thinking for themselves. But what the fate of its authorswould have been had the priests still ruled may be guessed by theonslaught made on them by those who sat at the Mathers' feet. "Spit on, Calf; thou shalt be but like the viper on Pauls hand, easily shaken off, and without any damage to the servant of the Lord. " [Footnote:_Idem_, p. 22. ]

CHAPTER VIII. 

BRATTLE CHURCH. 

If the working of the human mind is mechanical, the quality of its actionmust largely depend upon the training it receives. Viewed as civilizingagents, therefore, systems of education might be tested by their tendencyto accelerate or retard the intellectual development of the race. Theproposition is capable of being presented with almost mathematicalprecision; the receptive faculty begins to fail at a comparatively earlyage; thereafter new opinions are assimilated with increasing difficultyuntil the power is lost. This progressive period of life, which is at bestbrief, may, however, be indefinitely shortened by the interposition ofartificial obstacles, which have to be overcome by a waste of time andenergy, before the reason can act with freedom; and when these obstaclesare sufficiently formidable, the whole time is consumed and men arestationary. The most effectual impediments are those prejudices which areso easily implanted in youth, and which acquire tremendous power whenbased on superstitious terrors. Herein, then, lies the radical divergencebetween theological and scientific training: the one, by inculcating thattradition is sacred, that accurate investigation is sacrilege, certain tobe visited with terrific punishment, and that the highest moral virtue issubmission to authority, seeks to paralyze exact thought, and to produce acondition in which dogmatic statements of fact, and despotic rules ofconduct, will be received with abject resignation; the other, bystimulating the curiosity, endeavors to provoke inquiry, and, byencouraging a scrutiny of what is obscure, tries to put the mind in animpartial and questioning attitude toward all the phenomena of theuniverse. 

The two methods are irreconcilable, and spring from the great primaryinstincts which are called conservatism and liberality. Necessarily themovement of any community must correspond exactly with the preponderanceof liberalism. Where the theological incubus is unresisted it takes theform of a sacred caste, as among the Hindoos; appreciable advance thenceases, except from some external pressure, such as conquest. The sametendencies in a mitigated form are seen in Spain, whereas Germany isscientific. 

Such being the ceaseless conflict between these natural forces, thevantage-points for which the opposing parties have always struggled inwestern Europe are the pulpits and the universities. Through women thechurch can reach children at their most impressionable age, while at theuniversities the teachers are taught. Obviously, if a priesthood cancontrol both positions their influence must be immense. At the beginningof any movement the conservatives are almost necessarily in possession, and their worst reverses have come from defection from within; for unlesstheir organization is so perfect as not only to be animated by a singlepurpose, but capable of being controlled by a single will, liberals willpenetrate within the fold, and if they can maintain their footing andpreach with the authority of the ancient tradition it leads to revolution. It was thus the Reformation was accomplished. 

The clergy of Massachusetts, with the true priestly instinct, took in thebearings of their situation from the instant they recognized that theirpolitical supremacy was passing away, and in order to keep theirorganization in full vigor they addressed themselves with unabated energyto enforcing the discipline which had been established; at the same timethey set the ablest of their number on guard at Harvard. But the task wasbeyond their strength; they might as well have tried to dam the risingtide with sand. 

There is a limit to the capacity of even the most gifted man, and IncreaseMather committed a fatal error when he tried to be professor, clergyman, and statesman at once. He was, it is true, made president in 1685, but thenext year John Leverett and William Brattle were chosen tutors andfellows, who soon developed into ardent liberals; so it happened that whenthe reverend rector went abroad in 1688, in his character of politician, he left the college in the complete control of his adversaries. He wasabsent four years, and during this interval the man was educated who wasdestined to overthrow the Cambridge Platform, the corner-stone of theconservative power. 

Benjamin Colman was one of Leverett's favorite pupils and the intimatefriend of Pemberton. As he was to be a minister, he stayed at Cambridgeuntil he took his master's degree in 1695; he then sailed at once forEngland in the Swan. When she had been some weeks at sea she was attackedby a French privateer, who took her after a sharp action. During the fightColman attracted attention by his coolness; but he declared that though hefired like the rest, "he was sensible of no courage but of a great deal offear; and when they had received two or three broadsides he wondered whenhis courage would come, as he had heard others talk. " [Footnote: _Lifeof B. Colman_, p. 6. ]

After the capture the Frenchmen stripped him and put him in the hold, andhad it not been for a Madame Allaire, who kept his money for him, he mightvery possibly have perished from the exposure of an imprisonment inFrance, for his lungs were delicate. Moreover, at this time of his life hewas always a pauper, for he was not only naturally generous, but soinnocent and confiding as to fall a victim to any clumsy sharper. Ofcourse he reached London penniless and in great depression of spirits; buthe soon became known among the dissenting clergy, and at length settled atBath, where he preached two years. He seems to have formed singularlystrong friendships while in England, one of which was with Mr. WalterSinger, at whose house he passed much time, and who wrote him at parting, "Methinks there is one place vacant in my affections, which nobody canfill beside you. But this blessing was too great for me, and God hasreserved it for those that more deserved it. --I cannot but hope sometimesthat Providence has yet in store so much happiness for me, that I shallyet see you. " [Footnote: _Life of B. Colman_, p. 48. ]

Meanwhile opinion was maturing fast at home; the passions of thewitchcraft convulsion had gone deep, and in 1697 a movement began underthe guidance of Leverett and the Brattles to form a liberal Congregationalchurch. The close on which the meetinghouse was to stand was conveyed byThomas Brattle to trustees on January 10, 1698, and from the outset thereseems to have been no doubt as to whom the pastor should be. On the 10thof May, 1699, a formal invitation was dispatched to Colman by a committee, of which Thomas Brattle was chairman, and it was accompanied by lettersfrom many prominent liberals. Leverett wrote, "I shall exceedingly rejoiceat your return to your country. We want persons of your character. Theaffair offered to your consideration is of the greatest moment. " WilliamBrattle was even more emphatic, while Pemberton assured him that "thegentlemen who solicit your return are mostly known to you--men of reputeand figure, from whom you may expect generous treatment; . . . I believeyour return will be pleasing to all that know you, I am sure it will beinexpressibly so to your unfeigned friend and servant. " [Footnote: _Lifeof B. Colman_, pp. 43, 44. ] It was, however, thought prudent to havehim ordained in London, since there was no probability that the clergy ofMassachusetts would perform the rite. When he landed in November, after anabsence of four years, he was in the flush of early manhood, highlytrained for theological warfare, having seen the world, and by no means inawe of his old pastor, the reverend president of Harvard. 

The first step after his arrival was to declare the liberal policy, andthis was done in a manifesto which was published almost at once. [Footnote:_History of Brattle St. Church_, p. 20. ] The efficiency of theCongregational organization depended upon the perfection of the guardwhich the ministers and the congregations mutually kept over each other. On the one hand no dangerous element could creep in among the peoplethrough the laxness of the elder, since all candidates for the communionhad to pass through the ordeal of a public examination; on the other theorthodoxy of the ministers was provided for, not only by restricting theelective body to the communicants, but by the power of the ordained clergyto "except against any election of a pastor who . . . May be . . . Unfit forthe common service of the gospel. " [Footnote: Propositions determined bythe Assembly of Ministers. _Magnalia_, bk. 5, Hist. Remarks, Section8. ]

The declaration of the Brattle Street "undertakers" cut this system at theroot, for they announced their intention to dispense with the relation ofexperiences, thus practically throwing their communion open to allrespectable persons who would confess the Westminster Creed; and morefatal still, they absolutely destroyed the homogeneousness of theecclesiastical constituency: "We cannot confine the right of chusing aminister to the male communicants alone, but we think that every baptizedadult person who contributes to the maintenance, should have a vote inelecting. " [Footnote: _History of Brattle St. Church_, p. 25, Prop. 16. ]

They also proposed several innovations of minor importance, such asrelaxing the baptismal regulations, and somewhat changing the establishedservice by having the Bible read without comment. 

Their temporal power was gone, toleration was the law of the land they hadonce possessed, and now an onslaught was to be made upon the intellectualascendency which the clergy felt certain of maintaining over their people, if only they could enforce obedience in their own ranks. The danger, too, was the more alarming because so insidious; for, though their propositionsseemed reasonable, it was perfectly obvious that should the liberalssucceed in forcing their church within the pale of the orthodox communion, discipline must end, and the pulpits might at any time be filled with mencapable of teaching the most subversive doctrines. Although such might bethe inexorable destiny of the Massachusetts hierarchy, it was not inecclesiastical human nature to accept the dispensation with meekness, andthe utterances of the conservative divines seem hardly to breathe thespirit of that gospel they preached at such interminable length. 

Yet it was very difficult to devise a scheme of resistance. They werepowerless to coerce; for, although Increase Mather had taken care, when atthe summit of his power, to have a statute passed which had the effect ofreënacting the Cambridge Platform, it had been disapproved by the king;therefore, moral intimidation was the only weapon which could be employed. Now, aside from the fact that men like Thomas Brattle and Leverett werenot timorous, their position was at this moment very strong from the standthey had taken in the witchcraft troubles, and worst of all, they wereopenly supported by William Brattle, who was already a minister, and byPemberton, who was a fellow of Harvard, and soon to be ordained. 

The attack was, however, begun by Mr. Higginson, and Mr. Noyes, ofwitchcraft memory, in a long rebuke, whose temper may be imagined fromsuch a sentence as this: "We cannot but think you might have entered uponyour declaration with more reverence and humility than so solemnly toappeal to God, your judge, that you do it with all the sincerity andseriousness the nature of your engagement commands from you; seeing youwere most of you much unstudied in the controversial points of churchorder and discipline, and yet did not advise with the neighboring churches. . . But with a great deal of confidence and freedom, set up byyourselves. " The letter then goes on to adjure them to revoke themanifesto, and adjust matters with the "neighbouring elders, " "that so theright hand of fellowship may be given to your pastor by other pastors, . . . And that you may not be the beginning of a schism that will dishonour God, . . . And be a matter of triumph to the bad. " [Footnote: _History of BrattleSt. Church_, pp. 29-37. ]

Cotton Mather's Diary, however, gives the most pleasing view of the highchurchmen:--

"1699. 7th, 10th m. (Dec. ) I see another day of temptation begun upon thetown and land. A company of headstrong men in the town, the chief of whomare full of malignity to the holy ways of our churches, have built in thetown another meetinghouse. To delude many better meaning men in their owncompany, and the churches in the neighbourhood, they passed a vote in thefoundation of the proceedings that they would not vary from the practiceof these churches, except in one little particular. 

"But a young man born and bred here, and hence gone for England, is nowreturned hither at their invitation, equipped with an ordination toqualify him for all that is intended on his returning and arriving here;these fallacious people desert their vote, and without the advice orknowledge of the ministers in the vicinity, they have published, under thetitle of a manifesto, certain articles that utterly subvert our churches, and invite an ill party, through all the country, to throw all intoconfusion on the first opportunities. This drives the ministers that wouldbe faithful unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and his interests in the churches, unto a necessity of appearing for their defence. No little part of theseactions must unavoidably fall to my share. I have already written a largemonitory letter to these innovators, which, though most lovingly penned, yet enrages their violent and imperious lusts to carry on the apostacy. "

"1699. 5th d. 11th m. (Saturday. ) I see Satan beginning a terrible shakein the churches of New England, and the innovators that had set up a newchurch in Boston (a new one indeed!) have made a day of temptation amongus. The men are ignorant, arrogant, obstinate, and full of malice andslander, and they fill the land with lies, in the misrepresentationswhereof I am a very singular sufferer. Wherefore I set apart this dayagain for prayer in my study, to cry mightily unto God. " [Footnote:_History of Harvard_, Quincy, i. 486, 487, App. X. ]

"21st d. 11th m. The people of the new church in Boston, who, by theirlate manifesto, went on in an ill way, and in a worse frame, and the townwas filled with sin, and especially with slanders, wherein especially myfather and myself were sufferers. We two, with many prayers and studies, and with humble resignation of our names unto the Lord, prepared afaithful antidote for our churches against the infection of the example, which we feared this company had given them, and we put it into the press. But when the first sheet was near composed at the press, I stopped it, with a desire to make one attempt more for the bringing of this people toreason. I drew up a proposal, and, with another minister, carried it untothem, who at first rejected it, but afterward so far embraced it, as topromise that they will the next week publicly recognize their covenantwith God and one another, and therewithall declare their adherence to theHeads of Agreement of the United Brethren in England, and request thecommunion of our churches in that foundation. " [Footnote: _History ofHarvard_, i. 487, App. X. ]

This last statement is marked by the exuberance of imagination for whichthe Mathers are so famed. In truth, Dr. Mather had nothing to do with thesettlement. The facts were these: after Brattle Street Church wasorganized, the congregation voted that Mr. Colman should ask the ministersof the town to keep a day of prayer with them. On the 28th of December, 1699, they received the following suggestive answer:--

 * * * * *

MR. COLMAN:

Whereas you have signified to us that your society have desired us to joinwith them in a public fast, in order to your intended communion, ouranswer is, that as we have formerly once and again insinuated unto you, that if you would in due manner lay aside what you call your manifesto, and resolve and declare that you will keep to the heads of agreement onwhich the United Brethren in London have made their union, and thenpublicly proceed with the presence, countenance, and concurrence of theNew England churches, we should be free to give you our fellowship and ourbest assistance, which things you have altogether declined and neglectedto do; thus we must now answer, that, if you will give us the satisfactionwhich the law of Christ requires for your disorderly proceedings, we shallbe happy to gratify your desires; otherwise, we may not do it, lest . . . Webecome partakers of the guilt of those irregularities by which you havegiven just cause of offence. . . . 

INCREASE MATHER. JAMES ALLEN. [Footnote: _History of Brattle St. Church_, p. 55. ]

 * * * * *

Under the theocracy a subservient legislature would have voted theassociation "a seditious conspiracy, " and the country would have beencleared of Leverett, Colman, the Brattles, and their abettors; but in 1700the priests no longer manipulated the constituencies, and there was actualdanger to the conservative cause from their violence; therefore Stoughtonexerted himself to muzzle the Mathers, and he did succeed in quieting themfor the moment, though Sewall seems to intimate that they submitted withno very good grace: [1699/1700. ] "January 24th. The Lt Govr [Stoughton]calls me with him to Mr. Willards, where out of two papers Mr. Wm Brattledrew up a third for an accommodation to bring on an agreement between thenew-church and our ministers; Mr. Colman got his brethren to subscribeit. . . . January 25th. Mr. I. Mather, Mr. C. Mather, Mr. Willard, Mr. Wadsworth, and S. S. Wait on the Lt Govr at Mr. Coopers: to confer aboutthe writing drawn up the evening before. Was some heat; but grew calmer, and after lecture agreed to be present at the fast which is to be observedJanuary 31. " [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fifth series, vi. 2. ]

Humility has sometimes been extolled as the crowning grace of Christianclergymen, but Cotton Mather's Diary shows the intolerable arrogance ofthe early Congregational divines. 

"A wonderful joy filled the hearts of our good people far and near, thatwe had obtained thus much from them. Our strife seemed now at an end;there was much relenting in some of their spirits, when they saw ourcondescension, our charity, our compassion. We overlooked all pastoffences. We kept the public fast with them . . . And my father preachedwith them on following peace with holiness, and I concluded with prayer. "[Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 487, App. X. ]

Yet, although there had been this ostensible reconciliation, those whohave appreciated the sensitiveness to sin, of him whom Dr. Eliot calls thepatriarch and his son, must already feel certain they were incapable ofletting Colman's impiety pass unrebuked; indeed, the Diary says the"faithful antidote" was at that moment in the press, and it was not longbefore it was published, sanctified by their prayers. The patriarch beganby telling how he was defending the "cause of Christ and of his churchesin New England, " and "if we espouse such principles. . . We then give awaythe whole Congregational cause at once. " [Footnote: _Order of theGospel_, pp. 8, 9. ] He assured his hearers that a "wandering Levite"like Colman was no more a pastor than he who "has no children is afather, " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 102. ] he was shocked at theabandonment of the relation of experiences, and was so scandalized atreading the Bible without comment he could only describe it as "dumb. " Ina word, there was nothing the new congregation had done which was notdispleasing to the Lord; but if they had offended in one particular morethan another it was in establishing a man in "the pastoral office withoutthe approbation of neighbouring churches or elders. " [Footnote:_Idem_, p. 8. ] To this solemn admonition Colman and William Brattlehad the irreverence to prepare a reply smacking of levity; nevertheless, they began with a grave and noble definition of their principles. "Theliberties and privileges which our Lord Jesus Christ has given to hischurch . . . Consist . . . In . . . That our consciences be not imposed on bymen or their traditions. " "We are reflected on as casting dishonour on ourparents, & their pious design in the first settlement of this land. . . . Some have made this the great design, to be freed from the impositions ofmen in the worship of God. . . . In this we are risen up to make good theirgrounds. " [Footnote: _Gospel Order Revived_, Epistle Dedicatory. ]

They then went on to expose the abuse of public relations of experiences:"But this is the misery, the more meek and fearful are hereby kept out ofGod's house, while the more conceited and presumptuous never boggle atthis, or anything else. But it seems there is a gross corruption of thislaudable practice which the author does well to censure; and that is, whensome, who have no good intention of their own, get others to devise arelation for them. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9. ] They even dared tointimate that it did not savor of modesty for the patriarch "to think anyone of his sermons, or short comments, can edifie more than the reading oftwenty chapters. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 15. ] And then they added somesentences, which were afterward declared by the venerable victim to be asscurrilous as other portions of the pamphlet were profane. 

"We are assured, the author is esteemed more a Presbyterian than aCongregational man, by scores of his friends in London. He is lov'd andreverenced for a moderate spirit, a peaceable disposition, and a temper sowidely different from his late brothers in London. . . . Did our reverendauthor appear the same here, we should be his easie proselites too. But weare loath to say how he forfeits that venerable character, which mighthave consecrated his name to posterity, more than his learning, or otherhonorary titles can. " [Footnote: _Gospel Order Revived_, pp. 34, 35. ]

No printer in Boston dared to be responsible for this ribaldry, and whenit came home from New York and was actually cast before the people, wordsfail to convey the condition into which the patriarch was thrown. At lasthis emotions found a vent in a tract which he prepared jointly with hisson. 

"A moral heathen would not have done as he has done. [Footnote:_Collection of Some of the More Offensive Matters_, Preface. ]. . . There isno one thing, which does more threaten or disgrace New-England, than wantof due respect unto superiors. [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 10. ]. . . It is adisgrace to the name of Presbyterian, that such as he is should pretendunto it. [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 12. ]. . . And if our children should learnfrom them, . . . We may tremble to think, what a flood of profaneness andatheism would break in upon us, and ripen us for the dreadfullestjudgments of God. [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 7. ]. . . They assault him [the agedpresident] with a volley of rude jeers and taunts, as if they were so manychildren of Bethel. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 8. ] Among these taunts somestruck deep, for they are quoted at length. "'Abundance of people havelong obstinately believed, that the contest on his part, is more forlordship and dominion, than for truth. ' But there are many more suchpassages, which laid altogether, would make a considerable dung-hil. "[Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9. ] They dwelt with pathos upon those sacred ritesdesecrated by these "unsanctified" "young men" in their "miserablepamphlet. " "The Lord is exceedingly glorified, and his people are edified, by the accounts, which the candidates, of the communion in our churchesgive of that self-examination which is by plain institution . . . Aqualification, of the communicants. Now these think it not enough tocharge the churches, which require & expect such accounts, withexceedingly provoking the Lord. But of the tears dropt by holy soulson those occasions, they say with a scoff, 'whether they be for joy orgrief, we are left in the dark. '" [Footnote: _Collection of Some of theMore Offensive Matters_, p. 6. ] But the suffering divines found peacein knowing that Christ himself would inflict the punishment upon theseabandoned men which the priests would have meted out with holy joy hadthey still possessed the power. 

"Considering that the things contained in their pamphlet, are a deepapostasy, in conjunction with such open impiety, and profane scurrilityagainst the holy wayes in which our fathers walked, in case it become thesin of the land, (as it will do if not duely testified against) we mayfear that some heavy judgment will come upon the whole land. And will notthe holy Lord Jesus Christ, who walks in the midst of his goldencandlesticks, make all the churches to know . . . That these men haveprovoked the Lord!" [Footnote: _Idem_, pp. 18, 19. ]

Yet, notwithstanding the Mathers' piteous prayers, God heeded them not, and the rising tide that was sweeping over them soon drowned their cries. Brattle Street congregation became an honored member of the orthodoxcommunion, the principles which animated its founders spread apace, andthe name of Benjamin Colman waxed great in the land. The liberals hadpenetrated the stronghold of the church. 

CHAPTER IX. 

HARVARD COLLEGE. 

For more than two centuries one ceaseless anthem of adulation has beenchanted in Massachusetts in honor of the ecclesiastics who founded HarvardUniversity, and this act has not infrequently been cited asincontrovertible proof that they were both liberal and progressive atheart. The laudation of ancestors is a task as easy as it is popular; buthistory deals with the sequence of cause and effect, and an examination offacts, apart from sentiment, tends to show that in building a college theclergy were actuated by no loftier motive than intelligent self-interest, if, indeed, they were not constrained thereto by the inexorable exigenciesof their position. 

The truth of this proposition becomes apparent if the soundness of thefollowing analysis be conceded. 

There would seem to be a point in the pathway of civilization where everyrace passes more or less completely under the dominion of a sacred caste;when and how the more robust have emerged into freedom is uncertain, butenough is known to make it possible to trace the process by which thisinsidious power is acquired, and the means by which it is perpetuated. Aflood of light has, moreover, been shed on this class of subjects by therecent remarkable investigations among the Zuñis. [Footnote: Made by Mr. F. H. Cushing, of the Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. ]

Most American Indians are in the matriarchal period of development, whichprecedes the patriarchal; and it is then, should they become sedentary, that caste appears to be born. Some valuable secret, such as a cure forthe bite of the rattlesnake, is discovered, and this gives the finder, andchosen members of his clan with whom he shares it, a peculiar sanctity inthe eyes of the rest of the tribe. Like facts, however, become known toother clans, and then coalitions are made which take the form of esotericsocieties, and from these the stronger savages gradually exclude theweaker and their descendants. Meanwhile an elaborate ritual is developed, and so an hereditary priesthood comes into life, which always claims tohave received its knowledge by revelation, and which teaches thatresistance to its will is sacrilege. Nevertheless the sacerdotal power isseldom firmly established without a struggle, the memory whereof iscarefully preserved as a warning of the danger of incurring the divinewrath. A good example of such a myth is the fable of the rebellious Zuñifire-priest, who at the prayer of his orthodox brethren was destroyed withall his clan by a boiling torrent poured from the burning mountain, sacredto their order, by the avenging gods. Compare this with the story ofKorah; and it is interesting to observe how the priestly chronicler, inorder to throw the profounder awe about his class, has made the greatnational prophet the author of the exclusion of the body of the Levitesfrom the caste, in favor of his own brother. "And they gathered themselvestogether against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take toomuch upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, . . . Wherefore thenlift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?

"And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face. " Then he told Korah andhis followers, who were descendants of Levi and legally entitled to act aspriests by existing customs, to take censers and burn incense, and itwould appear whether the Lord would respect their offering. So every mantook his censer, and Korah and two hundred and fifty more stood in thedoor of the tabernacle. 

Then Moses said, if "the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, withall that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then yeshall understand that these men have provoked the Lord. . . . 

"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. 

"They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, andthe earth closed upon them:. . . And all Israel that were round about themfled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us upalso. " [Footnote: _Numbers_ xvi. ] Traces of a similar conflict arefound in Hindoo sacred literature, and probably the process has been well-nigh universal. The caste, therefore, originates in knowledge, real andpretended, kept by secret tradition in certain families, and its power ismaintained by systematized terrorism. But to learn the mysteries andritual requires a special education, hence those destined for thepriesthood have careful provision made for their instruction. The youthfulZuñi is taught at the sacred college at the shrine of his order; the piousHindoo lives for years with some famous Brahmin; as soon as the down cameon the cheek, the descendants of Aaron were taken into the Temple atJerusalem, and all have read how Hannah carried the infant Samuel to thehouse of the Lord at Shiloh, and how the child did minister unto the Lordbefore Eli the priest. 

These facts seem to lead to well-defined conclusions when applied to NewEngland history. In their passionate zeal the colonists conceived the ideaof reproducing, as far as they could, the society of the Pentateuch, or, in other words, of reverting to the archaic stage of caste; and in pointof fact they did succeed in creating a theocratic despotism which lastedin full force for more than forty years. Of course, in the seventeenthcentury such a phase of feeling was ephemeral; but the phenomena whichattended it are exceptionally interesting, and possibly they are somewhatsimilar to those which accompany the liberation of a primitive people. 

The knowledge which divided the Massachusetts clergy from other men wastheir supposed proficiency in the interpretation of the ancient writingscontaining the revelations of God. For the perpetuation of this lore aseminary was as essential to them as an association of priests for theinstruction of neophytes is to the Zuni now, or as the training at theTemple was to the Jews. In no other way could the popular faith in theirspecial sanctity be sustained. It is also true that few priesthoods havemade more systematic use of terror. The slaughter of Anne Hutchinson andher family was exultingly declared to be the judgment of God for defamingthe elders. Increase Mather denounced the disobedient Colman in the wordsof Moses to Korah; Cotton Mather revelled in picturing the torments of thebewitched; and, even in the last century Jonathan Edwards frightenedpeople into convulsions by his preaching. On the other hand, it is obviousthat the reproduction of the Mosaic law could not in the nature of thingshave been complete; and the two weak points in the otherwise strongposition of the clergy were that the spirit of their age did not permitthem to make their order hereditary, nor, although their college was atrue theological school, did they perceive the danger of allowing any layadmixture. The tendency to weaken the force of the discipline is obvious, yet they were led to abandon the safe Biblical precedent, not only bytheir own early associations, but by their hatred of anything savoring ofCatholicism. 

Men to be great leaders must exalt their cause above themselves; and if sogodly a man as the Rev. Increase Mather can be said to have had a humanfailing it was an inordinate love of money and of flattery. The first ofthese peculiarities showed itself early in life when, as his son says, hewas reluctant to settle at the North Church, because of "views he had ofgreater service elsewhere. " [Footnote: _Parentator_, p. 25. ] In otherwords, the parish was not liberal; for it seems "the deacons . . . Were notspirited like some that have succeeded them; and the leaders of the morehonest people also, were men of a low, mean, sordid spirit. . . . For one ofhis education, and erudition, and gentlemanly spirit, and conversation, tobe so creepled and kept in such a depressing poverty!--In thesedistresses, it was to little purpose for him to make his complaint untoman! If he had, it would have been basely improved unto his disadvantage. "[Footnote: _Idem_, p. 30. ] His diary teemed with repinings. "Oh! thatthe Lord Jesus, who hears my complaints before him, would either give anheart to my people to look after my comfortable subsistance among them, or. . . Remove me to another people, who will take care of me, that so I maybe in a capacity to attend his work, and glorify his name in mygeneration. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 33. ] However, matters mended withhim, for we are assured that "the Glorious One who knew the works, and theservice and the patience of this tempted man, ordered it, that severalgentlemen of good estate, and of better spirit, were become the members ofhis church;" and from them he had "such filial usages. . . As took away fromhim all room of repenting, that he had not under his temptationsprosecuted a removal from them. " [Footnote: _Parentator_, pp. 34, 35. ]

The presidency of Harvard, though nominally the highest place a clergymancould hold in Massachusetts, had always been one of poverty and self-denial; for the salary was paid by the legislature, which, as theunfortunate Dunster had found, was not disposed to be generous. Therefore, although Mr. Mather was chosen president in 1685, and was afterwardconfirmed as rector by Andros, he was far too pious to be led again intothose temptations from which he had been delivered by the interposition ofthe Glorious One; and the last thing he proposed was to go into residenceand give up his congregation. Besides, he was engrossed in politics andwent to England in 1688, where he stayed four years. Meanwhile the realcontrol of education was left in the hands of Leverett, who was appointedtutor in 1686, and of William Brattle, who was in full sympathy with hispolicy. Among the many powers usurped by the old trading company was thatof erecting corporations; hence the effect of the judgment vacating thepatent had been to annul the college charter which had been granted by theGeneral Court; [Footnote: 23 May, 1650. _Mass. Rec. _ iii. 195. ] andalthough the institution had gone on much as usual after the Revolution, its position was felt to be precarious. Such being the situation when thepatriarch came home in 1692 in the plenitude of power, he conceived theidea of making himself the untrammelled master of the university, and heforthwith caused a bill to be introduced into the legislature which wouldcertainly have produced that result. [Footnote: _Province Laws_, 1692-93, c. 10. ] Nor did he meet with any serious opposition in Massachusetts, where his power was, for the moment, well-nigh supreme. His difficulty laywith the king, since the fixed policy of Great Britain was to fosterEpiscopalianism, and of course to obtain some recognition for that sect atCambridge. And so it came to pass that all the advantage he reaped by theenactment of this singular law was a degree of Doctor of Divinity[Footnote: Sept. 5, 1692. Quincy's _History of Harvard_, i. 71. ] which hegave himself between the approval of the bill by Phips and its rejectionat London. The compliment was the more flattering, however, as it was thefirst ever granted in New England. But the clouds were fast gathering overthe head of this good man. Like many another benefactor of his race, hewas doomed to experience the pangs inflicted by ingratitude, and indeedhis pain was so acute he seldom lost an opportunity of giving it publicexpression; to use his own words of some years later, "these are the lastlecture sermons. . . To be preached by me. . . . The ill treatment which I havehad from those from whom I had reason to have expected better, havediscouraged me from being any more concerned on such occasions. "[Footnote: Address to Sermon, _The Righteous Man a Blessing_, 1702. ]

Certainly he was in a false position; he was necessarily unappreciated bythe liberals, and he had not only alienated many staunch conservatives byhis acceptance of the charter, but he had embittered them, by rigorouslyexcluding all except his particular faction from Phips's council. To hisdeep chagrin, the elections of 1693 went in favor of many of thesethankless men, and his discontent soon took the form of an intense longingto go abroad in some official position which would give him importance. The only possible opening seemed to be to get himself made agent tonegotiate a charter for Harvard; and therefore he soon had "angelical"suggestions that God needed him in England to glorify his name. 

"1693. September 3d. As I was riding to preach at Cambridge, I prayed toGod, --begged that my labors might be blessed to the souls of the students;at the which I was much melted. Also saying to the Lord, that someworkings of his Providence seemed to intimate, that I must be returned toEngland again; . . . I was inexpressibly melted, and that for a considerabletime, and a stirring suggestion, that to England I must go. In this therewas something extraordinary, either divine or angelical. "

"December 30th. Meltings before the Lord this day when praying, desiringbeing returned to England again, there to do service to his name, andpersuasions that the Lord will appear therein. "

"1694. January 27th. Prayers and supplications that tidings may come fromEngland, that may be some direction to me, as to my returning thither orotherwise, as shall be most for his glory. "

"March 13th. This morning with prayers and tears I begged of God that Imight hear from my friends and acquaintance in England something thatshould encourage and comfort me. Such tidings are coming, but I know notwhat it is. God has heard me. " [Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 475, 476, App. Ix. ]

His craving to escape from the country was increased by the nagging of thelegislature; for so early as December, 1693, the representatives passedthe first of a long series of resolves, "that the president of HarvardCollege for the time being shall reside there, as hath been accustomed intime past. " [Footnote: _Court Rec. _ vi. 316. ] Now this was preciselywhat the Reverend Doctor was determined he would not do; nor could heresign without losing all hope of his agency; so it is not surprising thatas time went on he wrestled with the Deity. 

1698. "September 25th. This day as I was wrestling with the Lord, he gaveme glorious and heart-melting persuasions, that he has work for me to doin England, for the glory of his name. My soul rejoiceth in the Lord. "[Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 480, App. Ix. ]

Doubtless his trials were severe, but the effect upon his temper wasunfortunate. He brought forward scheme after scheme, and the corporationwas made to address the legislature, and then the legislature was pesteredto accede to the prayer of the corporation, until everybody was wrought toa pitch of nervous irritation; he himself was always jotting in his Diarywhat he had on foot, mixed with his hopes and prayers. 

"1696. December 11th. I was with the representatives in the General Court, and did acquaint them with my purpose of undertaking a voyage for Englandin the spring (if the Lord will), in order to the attainment of a goodsettlement for the college. "

"December 28th. The General Court have done nothing for the poorcollege. . . . The corporation are desirous that I should go to England onthe college's account. "

1696. "April 19th (Sabbath. ) In the morning, as I was praying in mycloset, my heart was marvellously melted with the persuasion, that Ishould glorify Christ in England. "

"1697. June 7th. Discourse with ministers about the college, and thecorporation unanimously desired me to take a voyage for England on thecollege's account. " [Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 476, App. Ix. ]

But of what the senior tutor was doing with the rising generation he tookno note at all. His attention was probably first attracted by rumors ofthe Brattle Church revolt, for not till 1697 was he able to divert histhoughts from himself long enough to observe that all was not as it shouldbe at Cambridge. Then, at length, he made an effort to get rid of Leverettby striking his name from the list of fellows when a bill forincorporation was brought into the legislature; but this crafty politicianhad already become too strong in the house of representatives, of which hewas soon after made speaker. 

Two years later, however, the conservative clergy made a determined effortand prepared a bill containing a religious test, which they supported witha petition praying "that, in the charter for the college, our holyreligion may be secured to us and unto our posterity, by a provision, thatno person shall be chosen president, or fellow, of the college, but suchas declare their adherence unto the principles of reformation, which wereespoused and intended by those who first settled the country . . . And havehitherto been the general profession of New England. " [Footnote:_Idem_, i. 99. ] This time they narrowly missed success, for the billpassed the houses, but was vetoed by Lord Bellomont. 

Hitherto Cotton Mather had shown an unfilial lack of interest in hisfather's ambition to serve the public; but this summer he also began tohave assurances from God. One cause for his fervor may have been the deathof the Rev. Mr. Morton, who was conceded to stand next in succession tothe presidency, and he therefore supposed himself to be sure of the officeshould a vacancy occur. [Footnote: _Idem_, i. 102. ]

"1699. 7th d. 4th m. (June. ) The General Court has, divers times of lateyears, had under consideration the matter of the settlement of thecollege, which was like still to issue in a voyage of my father toEngland, and the matter is now again considered. I have made much prayerabout it many and many a time. Nevertheless, I never could have my mindraised unto any particular faith about it, one way or another. But thisday, as I was (may I not say) in the spirit, it was in a powerful mannerassured me from heaven, that my father should one day be carried intoEngland, and that he shall there glorify the Lord Jesus Christ;. . . Andthou, O Mather the younger, shalt live to see this accomplished!"[Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 482, 483, App. X. ]

"16th d. 5th m. (July. ) Being full of distress in my spirit, as I was atprayer in my study at noon, it was told me from heaven, that my fathershall be carried from me unto England, and that my opportunities toglorify the Lord Jesus Christ will, on that occasion, _be gloriouslyaccommodated_. "

"18th d. 5th m. . . . And now behold a most unintelligible dispensation! Atthis very time, even about noon, instead of having the bill for thecollege enacted, as was expected, the governor plainly rejected it, because of a provision therein, made for the religion of the country. "

After the veto the patriarch seems to have got the upper hand for aseason, and to have made some arrangement by which he evicted hisadversary, as appears by a very dissatisfied letter written by Leverett inAugust, 1699: "As soon as I got home I was informed, that Rev. President(I. M. ), held a corporation at the college the 7th inst. , and the saidcorporation, after the publication of the _new settlement_, madechoice of Mr. Flynt to be one of the tutors at college. . . . I have not thelate act for incorporating the college at hand, nor have I seen the newtemporary settlement; but I perceive, that all the members of the latecorporation were not notified to be at the meeting. I can't say how legalthese late proceedings are; but it is wonderful, that an establishment forso short a time as till October next, should be made use of so soon tointroduce an unnecessary addition to that society. " [Footnote: _Historyof Harvard_, i. 500, App. Xvi. ]

A long weary year passed, during which Dr. Mather must have sufferedkeenly from the public ingratitude; still, at its end he was happy, sincehe felt certain of being rewarded by the Lord; for, just as the earl'sadministration was closing, he had succeeded by unremitting toil in soadjusting the legislature as to think the spoil his own; when, alas, suddenly, without warning, in the most distressing manner, the prizeslipped into Bellomont's pocket. How severely his faith was tried appearsfrom his son's Diary. 

"1700. 16th d. 4th mo. (Lord's Day. ) I am going to relate one of the mostastonishing things that ever befell in all the time of my pilgrimage. 

"A particular faith had been unaccountably produced in my father's heart, and in my own, that God will carry him unto England, and there give him ashort but great opportunity to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, before hisentrance into the heavenly kingdom. There appears no probability of myfather's going thither but in an agency to obtain a charter for thecollege. This matter having been for several years upon the very point ofbeing carried in the General Assembly, hath strangely miscarried when ithath come to the birth. It is now again before the Assembly, incircumstances wherein if it succeed not, it is never like to be revivedand resumed any more. . . . 

"But the matter in the Assembly being likely now to come unto nothing, Iwas in this day in extreme distress of spirit concerning it. . . . After Ihad finished all the other duties of this day, I did in my distress castmyself prostrate on my study floor before the Lord. . . . I spread before himthe consequences of things, and the present posture and aspect of them, and, having told the Lord, that I had always taken a particular faith tobe a work of heaven on the minds of the faithful, but if it should prove adeceit in that remarkable instance which was now the cause of my agony, Ishould be cast into a most wonderful confusion; I then begged of the Lord, that, if my particular faith about my father's voyage to England were nota delusion, he would be pleased to renew it upon me. All this while myheart had the coldness of a stone upon it, and the straitness that is tobe expected from the lone exercise of reason. But now all on the sudden Ifelt an inexpressible force to fall on my mind, an afflatus, which cannotbe described in words; _none knows it but he that has it_. . . . It wastold me, that the Lord Jesus Christ loved my father, and loved me, andthat he took delight in us, as in two of his faithful servants, and thathe had not permitted us to be deceived in our particular faith, but thatmy father should be carried into England, and there glorify the Lord JesusChrist before his passing into glory. . . . 

"Having left a flood of tears from me, by these rages from the invisibleworld, on my study floor, I rose and went into my chair. There I took upmy Bible, and the first place that I opened was at Acts xxvii. 23-25, 'There stood by me an angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, thou must be brought before Caesar. ' . . . A new flood of tearsgushed from my flowing eyes, and I broke out into these expressions. 'What! shall my father yet appear before Caesar! Has an angel from heaventold me so! And must I believe what has been told me! Well then, it shallbe so! It shall be so!'"

"And now what shall I say! When the affair of my father's agency afterthis came to a turning point in the court, it strangely miscarried! Allcame to nothing! Some of the Tories had so wrought upon the governor, that, though he had first moved this matter, and had given us bothdirections and promises about it, yet he now (not without baseunhandsomeness) deferred it. The lieutenant-governor, who had formerlybeen for it, now (not without great ebullition of unaccountable prejudiceand ingratitude) appeared, with all the little tricks imaginable, toconfound it. It had for all this been carried, had not some of the councilbeen inconveniently called off and absent. But now the whole affair of thecollege was left unto the management of the Earl of Bellamont, so that allexpectation of a voyage for my father unto England, on any such occasion, is utterly at an end. " [Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 484-486, App. X. ]

During all these years the legislature had been steadily passingresolutions requiring the president to go into residence; and in 1698 theywent so far as to vote him the liberal salary, for that age, of twohundred pounds, and appointed a committee to wait upon him. Judge Sewalldescribes the interview:--

"Mr. President expostulated with Mr. Speaker . . . About the votes beingalter'd from 250 [£. ?]. " . . . "We urg'd his going all we could; I told himof his birth and education here; that he look'd at work rather than wages, all met in desiring him. . . . Objected want of a house, bill for corporationnot pass'd . . . Must needs preach once every week, which he preferredbefore the gold and silver of the West-Indies. I told him would preachtwice aday to the students. He said that [exposition] was nothing likepreaching. " [Footnote: Sewall's _Diary_. _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fifth series, v. 487. ] And in this the patriarch spoke the truth; for if there wasanything he loved more than money it was the incense of adulation whichsteamed up to his nostrils from a great congregation. Of course hedeclined; and yet this importunity pained the good man, not because therewas any conflict in his mind between his duty to a cause he held sacredand his own interest, but because it was "a thing contrary to the faithmarvellously wrought into my soul, that God will give me an opportunity toserve and glorify Christ in England, I set the day apart to cry to heavenabout it. " [Footnote: _History of Harvard_, vi. 481, App. Ix. ]

There were limits, however, even to the patience of the MassachusettsAssembly with an orthodox divine; and no sooner was the question of theagency decided by the appointment of Bellomont, than it addressed itselfresolutely to the seemingly hopeless task of forcing Dr. Mather to settlein Cambridge or resign his office. On the 10th of July, 1700, they votedhim two hundred and twenty pounds a year, and they appointed a committeeto obtain from him a categorical answer. This time he thought it prudentto feign compliance; and after a "suitable place. . . For the reception andentertainment of the president" had been prepared at the public expense, he moved out of town and stayed till the 17th of October, when he wentback to Boston, and wrote to tell Stoughton his health was suffering. Hisdisingenuousness seems to have given Leverett the opportunity for which hehad been waiting; and his acting as chairman of a committee appointed bythe representatives suggests his having forced the issue; it was resolvedthat, should Mr. Mather be absent from the college, his duties shoulddevolve upon Samuel Willard, the vice-president; [Footnote: _History ofHarvard_, i. 111; _Court Rec. _ vii. 172, 175. ] and in March the committeeapparently reported the president's house to be in good condition. Stimulated by this hint, the doctor went back to Cambridge and stayed alittle more than three months, when he wrote a characteristic note toStoughton, who was acting governor. "I promised the last General Court totake care of the college until the Commencement. Accordingly I have beenresiding in Cambridge these three months. I am determined (if the Lordwill) to return to Boston the next week, and no more return to reside inCambridge; for it is not reasonable to desire me to be (as, out of respectto the public interest, I have been six months within this twelve) anylonger absent from my family. . . . I do therefore earnestly desire, that theGeneral Court would. . . Think of another president. . . . It would be fatal tothe interest of religion, if a person disaffected to the order of theGospel, professed and practised in these churches, should preside overthis society. I know the General Assembly, out of their regard to theinterest of Christ, will take care to prevent it. " [Footnote: _History ofHarvard_, i. 501, App. Xvii. ] Yet though he himself begged the legislatureto select his successor, in his inordinate vanity he did not dream ofbeing taken at his word; so when he was invited to meet both houses in thecouncil chamber he explained with perfect cheerfulness how "he was nowremoved from Cambridge to Boston, and . . . Did not think fitt to continuehis residence there, . . . But, if the court thought fit to desire he shouldcontinue his care of the colledge as formerly, he would do so. " [Footnote:_Court Records_, vii. 229. ]

Increase Mather delighted to blazon himself as Christ's foremost championin the land. He predicted, and with reason, that should those who had beenalready designated succeed him at Harvard, it would be fatal to that causeto which his life was vowed. The alternative was presented of servinghimself or God, and to him it seemed unreasonable of his friends to expectof him a choice. And yet when, as was his wont, he would describe himselffrom the pulpit, as a refulgent beacon blazing before New England, hewould use such words as these: "Every . . . One of a publick spirit . . . Willdeny himself as to his worldly interests, provided he may thereby promovethe welfare of his people. . . . He will not only deny himself, but if calledthereto, will encounter the greatest difficulties and dangers for thepublicks sake. " [Footnote: Sermon, _The Publick Spirited Man_, pp. 7, 9. ]

The man had presumed too far; the world was wearying of him. On September6, 1701, the government was transferred to Samuel Willard, the vice-president, and Harvard was lost forever. [Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 116. ]

No education is so baleful as the ecclesiastical, because it breeds thebelief in men that resistance to their will is not only a wrong to theircountry and themselves, but a sacrilege toward God. The Mathers were nowto give an illustration of the degree to which the theocratic trainingdebauched the mind; and it is only necessary to observe that SamuelSewall, who tells the story, was educated for the ministry, and wasperhaps as staunch a conservative as there was in the province. 

1701, "October 20. Mr. Cotton Mather came to Mr. Wilkins's shop, and theretalked very sharply against me as if I had used his father worse than aneger; spake so loud that people in the street might hear him. . . . I hadread in the morn Mr. Dod's saying; Sanctified afflictions are goodpromotions. I found it now a cordial. "

"October 9. I sent Mr. Increase Mather a hanch of very good venison; Ihope in that I did not treat him as a negro. "

"October 2, 1701. I, with Major Walley and Capt. Samuel Checkly, speakwith Mr. Cotton Mather at Mr. Wilkins's. . . . I told him of his book of theLaw of Kindness for the Tongue, whether this were correspondent with that. Whether correspondent with Christ's rule:

"He said, having spoken to me before there was no need to speak to meagain; and so justified his reviling me behind my back. Charg'd thecouncil with lying, hypocrisy, tricks, and I know not what all. I ask'dhim if it were done with that meekness as it should; Answer'd, Yes. Charg'd the council in general, and then shew'd my share, which was myspeech in council; viz. If Mr. Mather should goe to Cambridge again toreside there with a resolution not to read the Scriptures, and expound inthe Hall: I fear the example of it will do more hurt than his goingthither will doe good. This speech I owned. . . . I ask'd him if I shouldsupose he had done somthing amiss in his church as an officer; whether itwould be well for me to exclaim against him in the street for it. "

"Thorsday October 23. Mr. Increase Mather said at Mr. Wilkins's, If I am aservant of Jesus Christ, some great judgment will fall on Capt. Sewall, orhis family. " [Footnote: Sewall's _Diary. Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fifth series, vi. 43-45. ]

Had the patriarch been capable of a disinterested action, for the sake ofthose principles he professed to love, he would have stopped Willard'spresidency, no matter at what personal cost, for he knew him to be nobetter than a liberal in disguise, and he had already quarrelled bitterlywith him in 1697 when he was trying to eject Leverett. Sewall noted on"Nov. 20. . . . Mr. Willard told me of the falling out between the presidentand him about chusing fellows last Monday. Mr. Mather has sent him word, he will never come to his house more till he give him satisfaction. "[Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fifth series, v. 464. ] But they had inreality separated years before; for when, in the witchcraft terror, Willard was cried out upon, and had to look a shameful death in the face, he learned to feel that the men who were willing to risk their lives tosave him were by no means public enemies. And so, as the vice-presidentlived in Boston, the administration of the college was left very much toLeverett and the Brattles, who were presently reinstated. 

Joseph Dudley was the son of that old governor who wrote the verses aboutthe cockatrice to be hatched by toleration, yet he inherited very littleof his father's disposition. He was bred for the ministry, and as thecareer did not attract him, he turned to politics, in which he made abrilliant opening. At first he was the hope of the high churchmen, butthey afterward learned to hate him with a rancor exceptional even towardtheir enemies. And he gave them only too good a handle against him, for hewas guilty of the error of selling himself without reserve to the Androsgovernment. At the Revolution he suffered a long imprisonment, andafterward went to England, where he passed most of William's reign. Therehis ability soon brought him forward, he was made lieutenant-governor ofthe Isle of Wight, was returned to Parliament, and at last appointedgovernor by Queen Anne. Though Massachusetts owes a deeper debt to few ofher chief magistrates, there are few who have found scantier praise at thehands of her historians. He was, it is true, an unscrupulous politicianand courtier, but his mind was broad and vigorous, his policy wise andliberal, and at the moment of his power his influence was of inestimablevalue. 

Among his other gifts, he was endowed with infinite tact, and when workingfor his office he managed not only to conciliate the Mathers, but even toinduce the son to write a letter in his favor; and so when he arrived in1702 they were both sedulous in their attentions in the expectation ofcontrolling him. A month had not passed, however, before this ominousentry was made in the younger's diary:--

"June 16, 1702. I received a visit from Governour Dudley. . . . I said to him. . . I should be content, I would approve it, . . . If any one should say toyour excellency, 'By no means let any people have cause to say, that youtake all your measures from the two Mr. Mathers. ' By the same rule I maysay without offence, ' By no means let any people say, that you go by nomeasures in your conduct, but Mr. Byfield's and Mr. Leverett's. '. . . TheWRETCH went unto those men and told them, that I had advised him to be noways advised by them; and inflamed them into an implacable rage againstme. " [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ first series, iii. 137. ]

Leverett, on the contrary, now reached his zenith; from the house hepassed into the council and became one of Dudley's most trusted advisers. The Mathers were no match for these two men, and few routs have been moredisastrous than theirs. Lord Bellomont's sudden death had put an end toall hope of obtaining a charter by compromise with England, and no furtheraction had been taken, when, on September 12, 1707, Willard died. On the28th of October the fellows met and chose John Leverett president ofHarvard College; and then came a demonstration which proved not onlyIncrease Mather's prescience, when he foretold how a liberal universitywould kill a disciplined church, but which shows the mighty influence adevoted teacher can have upon his age. Thirty-nine ministers addressedGovernor Dudley thus:--

"We have lately, with great joy, understood the great and early care thatour brethren, who have the present care and oversight of the college atCambridge, have taken, . . . By their unanimous choice of Mr. John Leverett, . . . To be the president . . . Your Excellency personally knows Mr. Leverettso well, that we shall say the less of him. However, we cannot but givethis testimony of our great affection to and esteem for him; that we areabundantly satisfied . . . Of his religion, learning, and other excellentaccomplishments for that eminent service, a long experience of which wehad while he was senior fellow of that house; for that, under the wise andfaithful government of him, and the Rev. Mr. Brattle, of Cambridge, thegreatest part of the now rising ministry in New England were happilyeducated; and we hope and promise ourselves, through the blessing of theGod of our fathers, to see religion and learning thrive and flourish inthat society, under Mr. Leverett's wise conduct and influence, as much asever yet it hath done. " [Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 504, App. Xx. ]

His salary was only one hundred and fifty pounds a year; but the manworked for love of a great cause, and did not stop to haggle. Nor were heand Dudley of the temper to leave a task half done. Undoubtedly at thegovernor's instigation, a resolve was introduced into the Assemblyreviving the Act of 1650 by which the university had been incorporated, and it is by the sanction of this lawless and masterly feat ofstatesmanship that Harvard has been administered for almost two hundredyears. 

Sewall tells how Dudley went out in state to inaugurate his friend. "Thegovernour prepared a Latin speech for instalment of the president. Thentook the president by the hand and led him down into the hall;. . . Thegovernour sat with his back against a noble fire. . . . Then the governourread his speech . . . And mov'd the books in token of their delivery. Thenpresident made a short Latin speech, importing the difficultiesdiscouraging, and yet that he did accept: . . . Clos'd with the hymn to theTrinity. Had a very good dinner upon 3 or 4 tables. . . . Got home very well. _Laus Deo. _" [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fifth series, vi. 209. ]

Nor did Dudley fail to provide the new executive with fit support. By theold law he had revived the corporation was reduced to seven; of this boardLeverett himself was one, and on the day he took his office both theBrattles and Pemberton were also appointed. And more than this, when, afew years later, Pemberton died, the arch-rebel, Benjamin Colman, waschosen in his place. The liberal triumph was complete, and in looking backthrough the vista of the past, there are few pages of our history morestrongly stamped with the native energy of the New England mind than thisbrilliant capture of Harvard, by which the ancient cradle of bigotry andsuperstition was made the home of American liberal thought. As for theMathers, when they found themselves beaten in fair fight, they conceived arevenge so dastardly that Pemberton declared with much emotion he wouldhumble them, were he governor, though it cost him his head. Being unablelonger to withstand Dudley by honorable means, they tried to blast him bycharging him with felony. Their letters are too long to be reproduced infull; but their purport may be guessed by the extracts given, and to thisday they remain choice gems of theocratic morality. 

 * * * * *

SIR, That I have had a singular respect for you, the Lord knows; but thatsince your arrival to the government, my charitable expectations have beengreatly disappointed, I may not deny. . . . 

1st. I am afraid you cannot clear yourself from the guilt of bribery andunrighteousness. . . . 

2d. I am afraid that you have not been true to the interest of yourcountry, as God (considering his marvellous dispensations towards you) andhis people have expected from you. . . . 

3d. I am afraid that you cannot clear yourself from the guilt of muchhypocrisy and falseness in the affair of the college. . . . 

4th. I am afraid that the guilt of innocent blood is still crying in theears of the Lord against you. I mean the blood of Leister and Milburn. MyLord Bellamont said to me, that he was one of the committee of Parliamentwho examined the matter; and that those men were not only murdered, butbarbarously murdered. . . . 

5th. I am afraid that the Lord is offended with you, in that youordinarily forsake the worship of God in the holy church to which you arerelated, in the afternoon on the Lord's day, and after the publickexercise, spend the whole time with some persons reputed very ungodly men. I am sure your father did not so. . . . Would you choose to be with them orsuch as they are in another world, unto which you are hastening?. . . I amunder pressures of conscience to bear a publick testimony without respectof persons. . . . I trust in Christ that when I am gone, I shall obtain agood report of my having been faithful before him. To his mercy I commendyou, and remain in him, Yours to serve, I. MATHER. [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ first series, iii. 126. ]BOSTON, _January_ 20, 1707-8. To the Governour. 

 * * * * *

BOSTON, _Jan_. 20, 1707-8. 

Sir, There have appeared such things in your conduct, that a just concernfor the welfare of your excellency seems to render it necessary, that youshould be _faithfully_ advised of them. . . . You will give me leave towrite nothing, but in a style, whereof an ignorant mob, to whom (as wellas the General Assembly) you think fit to communicate what _fragments_ youplease of my letters, must be _competent judges_. I must proceedaccordingly. . . . I weakly believed that the wicked and horrid things donebefore the righteous Revolution, had been heartily repented of; and thatthe rueful business at New York, which many illustrious persons . . . Calleda barbarous murder, . . . Had been considered with such a repentance, asmight save you and your family from any further storms of heaven for therevenging of it. . . . Sir, your _snare_ has been that thing, the _hatred_whereof is most expressly required of the _ruler_, namely COVETOUSNESS. When a governour shall make his government more an engine to enrichhimself, than to _befriend his country_, and shall by the unhallowedhunger of riches be prevailed withal to do many wrong, base, dishonourablethings; it is a covetousness which will shut out from the kingdom ofheaven; and sometimes the _loss of a government on earth_ also is thepunishment of it. . . . The main channel of that covetousness has been thereign of bribery, which you, sir, have set up in the land, where it washardly known, till you brought it in fashion. . . . And there lie affidavitsbefore the queen and council, which affirm that you have been guilty of itin very many instances. I do also know that you have. . . . 

Sir, you are sensible that there is a judgment to come, wherein theglorious Lord will demand, how far you aimed at serving him in yourgovernment; . . . How far you did in your government encourage those thathad most of his image upon them, or place your eyes on the wicked of theland. Your _age_ and _health_, as well as other circumstances, greatlyinvite you, sir, to entertain _awful thoughts_ of this matter, andsolicit the divine mercy through the only sacrifice. . . . Yet if thetroubles you brought on yourself should procure your abdication and recessunto a more private condition, and your present _parasites_ forsakeyou, as you _may be sure they will_, I should think it my duty to doyou all the good offices imaginable. 

Finally, I can forgive and forget injuries; and I hope I am somewhat readyfor _sunset_; the more for having discharged the duty of this letter. . . . 

Your humble and faithful servant, COTTON MATHER. [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ first series, iii. 128. ]

 * * * * *

But these venomous priests had tried their fangs upon a resolute and anable man. Dudley shook them off like vermin. 

 * * * * *

GENTLEMEN, Yours of the 20th instant I received; and the contents, both asto the matter and manner, astonish me to the last degree. I must think youhave extremely forgot your own station, as well as my character; otherwiseit had been impossible to have made such an open breach upon all the lawsof decency, honour, justice, and Christianity, as you have done intreating me with an air of superiority and contempt, which would have beengreatly culpable towards a Christian of the lowest order, and isinsufferably rude toward one whom divine Providence has honoured with thecharacter of your governour. . . . 

Why, gentlemen, have you been so long silent? and suffered sin to lie uponme years after years? You cannot pretend any new information as to themain of your charge; for you have privately given your tongues a looseupon these heads, I am well assured, when you thought you could serveyourselves by exposing me. Surely murder, robberies, and other suchflaming immoralities were as reprovable then as now. . . . 

Really, gentlemen, conscience and religion are things too solemn, venerable, or sacred, to be played with, or made a covering for actions sodisagreeable to the gospel, as these your endeavours to expose me and mymost faithful services to contempt; nay, to unhinge the government. . . . 

I desire you will keep your station, and let fifty or sixty goodministers, your equals in the province, have a share in the government ofthe college, and advise thereabouts as well as yourselves, and I hope allwill be well. . . . 

I am your humble servant, J. DUDLEY. 

To the Reverend Doctors Mathers. [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ firstseries, iii. 135. ]

CHAPTER X. 

THE LAWYERS. 

In the age of sacred caste the priest is likewise the law-maker and thejudge, and as succeeding generations of ecclesiastics slowly spin theintricate web of their ceremonial code, they fail not to teach the peoplethat their holy ordinances were received of yore from divine lips by somegreat prophet. This process is beautifully exemplified in the OldTestament: though the complicated ritualism of Leviticus was alwaysreverently attributed to Moses, it was evidently the work of a much laterperiod; for the present purpose, however, its date is immaterial, itsuffices to follow the account the scribes thought fit to give in Kings. 

Long after the time of Solomon, Josiah one day sent to inquire about somerepairs then being made at the Temple, when suddenly, "Hilkiah the highpriest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law inthe house of the Lord. " And he gave the book to Shaphan. 

"And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book. . . Herent his clothes. " And he was greatly alarmed for fear of the wrath of theLord, because their fathers had not hearkened unto the words of this book;as indeed it was impossible they should, since they knew nothing about it. So, to find out what was best to be done, he sent Hilkiah and others toHuldah the prophetess, who told them that the wrath of the Lord was indeedkindled, and he would bring evil unto the land; but, because Josiah'sheart had been tender, and he had humbled himself, and rent his clothes, and wept when he had heard what was spoken, he should be gathered into hisgrave in peace, and his eyes should not see the evil. [Footnote: 2 _Kings_xxii. ]

Such is an example of the process whereby a compilation of canonicalstatutes is brought into practical operation by adroitly working upon thesuperstitions fears of the civil magistrate; at an earlier period thepriests administer justice in person. 

Eli judged Israel forty years, and Samuel went on circuit all the days ofhis life; "and he went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, and Gilgal, and Mizpeh, and judged Israel in all those places. " [Footnote: 1_Samuel_ iv. , vii. ] But, sooner or later, the time must come when asoldier is absolutely necessary, both to fight foreign enemies and toenforce obedience at home; and then some chief is set up whom the clergythink they can control: thus Samuel anointed Saul to be captain over theLord's inheritance. [Footnote: 1 _Samuel_ x. ] So long as the king issubmissive to authority all goes well, but any insubordination is promptlypunished; and this was the fate of Saul. On one occasion, when he was indifficulty and Samuel happened to be away, he was so rash as to sacrificea burnt offering himself; his presumption offended the prophet, whoforthwith declared that his kingdom should not continue. [Footnote: 1_Samuel_ xiii. ] After this the relations between them went from bad toworse, and it was not long before the priest began to intrigue with David, whom he presently anointed. [Footnote: _Idem_, xvi. ] The end of it wasthat Saul was defeated in battle, as Samuel's ghost foretold, for notobeying "the voice of the Lord;" and after a struggle between the housesof Saul and David, all the elders of Israel went to Hebron, where Davidmade a league with them, and in return they anointed him king. [Footnote:2 _Samuel_ v. ]. 

Thenceforward, or from the moment when a layman assumed control of thetemporal power, the Jewish chronicles teem with the sins and the disastersof those rulers who did not walk in the way of their fathers, or who, inother words, were restive under ecclesiastical dictation. 

So long as this period lasts, during which the sovereign is forced to obeythe behests of the priesthood, an arbitrary despotism is inevitable; norcan the foundation of equal justice and civil liberty be laid until firstthe military, and then the legal profession, has become distinct andemancipated from clerical control, and jurisprudence has grown into therecognized calling of a special class. 

These phenomena tend to explain the peculiar and original direction takenby legal thought in Massachusetts, for they throw light upon theinfluences under which her first generation of lawyers grew up, whosedestiny it was to impress upon her institutions the form they have eversince retained. 

The traditions inherited from the theocracy were vicious in the extreme. For ten years after the settlement the clergy and their aristocraticallies stubbornly refused either to recognize the common law or to enact acode; and when at length further resistance to the demands of the freemenwas impossible, the Rev. Nathaniel Ward drew up "The Body of Liberties, "which, though it perhaps sufficiently defined civil obligations, containedthis extraordinary provision concerning crimes:--

"No mans life shall be taken away, no mans honour or good name shall bestayned, no mans person shall be arested, restrayned, banished, dismembred, nor any wayes punished, . . . Unlesse it be by virtue or equitieof some expresse law of the country waranting the same, . . . Or in case ofthe defect of a law in any parteculer case by the word of God. And incapitall cases, or in cases concerning dismembring or banishment accordingto that word to be judged by the Generall Court. " [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ third series, viii. 216]

The whole of the subtle policy, whereof this legislation forms a part, well repays attentive study. The relation of the church to the state wasnot unlike that of Samuel toward Saul, for no public man could withstandits attack, as was demonstrated by the fate of Vane. Much of the story hasbeen told already in describing the process whereby the clergy acquired asubstantial ascendency over the executive and legislature, through theircommand of the constituencies which it was the labor of their lives tofill with loyal retainers. Nothing therefore remains to be done but totrace the means they employed to invest their order with judicialattributes. 

From the outset lawyers were excluded from practice, so the magistrateswere nothing but common politicians who were nominated by the priests;thus the bench was not only filled with trusty partisans withoutprofessional training or instincts, but also, as they were electedannually, they were practically removable at pleasure should they by anychance rebel. Upon these points there is abundant evidence: "Thegovernment was first by way of charter, which was chiefly managed by thepreachers, who by their power with the people made all the magistrates &kept them so intirely under obedience, that they durst not act withoutthem. Soe that whensoever anything strange or unusuall was brought beforethem, they would not determine the matter without consulting thepreachers, for should any bee soe sturdy as to presume to act of himselfwithout takeing advice & directions, he might bee sure of it, hismagistracy ended with the year. He could bee noe magistrate for them, thatwas not approved and recommended from the pulpit, & he could expect littlerecommendation who was not the preacher's most humble servant. Soe theywho treated, caressed & presented the preachers most, were the rulers &magistrates among the people. " [Footnote: An Account of the Colonies, etc. , Lambeth MSS. Perry's _Historical Collections_, iii. 48. ]

From the decisions of such a judiciary the only appeal lay to a popularassembly, which could always be manipulated. Obviously, ecclesiasticalsupervision over the ordinary course of litigation was amply provided for. The adjudication of the more important controversies was reserved; for itwas expressly enacted that doubtful questions and the higher crimes shouldbe judged according to the Word of God. This master-stroke resembledHilkiah's when he imposed his book on Josiah; for on no point ofdiscipline were the ministers so emphatic as on the sacred and absolutenature of their prerogative to interpret the Scriptures; nor did they failto impress upon the people that it was a sin akin to sacrilege for thelaity to dispute their exposition of the Bible. 

The deduction to be drawn from these premises is plain. The assembledelders, acting in their advisory capacity, constituted a supreme tribunalof last resort, wholly superior to carnal precedent, and capable ofevolving whatsoever decrees they deemed expedient from the depths of theirconsciousness. [Footnote: See Gorton's case, Winthrop, ii. 146. ] Theresult exemplifies the precision with which a cause operating upon thehuman mind is followed by its consequence; and the action of thisresistless force is painfully apparent in every state prosecution underthe Puritan Commonwealth, from Wheelwright's to Margaret Brewster's. Theabsorption of sacerdotal, political, and juridical functions by a singleclass produces an arbitrary despotism; and before judges greedy of earthlydominion, flushed by the sense of power, unrestrained by rules of law orevidence, and unopposed by a resolute and courageous bar, trials mustbecome little more than conventional forms, precursors of predeterminedpunishments. 

After a period of about half a century these social conditions underwentradical change, but traditions remained that deeply affected thesubsequent development of the people, and produced a marked bent ofthought in the lawyers who afterward wrote the Constitution. 

At the accession of William III. Great progress had been made in thescience of colonial government; charters had been granted to Connecticutand Rhode Island in 1662 and 1663, which, except in the survival of theancient and meaningless jargon of incorporation, had a decidedly modernform. By these regular local representative governments were establishedwith full power of legislation, save in so far as limited by clausesrequiring conformity with the law of England; and they served theirpurpose well, for both were kept in force many years after the Revolution, Rhode Island's not having been superseded until 1843. 

The stubborn selfishness of the theocracy led to the adoption of a lessliberal policy toward Massachusetts. The nomination of the executiveofficers was retained by the crown, and the governor was given verysubstantial means of maintaining his authority; he could reject thecouncillors elected by the Assembly; he appointed the judges and sheriffswith the advice of this body, whose composition he could thus in a measurecontrol; he had a veto, and was commander-in-chief. Appeals to the king incouncil were also provided for in personal actions where the matter indifference exceeded three hundred pounds. 

On the other hand, the legislature made all appropriations, includingthose for the salaries of the governor and judges, and was only limited inits capacity to enact statutes by the clause invariably inserted in thesepatents. 

This, therefore, is the precise moment when the modern theory ofconstitutional limitations first appears defined; distinct from theancient corporate precedents. By a combination of circumstances also, asufficient sanction for the written law happened to be provided, thusmaking the conception complete, for the tribunal of last resort was anEnglish court sustained by ample physical force; nevertheless the greatprinciple of coordinate departments of government was not yet understood, and substantial relief against legislative usurpation had to be sought ina foreign jurisdiction. To lawyers of our own time it is self-evident thatthe restrictions of an organic code must be futile unless they are upheldby a judiciary not only secure in tenure and pay, but removed as far asmay be from partisan passions. This truth, however, remained to bediscovered amid the abuses of the eighteenth century, for the position ofthe provincial bench was unsatisfactory in the last degree. The justicesheld their commissions at the king's pleasure, but their salaries were atthe mercy of the deputies; they were therefore subject to the caprice ofantagonistic masters. Nor was this the worst, for the charter did notisolate the judicial office. Under the theocracy the policy of the clergyhad been to suppress the study of law in order to concentrate their ownpower; hence no training was thought necessary for the magistrate, nopolitician was considered incompetent to fill the judgment-seat because ofignorance of his duty, and the office-hunter, having got his place byinfluence, was deemed at liberty to use it as a point of vantage, fromwhence to prosecute his chosen career. For example, the first chiefjustice was Stoughton, who was appointed by Phips, probably at theinstigation of Increase Mather. As he was bred for the church, he couldhave had no knowledge to recommend him, and his peculiar qualificationswere doubtless family connections and a narrow and bigoted mind; he wasalso lieutenant-governor, a member of the council, and part of the timecommander-in-chief. 

Thomas Danforth was the senior associate, who is described by Sewall as "avery good husbandman, and a very good Christian, and a good councillor;"but his reputation as a jurist rested upon a spotless record, he havingbeen the most uncompromising of the high church managers. 

Wait Winthrop was a soldier, and was not only in the council, but soactive in public life that years afterward, while on the bench, he was setup as a candidate for governor in opposition to Dudley. 

John Richards was a merchant, who had been sent to England as agent in1681, just when the troubles came to a crisis; but the labors by which hewon the ermine seem plain enough, for he was bail for Increase Mather whensued by Randolph, and was appointed by Phips. Samuel Sewall was brought upto preach, took to politics on the conservative side, and was regularlychosen to the council. 

This motley crew, who formed the first superior court, had but one traitin common: they belonged to the clique who controlled the patronage; andas it began so it continued to the end, for Hutchinson, the last chiefjustice but one, was a merchant; yet he was also probate judge, lieutenant-governor, councillor, and leader of the Tories. In sointelligent a community such prostitution of the judicial office wouldhave been impossible but for the pernicious tradition that the civilmagistrate needed no special training to perform his duty, and was to takehis law from those who expounded the Word of God. 

And there was another inheritance, if possible, more baleful still. Thelegislature, under the Puritan Commonwealth, had been the court of lastresort, and it was by no means forward to abandon its prerogative. It wasconsequently always ready to listen to the complaints of suitors whothought themselves aggrieved by the decisions of the regular tribunals, and it was fond of altering the course of justice to make it conform towhat the members were pleased to call equity. This abuse finally took suchproportions that Hutchinson remonstrated vigorously in a speech to thehouses in 1772. 

"Much time is usually spent . . . In considering petitions for new trials atlaw, for leave to sell the real estates of persons deceased, by theirexecutors, or administrators, and the real estates of minors, by theirguardians. All such private business is properly cognizable by theestablished judicatories. . . . A legislative body . . . Is extremely improperfor such decisions. The polity of the English government seldom admits ofthe exercise of this executive and judiciary power by the legislature, andI know of nothing special in the government of this province, to givecountenance to it. " [Footnote: Mass. State Papers, 1765-1775, p. 314. ]

The disposition to interfere in what did not concern them was probablyaggravated by the presence of judicial politicians in the popularassemblies, who seem to have been unable to resist the temptation ofintriguing to procure legislation to affect the litigation before them. But the simplest way to illustrate the working of the system in all itsbearings will be to give a history of a celebrated case finally taken onappeal to the Privy Council. The cause arose in Connecticut, it is true, but the social condition of the two colonies was so similar as to makethis circumstance immaterial. 

Wait Winthrop, [Footnote: This report of Winthrop v. Lechmere is takenfrom a MS. Brief in the possession of Hon. R. C. Winthrop. ] grandson ofthe first John Winthrop, died intestate in 1717, leaving two children, John, of New London, and Anne, wife of Thomas Lechmere, of Boston. Thefather intended his son should take the land according to the familytradition, and in pursuance of this purpose he put him in actualpossession of the Connecticut property in 1711; but he neglected to make awill. 

By the common law of England real estate descended to the eldest son ofhim who was last seised; but in 1699 the Assembly had passed a statute ofdistribution, copied from a Massachusetts act, which directed the probatecourt, after payment of debts, to make a "distribution of . . . All theresidue . . . Of the real and personal estate by equal portions to and amongthe children . . . Except the eldest son . . . Who shall have two shares. "

Here, then, at the threshold, the constitutional question had to be met, as to whether the colonial enactment was not in conflict with therestriction in the charter, and therefore void. Winthrop took out lettersof administration, and Lechmere became one of the sureties on his bond. There was no disagreement about the personalty, but the son's claim to theland was disputed, though suit was not brought against him till 1723. 

The litigation began in Boston, but was soon transferred to New London, where, in July, 1724, Lechmere petitioned for an account. Winthropforthwith exhibited an inventory of the chattels, and moved that it shouldbe accepted as final; but the judge of probate declined so to rule. ThenLechmere prayed for leave to sue on the bond in the name of the judge. Hisprayer was granted, and he presently began no less than six actions indifferent forms. 

Much time was consumed in disposing of technicalities, but at length twotest cases were brought before the superior court. One, being in substancean action on the bond, was tried on the general issue, and the verdict wasfor the defendant. The other was a writ of partition, wherein Anne wasdescribed as co-heir with her brother. It was argued on demurrer to thedeclaration, and the defendant again prevailed. 

Thus, so far as judicial decision could determine private rights toproperty, Winthrop had established his title; but he represented theunpopular side in the controversy, and his troubles were just beginning. Christopher Christophers was the judge of probate, he was also a justiceof the superior court, and a member of the Assembly, of which body theplaintiff's counsel was speaker. In April, 1725, when Lechmere had finallyexhausted his legal remedies, he addressed a petition to the legislature, where he had this strong support, and which was not to meet till May, stating the impossibility of obtaining relief by ordinary means, andasking to have one of the judgments set aside and a new trial ordered, insuch form as to enable him to maintain his writ of partition, notwithstanding the solemn decision against him by the court of lastresort. The defendant in vain protested that no error was alleged, no newevidence produced, nor any matter of equity advanced which might justifyinterference: the Assembly had determined to sustain the statute ofdistributions, and it accordingly resolved that in cases of thisdescription relief ought to be given in probate by means of a new grant ofadministration, to be executed according to the terms of the act. 

Winthrop was much alarmed, and with reason, for he saw at once theintention of the legislature was to induce the judges to assume anunprecedented jurisdiction; he therefore again offered his account, whichChristophers rejected, and he appealed from the decision. Lechmere alsoapplied for administration on behalf of his wife; and upon his prayerbeing denied, pending a final disposition of Winthrop's cause, he too wentup. In March, 1725-6, final judgment was rendered, the judges holding thatboth real and personal property should be inventoried. Winthrop thereuponentered his appeal to the Privy Council, whose jurisdiction wasperemptorily denied. 

From what afterward took place, the inference is that Christophers shrankfrom assuming alone so great a responsibility as now devolved upon him, and persuaded his brethren to share it with him; for the superior courtproceeded to issue letters of administration to Lechmere, and took hisbond, drawn to themselves personally, for the faithful performance of histrust. This was a most high-handed usurpation, for the function of thehigher tribunal in these matters was altogether appellate, it havingnothing to do with such executive business as taking bonds, which was theprovince of the judge of probate. 

However this may have been, progress was thenceforward rapid. In AprilLechmere produced a schedule of debts, which have at this day a somewhatsuspicious look, and when they were allowed, he petitioned the legislaturefor leave to sell land to pay them. Winthrop appeared and presented aremonstrance, which "the Assembly, observing the common course of justice, and the law of the colony being by application to the said Assembly, whenthe judgments of the superior courts are grievous to any person. . . Dismissed, " and immediately passed an act authorizing the sale, and makingthe administrators' deed good to convey a title. 

Then Winthrop was so incautious as to make a final effort: he filed aprotest and caution against any illegal interference with his propertypending his appeal, declaring the action already taken to be contrary tothe common and statute law of England, and to the tenor of the charter. 

The Assembly being of the opinion that this protest "had in it a greatshow of contempt, " caused Winthrop to be arrested and brought to the bar;there he not only defended his representations as reasonable, but avowedhis determination to lay all these proceedings before the king in council. "This was treated as an insolent contemptuous and disorderly behaviour" inthe prisoner, "as declaring himself _coram non judice_, and puttinghimself on a par with them, and impeaching their authoritys and thecharter; and his said protest was declared to be full of reflections, andto terrifie so far as in him lay all the authorities established by thecharter. " So they imprisoned him three days and fined him twenty poundsfor his contemptuous words. 

This leading case was afterward elaborately argued in London, and judgmentwas entered for Winthrop, upon the ground that the statute of distributionwas in conflict with the charter and therefore void; but as Connecticutresolutely refused to abandon its own policy, the utmost confusionprevailed for seventeen years regarding the settlement of estates. Duringall this time the local government made unremitting efforts to obtainrelief, and seems to have used pecuniary as well as legal arguments toeffect its purpose; at all events, it finally secured a majority in thePrivy Council, who reversed Winthrop v. Lechmere, in Clark v. Tousey. Thesame question was raised in Massachusetts in 1737, in Phillips v. Savage, but enough influence was brought to bear to prevent an adverse decision. [Footnote: _Conn. Coll. Rec. _ vii. 191, note; _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc. _1860-62, pp. 64-80, 165-171. ] A possible distinction between the two casesalso lay in the fact that the Massachusetts act had received the royalassent. 

The history of this litigation is interesting, not only as illustratingthe defects in provincial justice, but as showing the process by which theconception of constitutional limitations became rooted in the minds of thefirst generation of lawyers; and in point of fact, they were so thoroughlyimpregnated with the theory as to incline to carry it to unwarrantablelengths. For example, so justly eminent a counsel as James Otis, in hisgreat argument on the Writs of Assistance in 1761, solemnly maintained theutterly untenable proposition that an act of Parliament "against theConstitution is void: an act against natural equity is void: and if an actof Parliament should be made, in the very words of this petition, it wouldbe void. " [Footnote: Quincy's _Reports_, p. 474. ] While so sound a man, otherwise, as John Adams wrote, in 1776, to Mr. Justice Cushing: "You havemy hearty concurrence in telling the jury the nullity of acts ofParliament. . . . I am determined to die of that opinion, let the _jusgladii_ say what it will. " [Footnote: _Works of J. Adams_, ix. 390. ]

On looking back at Massachusetts as she was in the year 1700, permeatedwith the evil theocratic traditions, without judges, teachers, or books, the mind can hardly fail to be impressed with the unconquerable energywhich produced great jurists from such a soil; and yet in 1725 JeremiahGridley graduated from Harvard, who may fairly be said to have been theprogenitor of a famous race; for long before the Revolution, men likePrat, Otis, and John Adams could well have held their own before any courtof Common Law that ever sat. Such powerful counsel naturally felt acontempt for the ignorant politicians who for the most part presided overthem, which they took little pains to hide. Ruggles one day had an agedfemale witness who could find no chair and complained to him ofexhaustion. He told her to go and sit on the bench. His honor, in someirritation, calling him to account, he replied: "I really thought thatplace was made for old women. " Hutchinson says of himself: "It was aneyesore to some of the bar to have a person at the head of the law who hadnot been bred to it. " But he explains with perfect simplicity how hisoccupation as chief justice "engaged his attention, and he applied hisintervals to reading the law. " [Footnote: _Diary and Letters of ThomasHutchinson_, p. 66. ]

The British supremacy closed with the evacuation of Boston, and the colonythen became an independent state; yet in that singularly homogeneouscommunity, which had always been taught to regard their royal patents asthe bulwark of their liberties, no one seems to have seriously thought itpossible to dispense with a written instrument to serve as the basis ofthe social organization. Accordingly, in 1779, the legislature called aconvention to draft a Constitution; and it was the good fortune of thelawyers, who were chosen as delegates, to have an opportunity, not only tocorrect those abuses from which the administration of justice had so longsuffered, but to carry into practical operation their favorite theory, ofthe limitation of legislative power by the intervention of the courts. Thecourse pursued was precisely what might have been predicted of therepresentatives of a progressive yet sagacious people. Taking the oldcharter as the foundation whereon to build, they made only suchalterations as their past experience had shown them to be necessary; theyadopted no fanciful schemes, nor did they lightly depart from a systemwith which they were acquainted; and their almost servile fidelity totheir precedent, wherever it could be folio wed, is shown by the followingextracts relating to the legislative and executive departments. 

CHARTER. 

And we doe further for vs our heires and successors give and grant to thesaid governor and the Great and Generall Court or Assembly of our saidprovince or territory for the time being full power and authority fromtime to time to make ordaine and establish all manner of wholsome andreasonable orders laws statutes and ordinances directions and instructionseither with penalties or without (soe as the same be not repugnant orcontrary to the lawes of this our realme of England) as they shall judgeto be for the good and welfare of our said province or territory and forthe gouernment and ordering thereof and of the people inhabiting or whoshall inhabit the same and for the necessary support and defence of thegovernment thereof. 

CONSTITUTION. 

And further, full power and authority are hereby given and granted to thesaid General Court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and establish, allmanner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as thesame be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution, as they shalljudge to be for the good and welfare of this commonwealth, and for thegovernment and ordering thereof, and of the subjects of the same, and forthe necessary support and defence of the government thereof. 

CHARTER. 

The governour of our said province for the time being shall have authorityfrom time to time at his discretion to assemble and call together thecouncillors or assistants of our said province for the time being and thatthe said governour with the said assistants or councillors or seaven ofthem at the least shall and may from time to time hold and keep a councillfor the ordering and directing the affaires of our said province. 

CONSTITUTION. 

The governour shall have authority, from time to time at his discretion, to assemble and call together the councillors of this commonwealth for thetime being; and the governour, with the said councillors, or five of themat least, shall, and may, from time to time, hold and keep a council, forthe ordering and directing the affairs of the commonwealth, agreeably tothe constitution and the laws of the land. 

 * * * * *

The clause concerning the council is curious as an instance of thesurvival of an antiquated form. In the province the body had a use, for itwas a regular upper chamber; but when, in 1779, a senate was added, itbecame an anomalous and meaningless third house; yet it is still regularlyelected, though its inutility is obvious. So long ago as 1814 John Adamshad become very tired of it; he then wrote: "This constitution, whichexisted in my handwriting, made the governor annually elective, gave himthe executive power, shackled with a council, that I now wish wasannihilated. " [Footnote: _Works of J. Adams_, vi. 465. ]

On the other hand, the changes made are even more interesting, as anexample of the evolution of institutions. The antique document wassimplified by an orderly arrangement and division into sections; theobsolete jargon of incorporation was eliminated, which had come down fromthe mediaeval guilds; in the dispute with England the want of a bill ofrights had been severely felt, so one was prefixed; and then theconvention, probably out of regard to symmetry, blotted their otherwiseadmirable work by creating an unnecessary senate. But viewed as a whole, the grand original conception contained in this instrument, making it loomup a landmark in history, is the theory of the three coordinatedepartments in the administration of a democratic commonwealth, which hasever since been received as the corner-stone of American constitutionaljurisprudence. 

Though this assertion may at first sight seem too sweeping, it is borneout by the facts. During the first sessions of the Continental Congress noquestion was more pressing than the reorganization of the colonies shouldthey renounce their allegiance to the crown, nor was there one in regardto which the majority of the delegates were more at sea. From, theirpeculiar education the New Englanders were exceptions to the general rule, and John Adams in particular had thought out the problem in all itsdetails. His conversation so impressed some of his colleagues that he wasasked to put his views in a popular form. His first attempt was a shortletter to Richard Henry Lee, in November, 1775, in which he starts withthis proposition as fundamental: "A legislative, an executive, and ajudicial power comprehend the whole of what is meant and understood bygovernment. It is by balancing each of these powers against the other two, that the efforts in human nature towards tyranny can alone be checked andrestrained, and any degree of freedom preserved in the constitution. "[Footnote: _Works of J. Adams_, iv. 186. ]

His next tract, written in 1776 at the request of Wythe of Virginia, wasprinted and widely circulated, and similar communications were sent inreply to applications from New Jersey, North Carolina, and possibly otherStates. The effect of this discussion is apparent in all of the tenconstitutions afterward drawn, with the exception of Pennsylvania's, whichwas a failure; but none of them passed beyond the tentative or embryonicstage. It therefore remained for Massachusetts to present the model, whichin its main features has not yet been superseded. 

A first attempt was deservedly rejected by the people, and the work wasnot done until 1779; but the men who then met in convention at Cambridgeknew precisely what they meant to do. Though the executive and thelegislature were a direct inheritance, needing but little change, a deepline was drawn between the three departments, and the theory of thecoordinate judiciary was first brought to its maturity within thejurisdiction where it had been born. To attain this cherished object wasthe chief labor of the delegates, for to the supreme court was to beintrusted the dangerous task of grappling with the representative chambersand enforcing the popular charter. Therefore they made the tenure of thejudges permanent; they secured their pay; to obtain impartiality theyexcluded them from political office; while on the other hand they confinedthe legislature within its proper sphere, to the end that the governmentthey created might be one of laws and not of men. 

The experiment has proved one of those memorable triumphs which mark anera. Not only has the great conception of New England been accepted as thefundamental principle of the Federal Union, but it has been adopted byevery separate State; and more than this, during the one hundred and sixyears since the people of our Commonwealth wrote their Constitution, theyhave had as large a measure of liberty and safety under the law as menhave ever known on earth. There is no jurisdiction in the world wherejustice has been purer or more impartial; nor, probably, has there everbeen a community, of equal numbers, which has produced more numerous ormore splendid specimens of juridical and forensic talent. 

When freed from the incubus of the ecclesiastical oligarchy the range ofintellectual activity expanded, and in 1780 Massachusetts may be said, without exaggeration, to have led the liberal movement of the world; fornot only had she won almost in perfection the three chief prizes of moderncivilization, liberty of speech, toleration, and equality before the law;but she had succeeded in formulating those constitutional doctrines bywhich, during the nineteenth century, popular self-government has reachedthe highest efficiency it has ever yet attained. 

A single example, however, must suffice to show what the rise of the classof lawyers had done for individual security and liberty in thatcomparatively short interval of ninety years. 

Theocratic justice has been described; the trials of Wheelwright, and ofAnne Hutchinson, of Childe, of Holmes, and of Christison have beenrelated; and also the horrors perpetrated before that ghastly tribunal ofuntrained bigots, which condemned the miserable witches undefended andunheard. [Footnote: In England, throughout the eighteenth century, counselwere allowed to speak in criminal trials, in cases of treason andmisdemeanor only. Nor is the conduct of Massachusetts in regard to witchespeculiar. Parallel atrocities might probably be adduced from the historyof every European nation, even though the procedure of the courts weremore regular than was that of the Commission of Phips. The relation of thepriest to the sorcerer is a most interesting phenomenon of socialdevelopment; but it would require a treatise by itself. ] For the honor ofour Common wealth let the tale be told of a state prosecution after herbar was formed. 

In 1768 the British Ministry saw fit to occupy Boston with a couple ofregiments, a force large enough to irritate, but too small to overawe, thetown. From the outset bad feeling prevailed between the citizens and thesoldiers, but as the time went on the exasperation increased, and early in1770 that intense passion began to glow which precedes the outbreak ofcivil war. Yet though there were daily brawls, no blood was shed until thenight of the 5th of March, when a rabble gathered about the sentry at thecustom-house in State Street. He became frightened and called for help, Captain Preston turned out the guard, the mob pelted them, and they firedon the people without warning. A terrific outbreak was averted by aspecies of miracle, but the troops had to be withdrawn, and Preston andhis men were surrendered and indicted for murder. 

John Adams, who was a liberal, heart and soul, had just come into leadingpractice. His young friend Josiah Quincy was even more deeply pledged tothe popular cause. On the morning after the massacre, Preston, doubtlessat Hutchinson's suggestion, sent Adams a guinea as a retaining fee, which, though it seemed his utter ruin to accept, he did not dream of refusing. What Quincy went through may be guessed from his correspondence with hisfather. 

 * * * * *

BRAINTREE, March 22, 1770. 

MY DEAR SON, I am under great affliction at hearing the bitterestreproaches uttered against you, for having become an advocate for thosecriminals who are charged with the murder of their fellow-citizens. GoodGod! Is it possible? I will not believe it. 

Just before I returned home from Boston, I knew, indeed, that on the daythose criminals were committed to prison, a sergeant had inquired for youat your brother's house; but I had no apprehension that it was possible anapplication would be made to you to undertake their defence. Since then Ihave been told that you have actually engaged for Captain Preston; and Ihave heard the severest reflections made upon the occasion, by men who hadjust before manifested the highest esteem for you, as one destined to be asaviour of your country. I must own to you, it has filled the bosom ofyour aged and infirm parent with anxiety and distress, lest it should notonly prove true, but destructive of your reputation and interest; and Irepeat, I will not believe it, unless it be confirmed by your own mouth, or under your own hand. 

Your anxious and distressed parent, JOSIAH QUINCY. 

 * * * * *

BOSTON, March 26, 1770. 

HONOURED SIR, I have little leisure, and less inclination, either to knowor to take notice of those ignorant slanderers who have dared to uttertheir "bitter reproaches" in your hearing against me, for having become anadvocate for criminals charged with murder. . . . Before pouring theirreproaches into the ear of the aged and infirm, if they had been friends, they would have surely spared a little reflection on the nature of anattorney's oath and duty. . . . 

Let such be told, sir, that these criminals, charged with murder, are notyet legally proved guilty, and therefore, however criminal, are entitled, by the laws of God and man, to all legal counsel and aid; that my duty asa man obliged me to undertake; that my duty as a lawyer strengthened theobligation. . . . This and much more might be told with great truth; and Idare affirm that you and this whole people will one day rejoice that Ibecame an advocate for the aforesaid "criminals, " charged with the murderof our fellow-citizens. 

I never harboured the expectation, nor any great desire, that all menshould speak well of me. To enquire my duty, and to do it, is my aim. . . . When a plan of conduct is formed with an honest deliberation, neithermurmuring, slander, nor reproaches move. . . . There are honest men in allsects, --I wish their approbation;--there are wicked bigots in allparties, --I abhor them. 

I am, truly and affectionately, your son, JOSIAH QUINCY, Jr. [Footnote: _Memoir of Josiah Quincy, Jr. _ pp. 26, 27. ]

 * * * * *

Many of the most respected citizens asserted and believed that thesoldiers had fired with premeditated malice, for the purpose of revenge;and popular indignation was so deep and strong that even the judges wereinclined to shrink. As Hutchinson was acting governor at the time, thechief responsibility fell on Benjamin Lynde, the senior associate, who wasby good fortune tolerably competent. He was the son of the elder Lynde, who, with the exception of Paul Dudley, was the only provincial chiefjustice worthy to be called a lawyer. 

The juries were of course drawn from among those men who afterward foughtat Lexington and Bunker Hill, and, like the presiding judge and thecounsel, they sympathized with the Revolutionary cause. Yet the prisonerswere patiently tried according to the law and the evidence; all thatskill, learning, and courage could do for them was done, the court chargedimpartially, and the verdicts were, Not guilty. 

CHAPTER XI. 

THE REVOLUTION. 

Status appears to be that stage of civilisation whence advancingcommunities emerge into the era of individual liberty. In its most perfectdevelopment it takes the form of caste, and the presumption is themovement toward caste begins upon the abandonment of a wandering life, andvaries in intensity with the environment and temperament of each race, thefeebler sinking into a state of equilibrium, when change by spontaneousgrowth ceases to be perceptible. So long as the brain remains too feeblefor sustained original thought, and man therefore lacks the energy torebel against routine, this condition of existence must continue, and itsinevitable tendency is toward rigid distinctions of rank, and as anecessary consequence toward the limitation of the range of ambition, bythe conventional lines dividing the occupations of the classes. Such atleast in a general way was the progression of the Jews, and in a lessmarked degree of the barbarians who overran the Roman Empire. Yet eventhese, when they acquired permanent abodes, gravitated strongly enoughtoward caste to produce a social system based on monopoly and privilegewhich lasted through many centuries. On the other hand, the democraticformula of "equality before the law" best defines the modern conception ofhuman relations, and this maxim indicates a tone of thought directly theconverse of that which begot status; for whereas the one strove to raiseimpassable barriers against free competition in the struggle forexistence, the ideal of the other is to offer the fullest scope for theexpansion of the faculties. 

As in Western Europe church and state alike rested upon the customs of theMiddle Ages, a change so fundamental must have wrought the overthrow, notonly of the vastest vested interests, but of the profoundest religiousprejudices, consequently, it could not have been accomplished peaceably;and in point of fact the conservatives were routed in two terrificoutbreaks, whereof the second was the sequence of the first, thoughfollowing it after a considerable interval of time. By the wars of theReformation freedom of thought was gained; by the revolutions of theeighteenth century, which swept away the incubus of feudalism, liberty ofaction was won; and as Massachusetts had been colonized by the radicals ofthe first insurrection, it was not unnatural that their children shouldhave led the second. So much may be readily conceded, and yet theinherited tendency toward liberalism alone would have been insufficient tohave inspired the peculiar unanimity of sentiment which animated herpeople in their resistance to Great Britain, and which perhaps wasstronger among her clergy, whose instincts regarding domestic affairs wereintensely conservative, than among any other portion of her population. The reasons for this phenomenon are worthy of investigation, for they arenot only interesting in themselves, but they furnish an admirableillustration of the irresistible action of antecedent and external causeson the human mind. 

Under the Puritan Commonwealth the church gave distinction and power, andtherefore monopolized the ability which sought professional life; butunder the provincial government new careers were opened, and intellectualactivity began to flow in broader channels. John Adams illustrates theeffect produced by the changed environment; when only twenty he made thissuggestive entry in his Diary: "The following questions may be answeredsome time or other, namely, --Where do we find a precept in the Gospelrequiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds?Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumperythat we find religion encumbered with in these days?" [Footnote: _Worksof J. Adams_, ii. 5. ]

Such men became lawyers, doctors, or merchants; theology ceased to occupytheir minds; and gradually the secular thought of New England grew to becoincident with that of the other colonies. 

Throughout America the institutions favored individuality. No privilegedclass existed among the whites. Under the careless rule of Great Britainhabits of personal liberty had taken root, which showed themselves in thetenacity wherewith the people clung to their customs of self-government;and so long as these usages were respected, under which they had alwayslived, and which they believed to be as well established as Magna Charta, there were not in all the king's broad dominions more loyal subjects thanmen like Washington, Jefferson, and Jay. 

The generation now living can read the history of the Revolutiondispassionately, and to them it is growing clear that our ancestors weretechnically in the wrong. For centuries Parliament has been theoreticallyabsolute; therefore it might constitutionally tax the colonies, or dowhatsoever else with them it pleased. Practically, however, it is self-evident that the most perfect despotism must be limited by the extent towhich subjects will obey, and this is a matter of habit; rebellions, therefore, are usually caused by the conservative instinct, represented bythe will of the sovereign, attempting to enforce obedience to customswhich a people have outgrown. 

In 1776, though the Middle Ages had passed, their traditions stillprevailed in Europe, and probably the antagonism between this survival ofa dead civilization and the modern democracy of America was too deep forany arbitrament save trial by battle. Identically the same dispute hadarisen in England the century before, when the commons rebelled againstthe prerogatives of the crown, and Cromwell fought like Washington, in thecause of individual emancipation; but the movement in Great Britain wastoo radical for the age, and was followed by a reaction whose force wasnot spent when George III. Came to the throne. 

Precedent is only inflexible among stationary races, and advancing nationsglory in their capacity for change; hence it is precisely those who haveled revolt successfully who have won the brightest fame. If, therefore, itbe admitted that they should rank among mankind's noblest benefactors, whohave risked their lives to win the freedom we enjoy, and which seemsdestined to endure, there are few to whom posterity owes a deeper debtthan to our early statesmen; nor, judging their handiwork by the test oftime, have many lived who in genius have surpassed them. In the fourtharticle of their Declaration of Rights, the Continental Congress resolvedthat the colonists "are entitled to a free and exclusive power oflegislation in their several provincial legislatures, . . . In all cases oftaxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of theirsovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, . . . We cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of Parliament asare, _bona fide_, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce. "

In 1778 a statute was passed, of which an English jurist wrote in 1885:"One act, indeed, of the British Parliament might, looked at in the lightof history, claim a peculiar sanctity. It is certainly an enactment ofwhich the terms, we may safely predict, will never be repealed and thespirit never be violated. . . . It provides that Parliament' will not imposeany duty, tax or assessment whatever, payable in any of his majesty'scolonies . . . Except only such duties as it may be expedient to impose forthe regulation of commerce. '" [Footnote: _The Law of the Constitution_, Dicey, p. 62. ]

Thus is the memory of their grievance held sacred by the descendants oftheir adversaries after the lapse of a century, and the local self-government for which they pleaded has become the immutable policy of theempire. The principles they laid down have been equally enduring, for theyproclaimed the equality of men before the law, the corner-stone of moderncivilization, and the Constitution they wrote still remains thefundamental charter of the liberties of the republic of the United States. 

Nevertheless it remains true that secular liberalism alone could neverhave produced the peculiarly acrimonious hostility to Great Britainwherein Massachusetts stood preeminent, whose causes, if traced, will befound imbedded at the very foundation of her social organization, and tohave been steadily in action ever since the settlement. Too little studyis given to ecclesiastical history, for probably nothing throws so muchlight on certain phases of development; and particularly in the case ofthis Commonwealth the impulses which moulded her destiny cannot beunderstood unless the events that stimulated the passions of her clergyare steadily kept in view. 

The early aggrandizement of her priests has been described; the inevitableconflict with the law into which their ambition plunged them, and theoverthrow of the theocracy which resulted therefrom, have been related;but the causes that kept alive the old exasperation with Englandthroughout the eighteenth century have not yet been told. 

The influence of men like Leverett and Colman tended to broaden thechurch, but necessarily the process was slow; and there is no lack ofevidence that the majority of the ministers had little relish for thetoleration forced upon them by the second charter. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the sectaries soon again driven to invoke theprotection of the king. 

Though doubtless some monastic orders have been vowed to poverty, it willprobably be generally conceded that a life of privation has not foundfavor with divines as a class; and one of the earliest acts of theprovincial legislature bid each town choose an able and orthodox ministerto dispense the Word of God, who should be "suitably encouraged" by anassessment on all inhabitants without distinction. This was for many yearsa bitter grievance to the dissenting minority; but there was worse tocome; for sometimes the majority were heterodox, when pastors were electedwho gave great scandal to their evangelical brethren. Therefore, for theprevention of "atheism, irreligion and prophaness, " [Footnote: _ProvinceLaws_, 1715, c. 17. ] it was enacted in 1775 that the justices of thecounty should report any town without an orthodox minister, and thereuponthe General Court should settle a candidate recommended to them by theordained elders, and levy a special tax for his support. Nor could menanimated by the fervent piety which raised the Mathers to eminence intheir profession be expected to sit by tamely while blasphemers not onlyworshipped openly, but refused to contribute to their incomes. 

"We expect no other but Satan will show his rage against us for ourendeavors to lessen his kingdom of darkness. He hath grievously afflictedme (by God's permission) by infatuating or bewitching three or four wholive in a corner of my parish with Quaker notions, [who] now hold aseparate meeting by themselves. " [Footnote: Rev. S. Danforth, 1720. _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fourth series, i. ]

The heretics, on their side, were filled with the same stubborn spiritwhich had caused them "obstinately and proudly" to "persecute" Norton andEndicott in earlier days. In 1722 godly preachers were settled atDartmouth and Tiverton, under the act, the majority of whose people wereQuakers and Baptists; and the Friends tell their own story in a petitionthey presented to the crown in 1724: "That the said Joseph Anthony andJohn Siffon were appointed assessors of the taxes for the said town ofTiverton, and the said John Akin and said Philip Tabor for the town ofDartmouth, but some of the said assessors being of the people calledQuakers, and others of them also dissenting from the Presbyterians andIndependents, and greatest part of the inhabitants of the said towns beingalso Quakers or Anabaptists . . . The said assessors duly assessed the othertaxes . . . Relating to the support of government . . . Yet they could not inconscience assess any of the inhabitants of the said towns anything for ortowards the maintenance of any ministers. 

"That the said Joseph Anthony, John Siffon, John Akin and Philip Tabor, (on pretence of their non-compliance with the said law) were on the 25thof the month called May, 1723, committed to the jail aforesaid, where theystill continue prisoners under great sufferings and hardships both tothemselves and families, and where they must remain and die, if notrelieved by the king's royal clemancy and favour. " [Footnote: Gough's_Quakers_, iv. 222, 223. ]

A hearing was had upon this petition before the Privy Council, and inJune, 1724, an order was made directing the remission of the special taxesand the release of the prisoners, who were accordingly liberated inobedience thereto, after they had been incarcerated for thirteen months. 

The blow was felt to be so severe that the convention of ministers thenext May decided to convene a synod, and Dr. Cotton Mather was appointedto draw up a petition to the legislature. 

"Considering the great and visible decay of piety in the country, and thegrowth of many miscarriages, which we fear may have provoked the gloriousLord in a series of various judgments wonderfully to distress us. . . . It ishumbly desired that . . . The . . . Churches . . . Meet by their pastors . . . Ina synod, and from thence offer their advice upon. . . . What are themiscarriages whereof we have reason to think the judgments of heaven, uponus, call us to be more generally sensible, and what may be the mostevangelical and effectual expedients to put a stop unto those or the likemiscarriages. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ 3d ed. Ii. 292, note. ]

The "evangelical expedient" was of course to revive the CambridgePlatform; nor was such a scheme manifestly impossible, for the councilvoted "that the synod . . . Will be agreeable to this board, and thereverend ministers are desired to take their own time, for the saidassembly; and it is earnestly wished the issue thereof may be a happyreformation. " [Footnote: Chalmers's _Opinions_, i. 8. ] In the houseof representatives this resolution was read and referred to the nextsession. 

Meanwhile the Episcopalian clergymen of Boston, in much alarm, presented amemorial to the General Court, remonstrating against the proposed measure;but the council resolved "it contained an indecent reflection on theproceedings of that board, " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9. ] and dismissedit. Nothing discouraged, the remonstrants applied for protection to theBishop of London, who brought the matter to the attention of the lawofficers of the crown. In their opinion to call a synod would be "acontempt of his majesty's prerogative, " and if "notwithstanding, . . . Theyshall continue to hold their assembly, . . . The principal actors therein[should] be prosecuted . . . For a misdemeanour. " [Footnote: Chalmers's_Opinions_, p. 13. ]

Steadily and surely the coil was tightening which was destined to stranglethe established church of Massachusetts; but the resistance of theministers was desperate, and lent a tinge of theological hate to theoutbreak of the Revolution. They believed it would be impossible for themto remain a dominant priesthood if Episcopalianism, supported by thepatronage of the crown, should be allowed to take root in the land; yetthe Episcopalians represented conservatism, therefore they were forced tobecome radicals, and the liberalism they taught was fated to destroy theirpower. 

Meanwhile their sacred vineyard lay open to attack upon every side. AtBoston the royal governors went to King's Chapel and encouraged the use ofthe liturgy, while an inroad was made into Connecticut from New York. Early in the century a certain Colonel Heathcote organized a regularsystem of invasion. He was a man eminently fitted for the task, beingfilled with zeal for the conversion of dissenters. "I have the charity tobelieve that, after having heard one of our ministers preach, they willnot look upon our church to be such a monster as she is represented; andbeing convinced of some of the cheats, many of them may duly consider ofthe sin of schism. " [Footnote: Conn. _Church Documents_, i. 12. ]

"They have abundance of odd kind of laws, to prevent any dissenting . . . And endeavour to keep the people in as much blindness and unacquaintednesswith any other religion as possible, but in a more particular manner thechurch, looking upon her as the most dangerous enemy they have to grapplewithal, and abundance of pains is taken to make the ignorant think as badas possible of her; and I really believe that more than half the people inthat government think our church to be little better than the Papist, andthey fail not to improve every little thing against us. " [Footnote: Conn. _Church Documents_, i. 9. ]

He had little liking for the elders, whom he described as being "asabsolute in their respective parishes as the Pope of Rome;" but he feltkindly toward "the passive, obedient people, who dare not do otherwisethan obey. " [Footnote: _Idem_, i. 10. ] He explained the details ofhis plan in his letters, and though he was aware of the difficulties, hedid not despair, his chief anxiety being to get a suitable missionary. Hefinally chose the Rev. Mr. Muirson, and in 1706 began a series ofproselytizing tours. Nevertheless, the clergyman was wroth at thetreatment he received. 

 * * * * *

HONOR'D SIR, I entreat your acceptance of my most humble and hearty thanksfor the kind and Christian advice you were pleased to tender me inrelation to Connecticut. . . . I know that meekness and moderation is mostagreeable to the mind of our blessed Saviour, Christ, who himself was meekand lowly, and would have all his followers to learn that lesson ofhim. . . . I have duly considered all these things, and have carried myselfcivilly and kindly to the Independent party, but they have ungratefullyresented my love; yet I will further consider the obligations that my holyreligion lays upon me, to forgive injuries and wrongs, and to return goodfor their evil. . . . I desired only a liberty of conscience might be allowedto the members of the National Church of England; which, notwithstanding, they seemed unwilling to grant, and left no means untried, both foul andfair, to prevent the settling the church among them; for one of theirjustices came to my lodging and forewarned me, at my peril, frompreaching, telling me that I did an illegal thing in bringing in new waysamong them; the people were likewise threatened with prison, and aforfeiture of £5 for coming to hear me. It will require more time than youwill willingly bestow on these lines to express how rigidly and severelythey treat our people, by taking their estates by distress, when they donot willingly pay to support their ministers. . . . They tell our people thatthey will not suffer the house of God to be defiled with idolatrousworship and superstitious ceremonies. . . . They say the sign of the cross isthe mark of the beast and the sign of the devil, and that those whoreceive it are given to the devil. . . . 

Honored sir, your most assured friend, . . . 

GEO. MUIRSON. RYE, _9th January_, 1707-8. [Footnote: _Conn. Church Documents_, i. 29. ]

 * * * * *

However, in spite of his difficulties, he was able to boast that "I have. . . In one town, . . . Baptized about 32, young and old, and administeredthe Holy Sacrament to 18, who never received it before. Each time I had anumerous congregation. " [Footnote: _Conn. Church Documents_, i. 23. ]

The foregoing correspondence was with the secretary of the Society for thePropagation of the Gospel, which had been incorporated in 1701, and hadpresently afterward appointed Colonel Heathcote as their agent. They couldhave chosen no more energetic representative, nor was it long before hisexertions began to bear fruit. In 1707 nineteen inhabitants of Stratfordsent a memorial to the Bishop of London, the forerunner of many to come. "Because by reason of the said laws we are not able to support a minister, we further pray your lordship may be pleased to send one over with amissionary allowance from the honourable corporation, invested with fullpower, so as that he may preach and we hear the blessed Gospel of JesusChrist, without molestation and terror. " [Footnote: _Idem_, i. 34. ]

The Anglican prelates conceived it to be their duty to meddle with thereligious concerns of New England; therefore, by means of the organizationof the venerable society, they proceeded to plant a number of missionsthroughout the country, whose missionaries were paid from the corporatefunds. Whatever opinion may be formed of the wisdom of a policy certain toexasperate deeply so powerful and so revengeful a class as theCongregational elders, there can be no doubt the Episcopalians achieved ameasure of success, in the last degree alarming, not only among the laity, but among the clergy themselves. Mr. Reed, pastor of Stratford, was thefirst to go over, and was of course deprived of his parish; his defectionwas followed in 1722 by that of the rector of Yale and six otherministers; and the Rev. Joseph Webb, who thought the end was near, wrotein deep affliction to break the news to his friends in Boston. 

 * * * * *

FAIRFIELD, _Oct. _ 2, 1722. 

REVEREND AND HONOURED SIR, The occasion of my now giving you the troubleof these few lines is to me, and I presume to many others, melancholyenough. You have perhaps heard before now, or will hear before these cometo hand, (I suppose) of the revolt of several persons of figure among usunto the Church of England. There's the Rev. Mr. Cutler, rector of ourcollege, and Mr. Daniel Brown, the tutor thereof. There are also ofordained ministers, pastors of several churches among us, the Rev. Messieurs following, viz. John Hart of East Guilford, Samuel Whittlesey ofWallingford, Jared Eliot of Kennelworth, . . . Samuel Johnson of West-Haven, and James Wetmore of North-Haven. They are the most of them reputed men ofconsiderable learning, and all of them of a virtuous and blamelessconversation. I apprehend the axe is hereby laid to the root of our civiland sacred enjoyments; and a doleful gap opened for trouble and confusionin our churches. . . . It is a very dark day with us; and we need pity, prayers and counsel. [Footnote: Rev. Joseph Webb to Dr. C. Mather. _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ second series, ii. 131. ]

 * * * * *

From the tone in which these tidings were received it is plain that thecharity and humility of the golden age of Massachusetts were not yetaltogether extinct among her ecclesiastics. The ministers published their"sentiments" in a document beginning as follows:--

"These new Episcopalians have declared their desire to introduce anusurpation and a superstition into the church of God, clearly condemned inthe sacred Scriptures, which our loyalty and chastity to our Saviour, obliges us to keep close unto; and a tyranny, from which the whole church, which desires to be reformed, has groaned that it may be delivered. . . . Thescandalous conjunction of these unhappy men with the Papists is, perhaps, more than what they have themselves duly considered. " [Footnote: TheSentiments of the Several Ministers in Boston. _Mass. Hist. Coll. _second series, ii. 133. ] In "A Faithful Relation" of what had happened itwas observed: "It has caused some indignation in them, " (the people) "tosee the vile indignity cast by these cudweeds upon those excellentservants of God, who were the leaders of the flock that followed ourSaviour into this wilderness: and upon the ministry of them, and theirsuccessours, in which there has been seen for more than forescore yearstogether, the power and blessing of God for the salvation of manythousands in the successive generations; with a success beyond what any ofthem which set such an high value on the Episcopal ordination could everboast of!. . . It is a sensible addition, unto their horrour, to see thehorrid character of more than one or two, who have got themselvesqualified with Episcopal ordination, . . . And come over as missionaries, perhaps to serve scarce twenty families of such people, in a town ofseveral hundred families of Christians, better instructed than the verymissionaries: to think, that they must have no other ministers, but suchas are ordained, and ordered by them, who have sent over such tipplingsots unto them: instead of those pious and painful and faithfulinstructors which they are now blessed withal!" [Footnote: "A FaithfulRelation of a Late Occurrence. " _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ second series, ii. 138, 139. ]

Only three of the converts had the fortitude to withstand the pressure towhich they were exposed: Cutler, Johnson, and Brown went to England forordination; there Brown died of small-pox, but Cutler returned to Bostonas a missionary, and as he, too, possessed a certain clerical aptitude forforcible expression, it is fitting he should relate his own experiences:--

"I find that, in spite of malice and the basest arts our godly enemies caneasily stoop to, that the interest of the church grows and penetrates intothe very heart of this country. . . . This great town swarms with them"(churchmen), " and we are so confident of our power and interest that, outof four Parliament-men which this town sends to our General Assembly, thechurch intends to put up for two, though I am not very sanguine about oursuccess in it. . . . My church grows faster than I expected, and, while itdoth so, I will not be mortified by all the lies and affronts they pelt mewith. My greatest difficulty ariseth from another quarter, and is owing tothe covetous and malicious spirit of a clergyman in this town, who, inlying and villany, is a perfect overmatch for any dissenter that I know;and, after all the odium that he contracted heretofore among them, isfully reconciled and endeared to them by his falsehood to the church. "[Footnote: Dr. Timothy Cutler to Dr. Zachary Grey, April 2, 1725, Perry's_Collection_, iii. 663. ]

Time did not tend to pacify the feud. There was no bishop in America, andcandidates had to be sent to England for ordination; nor without such anofficial was it found possible to enforce due discipline; hence theanxiety of Dr. Johnson, and, indeed, of all the Episcopalian clergy, tohave one appointed for the colonies was not unreasonable. Nevertheless, the opposition they met with was acrimonious in the extreme, so much so asto make them hostile to the charters themselves, which they thoughtsheltered their adversaries. 

"The king, by his instructions to our governor, demands a salary; and ifhe punishes our obstinacy by vacating our charter, I shall think it aneminent blessing of his illustrious reign. " [Footnote: Dr. Cutler to Dr. Grey, April 20, 1731. Perry's _Coll. _ iii. ]

Whitefield came in 1740, and the tumult of the great revival roused freshanimosities. 

"When Mr. Whitefield first arrived here the whole town was alarmed. . . . Theconventicles were crowded; but he chose rather our Common, wheremultitudes might see him in all his awful postures; besides that, in onecrowded conventicle, before he came in, six were killed in a fright. Thefellow treated the most venerable with an air of superiority. But heforever lashed and anathematized the Church of England; and that wasenough. 

"After him came one Tennent, a monster! impudent and noisy, and told themall they were damn'd, damn'd, damn'd! This charmed them, and in the mostdreadful winter that i ever saw, people wallowed in the snow night and dayfor the benefit of his beastly brayings; and many ended their days underthese fatigues. Both of them carried more money out of these parts thanthe poor could be thankful for. " [Footnote: Dr. Cutler to Dr. Grey, Sept. 24, 1743. Perry's _Coll. _ iii. 676. ]

The excitement was followed by its natural reaction conversions becamenumerous, and the unevangelical temper this bred between the rivalclergymen is painfully apparent in a correspondence wherein Dr. Johnsonbecame involved. Mr. Gold, the Congregationalist minister of Stratford, whom he called a dissenter, had said of him "that he was a thief, androbber of churches, and had no business in the place; that his churchdoors stood open to all mischief and wickedness, and other words of likeimport. " He therefore wrote to defend himself: "As to my having nobusiness here, I will only say that to me it appears most evident that Ihave as much business here at least as you have, --being appointed by asociety in England incorporated by royal charter to provide ministers forthe church people in America; nor does his majesty allow of anyestablishment here, exclusive of the church, much less of anything thatshould preclude the society he has incorporated from providing and sendingministers to the church people in these countries. " [Footnote: _Life ofDr. Samuel Johnson_, p. 108. ] To which Mr. Gold replied:--

 * * * * *

As for the pleas which you make for Col. Lewis, and others that have brokeaway disorderly from our church, I think there's neither weight nor truthin them; nor do I believe such poor shifts will stand them nor you in anystead in the awful day of account; and as for your saying that as bad asyou are yet you lie open to conviction, --for my part I find no reason tothink you do, seeing you are so free and full in denying plain matters offact. . . . I don't think it worth my while to say anything further in theaffair, and as you began the controversy against rule or justice, so Ihope modesty will induce you to desist; and do assure you that if you seecause to make any more replies, my purpose is, without reading of them, toput them under the pot among my other thorns and there let one flamequench the matter. . . . HEZ. GOLD. 

STRATFORD, _July_ 21, 1741. [Footnote: _Life of Dr. Samuel Johnson, _p. 111. ]

 * * * * *

And so by an obvious sequence of cause and effect it came to pass that theclergy were early ripe for rebellion, and only awaited their opportunity. Nor could it have been otherwise. An autocratic priesthood had seen theirorder stripped of its privileges one by one, until nothing remained buttheir moral empire over their parishioners, and then at last not only didan association of rival ecclesiastics send over emissaries to steal awaytheir people, but they proposed to establish a bishop in the land. Thethought was wormwood. He would be rich, he would live in a palace, hewould be supported by the patronage and pomp of the royal governors; theimposing ceremonial would become fashionable; and in imagination theyalready saw themselves reduced to the humble position of dissenters intheir own kingdom. Jonathan Mayhew was called a heretic by his moreconservative brethren, but he was one of the ablest and the most acrid ofthe Boston ministers. He took little pains to disguise his feelings, andso early as 1750 he preached a sermon, which was once famous, wherein hetold his hearers that it was their duty to oppose the encroachment of theBritish prelates, if necessary, by force. 

"Suppose, then, it was allowed, in general, that the clergy were a usefulorder of men; that they ought to be esteemed very highly in love for theirwork's sake, and to be decently supported by those they serve, 'thelaborer being worthy of his reward. ' Suppose, further, that a number ofreverend and right reverend drones, who worked not; who preached, perhaps, but once a year, and then not the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the divineright of tithes, the dignity of their office as ambassadors of Christ, . . . Suppose such men as these, spending their lives in effeminacy, luxury, andidleness; . . . Suppose this should be the case, . . . Would not everybody beastonished at such insolence, injustice, and impiety?" [Footnote:"Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission, " Jonathan Mayhew. Thornton's_American Pulpit_, pp. 71, 72. ] "Civil tyranny is usually small in itsbeginning, like 'the drop of a bucket, ' till at length, like a mightytorrent. . . It bears down all before it. . . . Thus it is as to ecclesiasticaltyranny also--the most cruel, intolerable, and impious of any. From smallbeginnings, 'it exalts itself above all that is called God and that isworshipped. ' People have no security against being unmercifully priest-ridden but by keeping all imperious bishops, and other clergymen who loveto 'lord it over God's heritage, ' from getting their foot into the stirrupat all. . . . For which reason it becomes every friend to truth and humankind, every lover of God and the Christian religion, to bear a part inopposing this hateful monster. " [Footnote: Preface to "A Discourseconcerning Unlimited Submission, " Jonathan Mayhew. Thornton's _Amer. Pulpit_, pp. 50, 51. ]

Between these envenomed priests peace was impossible; each year broughtwith it some new aggression which added fuel to the flame. In 1763, Mr. Apthorp, missionary at Cambridge, published a pamphlet, in answer, as heexplained, to "some anonymous libels which appeared in our newspapers . . . Grossly reflecting on the society & their missionaries, & in particular onthe mission at Cambridge. " [Footnote: East Apthorp to the Secretary, June25, 1763. Perry's _Coll. _ iii. 500. ]

By this time the passions of the Congregationalist divines had reached apoint when words seemed hardly adequate to give them expression. The Rev. Ezra Stiles wrote to Dr. Mayhew in these terms:--

"Shall we be hushed into silence, by those whose tender mercies arecruelty; and who, notwithstanding their pretence of moderation, wish thesubversion of our churches, and are combined, in united, steady andvigorous effort, by all the arts of subtlety and intreague, for our ruin?"[Footnote: Dr. Ezra Stiles to Dr. Mayhew, 1763. _Life of Mayhew_, p. 246. ]

Mr. Stiles need have felt no anxiety, for, according to Mr. Apthorp, "thisoccasion was greedily seized, . . . By a dissenting minister of Boston, aman of a singular character, of good abilities, but of a turbulent &contentious disposition, at variance, not only with the Church of England, but in the essential doctrines of religion, with most of his own party. "[Footnote: East Apthorp to the Secretary. Perry's _Coll. _ iii. 500. ]He alluded to a tract written by Dr. Mayhew in answer to his pamphlet, inwhich he reproduced the charge made by Mr. Stiles: "The society have longhad a formal design to dissolve and root out all our New-England churches;or, in other words, to reduce them all to the Episcopal form. " [Footnote:_Observations on the Charter, etc. Of the Society_, p. 107. ] Andwithal he clothed his thoughts in language which angered Mr. Caner:--

"A few days after, Mr. Apthorpe published the enclosed pamphlet, invindication of the institution and conduct of the society, whichoccasioned the ungenteel reflections which your grace will find in Dr. Mayhew's pamphlet, in which, not content with the personal abuse of Mr. Apthorpe, he has insulted the missions in general, the society, the Churchof England, in short, the whole rational establishment, in so dirty amanner, that it seems to be below the character of a gentleman to enterinto controversy with him. In most of his sermons, of which he published agreat number, he introduces some malicious invectives against the societyor the Church of England, and if at any time the most candid and gentleremarks are made upon such abuse, he breaks forth into such bitter andscurrilous personal reflections, that in truth no one cares to haveanything to do with him. His doctrinal principles, which seem chieflycopied from Lord Shaftsbury, Bolingbroke, &c. , are so offensive to thegeneralty of the dissenting ministers, that they refuse to admit him amember of their association, yet they appear to be pleased with hisabusing the Church of England. " [Footnote: Rev. Mr. Caner to theArchbishop of Canterbury, June 8, 1763. Perry's _Coll. _ iii. 497, 498. ]

The Archbishop of Canterbury himself now interfered, and tried to calm thetumult by a candid and dignified reply to Dr. Mayhew, in which he laboredto show the harmlessness of the proposed bishopric. 

"Therefore it is desired, that two or more bishops may be appointed forthem, to reside where his majesty shall think most convenient [not in NewEngland, but in one of the Episcopalian colonies]; that they may have noconcern in the least with any person who do not profess themselves to beof the Church of England, but may ordain ministers for such as do; . . . Andtake such oversight of the Episcopal clergy, as the Bishop of London'scommissaries in those parts have been empowered to take, and have taken, without offence. But it is not desired in the least that they should holdcourts . . . Or be vested with any authority, now exercised either byprovincial governors or subordinate magistrates, or infringe or diminishany privileges and liberties enjoyed by any of the laity, even of our owncommunion. " [Footnote: _An Answer to Dr. Mayhew's Observations_, etc. Dr. Secker, p. 51. ]

But the archbishop should have known that the passions of rivalecclesiastics are not to be allayed. The Episcopalians had become soexasperated as to want nothing less than the overthrow of populargovernment. Dr. Johnson wrote in 1763: "Is there then nothing more thatcan be done either for obtaining bishops or demolishing these perniciouscharter governments, and reducing them all to one form in immediatedependence on the king? I cannot help calling them pernicious, for theyare indeed so as well for the best good of the people themselves as forthe interests of true religion. " [Footnote: _Life of Samuel Johnson_, p. 279. ]

The Congregationalists, on the other hand, inflamed with jealousy, wereripe for rebellion. On March 22, 1765, the Stamp Act became law, and theclergy threw themselves into the combat with characteristic violence. Oliver had been appointed distributor, but his house was attacked and hewas forced to resign. The next evening but one the rabble visitedHutchinson, who was lieutenant-governor, and broke his windows; and therewas general fear of further rioting. In the midst of this crisis. , on the25th of August, Dr. Mayhew preached a sermon in the West Meeting-housefrom the text, "I would they were even cut off which trouble you. "[Footnote: _Galatians_ v. 12. ] I That this discourse was in fact anincendiary harangue is demonstrated by what followed. At nightfall on the26th a fierce mob forced the cellars of the comptroller of the customs, and got drunk on the spirits stored within; then they went on toHutchinson's dwelling: "The doors were immediately split to pieces withbroad axes, and a way made there, and at the windows, for the entry of themob; which poured in, and filled, in an instant, every room. . . . Theycontinued their possession until daylight; destroyed . . . Everything . . . Except the walls, . . . And had begun to break away the brick-work. "[Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ iii. 124. ] His irreplaceable collection oforiginal papers was thrown into the street; and when a bystanderinterfered in the hope of saving some of them, "answer was made, that ithad been resolved to destroy everything in the house; and such resolveshould be carried to effect. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 125, note. ] Malice sobitter bears the peculiar ecclesiastical tinge, and is explained by theconfession of one of the ring-leaders, who, when subsequently arrested, said he had been excited by the sermon, "and that he thought he was doingGod service. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 123. ]

The outbreak met with general condemnation, and Dr. Mayhew, who saw he hadgone too far, tried to excuse himself:--

"SIR, --I take the freedom to write you a few lines, by way of condolence, on account of the almost unparalleled outrages committed at your houselast evening; and the great damage which I understand you have sufferedthereby. God is my witness, that, from the bottom of my heart, I detestthese proceedings; that I am most sincerely grieved at them, and have adeep sympathy with you and your distressed family on this occasion. "[Footnote: Mayhew to Hutchinson. _Life of Mayhew_, p. 420. ]

Nevertheless, the repeal of the Stamp Act, which pacified the laity, leftthe clergy as hot as ever; and so early as 1768, when no one outside ofthe inmost ecclesiastical circle yet dreamed of independence, but when theRev. Andrew Eliot thought the erection of the bishopric was near, hefrankly told Hollis he anticipated war. 

"You will see by this pamphlet, how we are cajoled. A colony bishop is tobe a more innocent creature than ever a bishop was, since diocesan bishopswere introduced to lord it over God's heritage. . . . Can the A-b-p, and histools, think to impose on the colonists by these artfulrepresentations. . . . The people of New England are greatly alarmed; thearrival of a bishop would raise them as much as any one thing. . . . OurGeneral Court is now sitting. I have hinted to some of the members, thatit will be proper for them to express their fears of the setting up anhierarchy here. I am well assured a motion will be made to thispurpose. . . . I may be mistaken, but I am persuaded the dispute betweenGreat Britain and her colonies will never be _amicably_ settled. . . . Isent you a few hasty remarks on the A-b-p's sermon. . . . I am more and moreconvinced of the meanness, art--if he was not in so high a station, Ishould say, falsehood--of that Arch-Pr-l-te. " [Footnote: Thomas Seeker. Andrew Eliot to Thomas Hollis, Jan. 5, 1768. _Mass. Hist. Coll. _fourth series, iv. 422. ] An established priesthood is naturally thefirmest support of despotism; but the course of events made that ofMassachusetts revolutionary. This was a social factor whose importance itis hard to overestimate; for though the influence of the elders had muchdeclined during the eighteenth century, their political power was stillimmense; and it is impossible to measure the degree in which the drift offeeling toward independence would have been arrested had they beenthoroughly loyal. At all events, the evidence tends to show that it ismost improbable the first blood would have been shed in the streets ofBoston had it been the policy of Great Britain to conciliate theCongregational Church; if, for example, the liberals had been forced tomeet the issue of taxation upon a statute designed to raise a revenue forthe maintenance of the evangelical clergy. How potent an ally King Georgelost by incurring their hatred may be judged by the devotion of theEpiscopalian pastors, many of whom were of the same blood as theirCalvinistic brethren, often, like Cutler and Johnson, converts. They allshowed the same intensity of feeling; all were Tories, not one wavered;and they boasted that they were long able to hold their parishioners incheck. 

In September, 1765, those of Connecticut wrote to the secretary, "althoughthe commotions and disaffection in this country are very great at present, relative to what they call the imposition of stamp duties, yet . . . Thepeople of the Church of England, in general, in this colony, as we hear, . . . And those, in particular, under our respective charges, are of acontrary temper and conduct; esteeming it nothing short of rebellion tospeak evil of dignities, and to avow opposition to this last act ofParliament. . . . 

"We think it our incumbent duty to warn our hearers, in particular, of theunreasonableness and wickedness of their taking the least part in anytumult or opposition to his majesty's acts, and we have obvious reasonsfor the fullest persuasion, that they will steadily behave themselves astrue and faithful subjects to his majesty's person and government. "[Footnote: _Conn. Church Doc. _ ii. 81. ]

Even so late as April, 1775, Mr. Caner, at Boston, felt justified inmaking a very similar report to the society: "Our clergy have in the midstof these confusions behaved I think with remarkable prudence. None of themhave been hindered from exercising the duties of their office since Mr. Peters, tho' many of them have been much threat'ned; and as their peoplehave for the most part remained firm and steadfast in their loyalty andattachment to goverment, the clergy feel themselves supported by aconscious satisfaction that their labors have not been in vain. "[Footnote: Perry's _Coll. _ iii. 579. ]

Nor did they shrink because of danger from setting an example of passiveobedience to their congregations. The Rev. Dr. Beach graduated at Yale in1721 and became the Congregational pastor of Newtown. He was afterwardconverted, and during the war was forbidden to read the prayers for theroyal family; but he replied, "that he would do his duty, preach and prayfor the king, till the rebels cut out his tongue. " [Footnote: _O'CallaghanDocuments_, iii. 1053, 8vo ed. ]

In estimating the energy of a social force, such as ecclesiasticism, theindirect are often more striking than the direct manifestations of power, and this is eminently true of Massachusetts; for, notwithstanding herministers had always been astute and indefatigable politicians, theirgreatest triumphs were invariably won by some layman whose mind they hadmoulded and whom they put forward as their champion. From John Winthrop, who was the first, an almost unbroken line of these redoubtable partisansstretched down to the Revolution, where it ended with him who is perhapsthe most celebrated of all. 

Samuel Adams has been called the last of the Puritans. He was indeed theincarnation of those qualities which led to eminence under the theocracy. A rigid Calvinist, reticent, cool, and brave, matchless in intrigue, andtireless in purpose, his cause was always holy, and therefore sanctifiedthe means. 

Professor Hosmer thus describes him: "It was, however, as a manager of menthat Samuel Adams was greatest. Such a master of the methods by which atown-meeting may be swayed, the world has never seen. On the best of termswith the people, the shipyard men, the distillers, the sailors, as well asthe merchants and ministers, he knew precisely what springs to touch. Hewas the prince of canvassers, the very king of the caucus, of which hisfather was the inventor. . . . As to his tact, was it ever surpassed?"[Footnote: Hosmer's _Samuel Adams_, p. 363. ] A bigot in religion, hehad the flexibility of a Jesuit; and though he abhorred Episcopalians, heproposed that Mr. Duché should make the opening prayer for Congress, inthe hope of soothing the southern members. Strict in all ceremonialobservances, he was loose in money matters; yet even here he stood withinthe pale, for Dr. Cotton Mather was looser, [Footnote: See Letter onbehalf of Dr. Cotton Mather to Sewall, _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fourthseries, ii. 122. ] who was the most orthodox of divines. 

The clergy instinctively clave to him, and gave him their fullestconfidence. When there was any important work to do they went to him, andhe never failed them. On January 5, 1768, the Rev. Dr. Eliot told Hollishe had suggested to some of the members of the legislature to remonstrateagainst the bishops. [Footnote: _Mass. Hist. Coll. _ fourth series, iv. 422. ] A week later the celebrated letter of instructions of the houseto the agent, De Berdt, was reported, which, was written by Adams; and itis interesting to observe how, in the midst of a most vigorous protest onthe subject, he broke out: "We hope in God such an establishment willnever take place in America, and we desire you would strenuously opposeit. " [Footnote: _Mass. State Papers_, 1765-1775, p. 132. ]

The subtle but unmistakable flavor of ecclesiasticism pervades his wholelong agitation. He handled the newspapers with infinite skill, and the wayin which he used the toleration granted the Canadian Catholics after theconquest, as a goad wherewith to inflame the dying Puritan fanaticism, wasworthy of St. Ignatius. He moved for the committee who reported theresolutions of the town of Boston in 1772; his spirit inspired them, andin these also the grievance of Episcopacy plays a large part. How stronghis prejudices were may be gathered from a few words: "We think thereforethat every design for establishing . . . A bishop in this province, is adesign both against our civil and religious rights. " [Footnote: _Votesand Proceedings of Boston_, Nov. 20, 1772, p. 28. ]

The liberals, as loyal subjects of Great Britain, grieved over her policyas the direst of misfortunes, which indeed they might be driven to resist, but which they strove to modify. 

Washington wrote in 1774: "I am well satisfied, . . . That it is the ardentwish of the warmest advocates for liberty, that peace and tranquillity, upon constitutional grounds, may be restored, and the horrors of civildiscord prevented. " [Footnote: Washington to Mackenzie. _Washington'sWritings_, ii. 402. ] Jefferson affirmed: "Before the commencement ofhostilities . . . I never had heard a whisper of a disposition to separatefrom Great Britain; and after that, its possibility was contemplated withaffliction by all. " While John Adams solemnly declared: "For my own part, there was not a moment during the Revolution, when I would not have giveneverything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before thecontest began, provided we could have had a sufficient security for itscontinuance. " [Footnote: Note of Sparks, _Washington's Writings_, ii. 501. ]

In such feelings Samuel Adams had no share. In each renewed aggression hesaw the error of his natural enemy, which brought ever nearer therealization of the dream of independence he had inherited from the past;for the same fierce passion burned within him that had made Endicottmutilate his flag, and Leverett read his king's letter with his hat on;and the guns of Lexington were music in his ears. 

He was not a lawyer, nor a statesman, in the true meaning of the word, buthe was a consummate agitator; and if this be remembered, his careerbecomes clear. When he conceived the idea of the possibility ofindependence is uncertain; probably soon after the passage of the StampAct, but the evidence is strong that so early as 1768 he had deliberatelyresolved to precipitate some catastrophe which would make reconciliationimpossible, and obviously an armed collision would have suited his purposebest. 

Troops were then first ordered to Boston, and at one moment he was temptedto cause their landing to be resisted. An old affidavit is still extant, presumably truthful enough, which brings him vividly before the mind as hewent about the town lashing up the people. 

"Mr. Samuel Adams . . . Happened to join the same party . . . Trembling and ingreat agitation. . . . The informant heard the said Samuel Adams then say . . . 'If you are men, behave like men. Let us take up arms immediately, and befree, and seize all the king's officers. We shall have thirty thousand mento join us from the country. ' . . . And before the arrival of the troops . . . At the house of the informant . . . The said Samuel Adams said: 'We will notsubmit to any tax, nor become slaves. . . . The country was first settled byour ancestors, therefore we are free and want no king. ' . . . The informantfurther sayeth, that about a fortnight before the troops arrived, theaforesaid Samuel Adams, being at the house of the informant, the informantasked him what he thought of the times. The said Adams answered, withgreat alertness, that, on lighting the beacon, we should be joined withthirty thousand men from the country with their knapsacks and bayonetsfixed, and added, 'We will destroy every soldier that dare put his foot onshore. His majesty has no right to send troops here to invade the country, and I look upon them as foreign enemies!'" [Footnote: Wells's _SamuelAdams_, i. 210, 211. ]

Maturer reflection must have convinced him his design was impracticable, for he certainly abandoned it, and the two regiments disembarked in peace;but their position was unfortunate. Together they were barely a thousandstrong, and were completely at the mercy of the populous and hostileprovince they had been sent to awe. 

The temptation to a bold and unscrupulous revolutionary leader must havebeen intense. Apparently it needed but a spark to cause an explosion; therabble of Boston could be fierce and dangerous when roused, as had beenproved by the sack of Hutchinson's house; and if the soldiers could begoaded into firing on the citizens, the chances were they would beannihilated in the rising which would follow, when a rupture would beinevitable. But even supposing the militia abstained from participating inthe outbreak, and the tumult were suppressed, the indignation at theslaughter would be deep enough to sustain him in making demands which thegovernment could not grant. 

Hutchinson and the English officers understood the danger, and for manymonths the discipline was exemplary, but precautions were futile. Thoughhe knew full well how to be all things to all men, the naturalaffiliations of Samuel Adams were with the clergy and the mob, and in theship-yards and rope-walks he reigned supreme. Nor was he of a temper toshrink from using to the utmost the opportunity his adversaries had put inhis hands, and he forthwith began a series of inflammatory appeals in thenewspapers, whereof this is a specimen: "And are the inhabitants of thistown still to be affronted in the night as well as the day by soldiersarm'd with muskets and fix'd bayonets?. . . Will the spirits of people, asyet unsubdued by tyranny, unaw'd by the menaces of arbitary power, submitto be govern'd by military force?" [Footnote: Vindex, _Boston Gazette_, Dec. 5, 1768. ]

In 1770 it was notorious that "endeavors had been systematically pursuedfor many months, by certain busy characters, to excite quarrels, rencounters, and combats, single or compound, in the night, between theinhabitants of the lower class and the soldiers, and at all risks toenkindle an immortal hatred between them. " [Footnote: Autobiography ofJohn Adams. _Works of J. Adams_, ii. 229. ] And it is curious toobserve how the British always quarrelled with the laborers about thewharves; and how these, the closest friends of Adams, were all imbued withthe theory he maintained, that the military could not use their weaponswithout the order of a civil magistrate. Little by little the animosityincreased, until on the 2d of March there was a very serious fray atGray's rope-walk, which was begun by one of the hands, who knocked downtwo soldiers who spoke to him in the street. Although Adams afterwardlabored to convince the public that the tragedy which happened three dayslater was the result of a deliberately matured conspiracy to murder thecitizens for revenge, there is nothing whereon to base such a charge; onthe contrary, the evidence tends to exonerate the troops, and the verdictsshow the opinion of the juries. There was exasperation on both sides, butthe rabble were not restrained by discipline, and on the night of the 5thof March James Crawford swore he he saw at Calf's corner "about a dozenwith sticks, in Quaker Lane and Green's Lane, met many going toward KingStreet. Very great sticks, pretty large cudgells, not common walkingcanes. . . . At Swing bridge the people were walking from all quarters withsticks. I was afraid to go home, . . . The streets in such commotion as Ihardly ever saw in my life. Uncommon sticks such as a man would pull outof an hedge. . . . Thomas Knight at his own door, 8 or 10 passed with sticksor clubs and one of them said 'D--n their bloods, let us go and attack themain guard first. '" [Footnote: Kidder's _Massacre_, p. 10. ] The crownwitnesses testified that the sentry was surrounded by a crowd of thirty orforty, who pelted him with pieces of ice "hard and large enough to hurtany man; as big as one's fist. " And ha said "he was afraid, if the boysdid not disperse, there would be trouble. " [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 138. ]When the guard came to his help the mob grew still more violent, yelling"bloody backs, " "lobster scoundrels, " "damn you, fire! why don't youfire?" striking them with sticks. 

"Did you observe anybody strike Montgomery, or was a club thrown? Thestroke came from a stick or club that was in somebody's hand, and the blowstruck his gun and his arm. " "Was he knocked down?. . . He fell, I amsure. . . . His gun flew out of hand, and as he stooped to take it up, hefell himself. . . . Was any number of people standing near the man thatstruck his gun? Yes, a whole crowd, fifty or sixty. " [Footnote: Kidder's_Massacre_, pp. 138, 139. ] When the volley came at last the rabblefell back, and the 29th was rapidly formed before the main guard, thefront rank kneeling, that the fire might sweep the street. And now whenevery bell was tolling, and the town was called to arms, and infuriatedmen came pouring in by thousands, Hutchinson showed he had inherited theblood of his great ancestress, who feared little upon earth; but then, indeed, their adversaries have seldom charged the Puritans with cowardicein fight. Coming quickly to the council chamber he passed into thebalcony, which overhung the kneeling regiment and the armed and maddenedcrowd, and he spoke with such calmness and courage that even then he wasobeyed. He promised that justice should be done and he commanded thepeople to disperse. Preston and his men were at once surrendered to theauthorities to await their trial. 

The next day Adams was in his glory. The meeting in the morning was as waxbetween his fingers, and his friend, the Rev. Dr. Cooper, opened it withfervent prayer. A committee was at once appointed to demand the withdrawalof the troops, but Hutchinson thought he had no power and that Gage alonecould give the order. Nevertheless, after a conference with ColonelDalrymple he was induced to propose that the 29th should be sent to theCastle, and the 14th put under strict restraint. [Footnote: Kidder's_Massacre_, p. 43. ] To the daring agitator it seemed at last his hourwas come, for the whole people were behind him, and Hutchinson himselfsays "their spirit" was "as high as was the spirit of their ancestors whenthey imprisoned Andros. " As the committee descended the steps of the StateHouse to go to the Old South where they were to report, the dense crowdmade way for them, and Samuel Adams as he walked bare-headed through theirlines continually bowed to right and left, repeating the catchword, "Bothregiments or none. " His touch on human passions was unerring, for when thelieutenant-governor's reply was read, the great assembly answered with amighty shout, "Both regiments or none, " and so instructed he returned. Then the nature of the man shone out; the handful of troops were helpless, and he was as inflexible as steel. The thin, strong, determined, gray-eyedPuritan stood before Hutchinson, inwardly exulting as he marked hisfeatures change under the torture. "A multitude highly incensed now waitthe result of this application. The voice of ten thousand freemen demandsthat both regiments be forthwith removed. . . . Fail not then at your perilto comply with this requisition!" [Footnote: Hosmer's _Samuel Adams_, p. 173. ] It was the spirit of Norton and of Endicott alive again, and hewas flushed with the same stern triumph at the sight of his victim's pain:"It was then, if fancy deceived me not, I observed his knees to tremble. Ithought I saw his face grow pale (and I enjoyed the sight). " [Footnote:Adams to Warren. Wells's Samuel Adams, i. 324. ]

Probably nothing prevented a complete rupture but the hopeless weakness ofthe garrison, for Hutchinson, feeling the decisive moment had come, wasfull of fight. He saw that to yield would destroy his authority, and heopposed concession, but he stood alone, the officers knew their positionwas untenable, and the council was unanimous against him. "The Lt G. Endeavoured to convince them of the ill consequence of this advice, andkept them until late in the evening, the people remaining assembled; butthe council were resolute. Their advice, therefore, he communicated to ColDalrymple accompanied with a declaration, that he had no authority toorder the removal of the troops. This part Col. D. Was dissatisfied with, and urged the Lt G. To withdraw it, but he refused, and the regiments wereremoved. He was much distressed, but he brought it all upon himself by hisoffer to remove one of the regiments. No censure, however, was passed uponhim. " [Footnote: _Diary and Letters of T. Hutchinson_, p. 80. ]

Had the pacification of his country been the object near his heart, SamuelAdams, after his victory, would have abstained from any act howeverremotely tending to influence the course of justice; for he must haveknown that it was only by such conduct the colonists could inspire respectfor the motives which actuated them in their resistance. A capitalsentence would have been doubly unfortunate, for had it been executed itwould have roused all England; while had the king pardoned the soldiers, as assuredly he would have done, a deep feeling of wrong would haverankled in America. 

A fanatical and revolutionary demagogue, on the other hand, would havelonged for a conviction, not only to compass his ends as a politician, butto glut his hate as a zealot. 

Samuel Adams was a taciturn, secretive man, whose tortuous course wouldhave been hard to follow a century ago; now the attempt is hopeless. Yetthere is one inference it seems permissible to draw: his admirers havealways boasted that he was the inspiration of the town meetings, presumably, therefore, the the votes passed at them may be attributed tohis manipulation. And starting from this point, with the help ofHutchinson and his own writings, it is still possible to discern theoutlines of a policy well worthy of a theocratic statesman. 

The March meeting began on the 12th. On the 13th it was resolved:--

"That ---- be and they hereby are appointed a committee for and in behalfof the town to find out who those persons are that were the perpetratorsof the horred murders and massacres done and committed in King Street onseveral of the inhabitants in the evening of the 5th instant and take suchexaminations and depositions as they can procure, and lay the wholethereof before the grand inquest in order that such perpetrators may beindicted and brought to tryal for the same, and upon indictments beingfound, said committee are desired to prepare matters for the king'sattorney, to attend at their tryals in the superior court, subpoena allthe witnesses, and do everything necessary for bringing those murtherersto that punishment for such crimes, as the laws of God and man require. "[Footnote: _Records of Boston_, v. 232. ]

A day or two afterward a number of Adams's friends, among whom were someof the members of this committee, dined together, and Hutchinson tellswhat he persuaded them to do. 

"The time for holding the superior court for the county of Suffolk was thenext week after the tragical action in King Street. Although bills werefound by the grand jury, yet the court, considering the disordered stateof the town, had thought fit to continue the trials over to the next term, when the minds of people would be more free from prejudice. " "Aconsiderable number of the most active persons in all publick measures ofthe town, having dined together, went in a body from table to the superiorcourt then sitting, and Mr. Adams, at their head and in behalf of thetown, pressed the bringing on the trial the same term with so much spirit, that the judges did not think it advisable to abide by their own order, but appointed a day for the trials, and adjourned the court for thatpurpose. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ iii. 285, 286 and note. ]

The justices must afterward have grown ashamed of their cowardice, for Rex_v. _ Preston did not come on until the autumn, and altogether very littlewas accomplished by these attempts to interfere with the dueadministration of the law. "A committee had been appointed by the town toassist in the prosecution of the soldiers . . . But this was irregular. Thecourts, according to the practice in the province, required no prosecutorsbut the officers of the crown; much less would they have thought it properfor the principal town in the province to have brought all its weight, which was very great, into court against the prisoners. " [Footnote:_Idem_, iii. 286, note. ]

Nevertheless, Adams had by no means exhausted his resources, for it waspossible so to inflame the public mind that dispassionate juries couldhardly be obtained. 

At the same March meeting another committee was named, who were to obtaina "particular account of all proceedings relative to the massacre in KingStreet on Monday night last, that a full and just representation may bemade thereof?" [Footnote: Kidder's _Massacre_, p. 23. ] The reasonassigned for so unwonted a proceeding as the taking of _ex parte_testimony by a popular assembly concerning alleged murders, for which menwere to be presently tried for their lives, was the necessity forcontroverting the aspersions of the British officials; but the probabletruth of this explanation must be judged by the course actually pursued. On the 19th the report was made, consisting of "A Short Narrative of theHorrid Massacre in Boston, " together with a number of depositions; andthough perhaps it was natural, under the circumstances, for such apamphlet to have been highly partisan, it was unnatural for its authors tohave assumed the burden of proving that a deliberately planned conspiracyhad existed between the civilians and the military to murder the citizens;especially as this tremendous charge rested upon no better foundation thanthe fantastic falsehoods of "a French boy, whose evidence appeared to thejustice so improbable, and whose character was so infamous, that thejustice, who was one of the most zealous in the cause of liberty, refusedto issue a warrant to apprehend his master, against whom he swore. "[Footnote: Hutch. _Hist_. Iii. 279, 280. ] "Then I went up to thecustom-house door and knocked, . . . I saw my master and Mr. Munroe comedown-stairs, and go into a room; when four or five men went up stairs, pulling and hauling me after them. . . . When I was carried into the chamber, there was but one light in the room, and that in the corner of thechamber, when I saw a tall man loading a gun (then I saw two guns in theroom) . . . There was a number of gentlemen in the room. After the gun wasloaded, the tall man gave it to me, and told me to fire, and said he wouldkill me if I did not; I told him I would not. He drawing a sword out ofhis cane, told me, if I did not fire it, he would run it through my guts. The man putting the gun out of the window, it being a little open, I firedit side way up the street; the tall man then loaded the gun again. . . . Itold him I would not fire again; he told me again, he would run me throughthe guts if I did not. Upon which I fired the same way up the street. After I fired the second gun, I saw my master in the room; he took a gunand pointed it out of the window; I heard the gun go off. Then a tall mancame and clapped me on the shoulders above and below stairs, and said, that's my good boy, I'll give you some money to-morrow. . . . And I ran homeas fast as I could, and sat up all night in my master's kitchen. Andfurther say, that my master licked me the next night for telling Mrs. Waldron about his firing out of the custom-house. And for fear that Ishould be licked again, I did deny all that I said before Justice Quincy, which I am very sorry for. [Footnote: Kidder's _Massacre_, p. 82. Deposition 58. ]

"CHARLOTTE BOURGATE + (his mark). "

 * * * * *

While it is inconceivable that a cool and sagacious politician, whoseobject was to convince Parliament of the good faith of Massachusetts, should have relied upon such incredible statements to sway the minds ofEnglish statesmen and lawyers, it is equally inconceivable lie should nothave known they were admirably adapted to still further exasperate analready excited people; and that such was his purpose must be inferredfrom the immediate publication of the substance of this affidavit in thenewspapers. [Footnote: _Boston Gazette_, March 19, 1770. ]

Without doubt a vote was passed on the 26th of March, a week after thecommittee had presented their report, desiring them to reserve all theprinted copies not sent to Europe, as their distribution might tend tobias the juries; but even had this precaution been observed, it came toolate, for the damage was done when the Narrative was read in Faneuil Hall;in fact, however, the order was eluded, for "many copies, notwithstanding, got abroad, and some of a second edition were sent from England, longbefore the trials of the officer and soldiers came on. " [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ iii. 279. ] And at this cheap rate a reputation for magnanimity wasearned. 

How thoroughly the clergy sympathized with their champion appears fromtheir clamors for blood. As the time drew near it was rumored Hutchinsonwould reprieve the prisoners, should they be convicted, till the king'spleasure could be known. Then Dr. Chauncy, the senior minister of Boston, cried out in his pulpit: "Surely he would not counteract the operation ofthe law, both of God and of man! Surely he would not suffer the town andland to lie under the defilement of blood! Surely he would not makehimself a partaker in the guilt of murder, by putting a stop to theshedding of their blood, who have murderously spilt the blood of others!"[Footnote: Hutch. _Hist. _ iii. 329, note. ] Adams attended when thecauses were heard and took notes of the evidence; and one of the fewoccasions in his long life on which his temper seems to have got beyondcontrol was when the accused were acquitted. His writings betrayunmistakable chagrin; and nothing is more typical of the man, or of theclerical atmosphere wherein he had been bred, than his comments upon thetestimony on which the lives of his enemies hung. His piety caused him todoubt those whose evidence was adverse to his wishes, though they appearedto be trying to speak the truth. "The credibility of a witness perhapscannot be impeach'd in court, unless he has been convicted of perjury: butan immoral man, for instance one who will commonly prophane the name ofhis maker, certainly cannot be esteemed of equal credit by a jury, withone who fears to take that sacred name in vain: It is impossible he shouldin the mind of any man. " [Footnote: _Boston Gazette_, Jan. 21, 1771. ]

And yet this rigid Calvinist, this incarnation of ecclesiasticism, had noscruple in propagating the palpable and infamous lies of CharlotteBourgate, when by so doing he thought it possible to further his own ends. He was bitterly mortified, for he had been foiled. Yet, though he hadfailed in precipitating war, he had struck a telling blow, and he had noreason to repine. Probably no single event, before fighting actuallybegan, left so deep a scar as the Boston massacre; and many years laterJohn Adams gave it as his deliberate opinion that, on the night of the 5thof March, 1770, "the foundation of American independence was laid. " Norwas the full realization of his hopes long delayed. Gage occupied Bostonin 1774. During the winter the tireless agitator, from his place in theProvincial Congress, warned the people to fight any force sent more thanten miles from the town; and so when Paul Revere galloped throughMiddlesex on the night of the 18th of April he found the farmers ready. Samuel Adams had slept at the house of the Rev. Jonas Clark. Beforesunrise the detachment sent to seize him was close at hand. While theyadvanced, he escaped; and as he walked across the fields toward Woburn, tothe sound of the guns of Lexington, he exclaimed, in a burst of passionatetriumph, "What a glorious morning is this!"

Massachusetts became the hot-bed of rebellion because of this unwontedalliance between liberality and sacerdotalism. Liberality was herbirthright; for liberalism is the offspring of intellectual variation, which makes mutual toleration of opinion a necessity; but that her churchshould have been radical at this crisis was due to the action of a longchain of memorable causes. 

The exiles of the Reformation were enthusiasts, for none would then havedared defy the pains of heresy, in whom the instinct onward was feeblerthan the fear of death; yet when the wanderers reached America the mentalgrowth of the majority had culminated, and they had passed into the age ofroutine; and exactly in proportion as their youthful inspiration had beenfervid was their later formalism intense. But similar causes acting on thehuman mechanism produce like results; hence bigotry and ambition fed bypower led to persecution. Then, as the despotism of the preachersdeepened, their victims groaning in their dungeons, or furrowed by theirlash, implored the aid of England, who, in defence of freedom and of law, crushed the theocracy at a blow. And the clergy knew and hated their enemyfrom the earliest days; it was this bitter theological jealousy whichflamed within Endicott when he mutilated his flag, and within Leverettwhen he insulted Randolph; it was a rapacious lust for power and a furiousdetestation of rival priests which maddened the Mathers in their onslaughtupon Dudley, which burned undimmed in Mayhew and Cooper, and in theirchampion, Samuel Adams, and which at last made the hierarchy cast in itslot with an ally more dangerous far than those prelates whom it deemed itsfoe. For no church can preach liberality and not be liberalized. Of atruth the momentary spasm may pass which made these conservativesprogressive, and they may once more manifest their reactionary nature, but, nevertheless, the impulsion shall have been given to that automatic, yet resistless, machinery which produces innovation; wherefore, in thenext generation, the great liberal secession from the Congregationalcommunion broke the ecclesiastical power forever. And so, through toil andsuffering, through martyrdoms and war, the Puritans wrought out theancient destiny which fated them to wander as outcasts to the desolate NewEngland shore; there, amidst hardship and apparent failure, they slowlyachieved their civil and religious liberty, and conceived thatconstitutional system which is the root of our national life; and there inanother century the liberal commonwealth they had builded led the battleagainst the spread of human oppression; and when the war of slavery burstforth her soldiers rightly were the first to fall; for it is herchildren's heritage that, wheresoever on this continent blood shall flowin defence of personal freedom, there must the sons of Massachusettssurely be.