THEN came the Reformation, protesting against the papal system, and asserting again the rights of the individual conscience, declaring for a separation between Church and State, and that to Caesar is to be rendered only that which is Caesar's, while men are left free to render to God, according to the dictates of their own conscience, that which is God's.

To Luther more than to any other one, there fell the blessed task of opening up the contest with the papacy, and of announcing the principles of Protestantism. It is not without cause that Luther stands at the head of all men in the great Reformation and in the history of Protestantism: for he alone of all the leaders in the Reformation times held himself and his cause aloof from the powers of this world, and declined all connection of the State with the work of the gospel, even to support it. After he had burnt the pope's bull, Aleander, the pope's nuncio, at the coronation of Charles V at Cologne, addressed the elector, Frederick of Saxony, whose subject Luther was, in these words: --

"See the immense perils to which this man exposes the Christian commonwealth. If a remedy is not speedily applied, the empire is destroyed. What ruined the Greeks, if it was not their abandonment of the pope? You cannot remain united to Luther without separating from Jesus Christ. In the name of his Holiness, I ask of you two things: first, to burn the writings of Luther; secondly, to punish him according to his demerits, or at least to give him up a prisoner to the pope. The emperor, and all the princes of the empire, have declared their readiness to accede to our demands; you alone still hesitate."1

The elector answered just then, that this was a matter of too much importance to be decided upon the spur of the moment, and at a later time he would give a definite answer. At this time Luther wrote to Spalatin, the elector's chaplain, these words: --

"If the gospel was of a nature to be propagated or maintained by the power of the world, God would not have intrusted it to fishermen. To defend the gospel appertains not to the princes and pontiffs of this world. They have enough to do to shelter themselves from the judgments of the Lord and his Anointed. If I speak, I do it in order that they may obtain the knowledge of the divine word, and be saved by it."2

As Luther was on his way home from the Diet of Worms, where he made his memorable defense, Frederick had him captured and carried away to the Wartburg, where he was kept in confinement to protect him from the wrath of the papacy, which, through the imperial power, was expressed in the following words: --

"We, Charles the Fifth, to all the electors, princes, prelates, and others, whom it may concern: --

"The Almighty having intrusted to us, for the defense of his holy faith, more kingdoms and power than he gave to any of our predecessors, we mean to exert ourselves to the utmost to prevent any heresy from arising to pollute our holy empire.

"The Augustine monk, Martin Luther, though exhorted by us, has rushed, like a madman, against the holy church, and sought to destroy it by means of books filled with blasphemy. He has, in a shameful manner, insulted the imperishable law of holy wedlock. He has striven to excite the laity to wash their hands in the blood of priests; and, overturning all obedience, has never ceased to stir up revolt, division, war, murder, theft, and fire, and to labor completely to ruin the faith of Christians. . . In a word, to pass over all his other iniquities in silence, this creature, who is not a man, but Satan himself under the form of a man, covered with the cowl of a monk, has collected into one stinking pool all the worst heresies of past times, and has added several new ones of his own. . . .

"We have therefore sent this Luther from before our face, that all pious and sensible men may regard him as a fool, or a man possessed of the devil; and we expect that, after the expiry of his safe-conduct, effectual means will be taken to arrest his furious rage.

"Wherefore, under pain of incurring the punishment due to the crime of treason, we forbid you to lodge the said Luther so soon as the fatal term shall be expired, to conceal him, give him meat or drink, and lend him by word or deed, publicly or secretly, any kind of assistance. We enjoin you, moreover, to seize him, or cause him to be seized, wherever you find him, and bring him to us without any delay, or to keep him in all safety until you hear from us how you are to act with regard to him, and till you receive the recompense due to your exertions in so holy a work.

"As to his adherents, you will seize them, suppress them, and confiscate their goods.

"As to his writings, if the best food becomes the terror of all mankind as soon as a drop of poison is mixed with it, how much more ought these books, which contain a deadly poison to the soul, to be not only rejected, but also annihilated! You will therefore burn them, or in some other way destroy them entirely.

"As to authors, poets, printers, painters, sellers or buyers of placards, writings, or paintings against the pope or the church, you will lay hold of their persons and their goods, and treat them according to your good pleasure.

"And if any one, whatever be his dignity, shall dare to act in contradiction to the decree of our imperial majesty, we ordain that he shall be placed under the ban of the empire.

"Let every one conform hereto."3

Luther remained in the Wartburg until March 3, 1522, when without permission from anybody, he left and returned to Wittemberg. Knowing that his leaving the Wartburg without saying anything to the elector, would be ungrateful, and knowing also that his returning at all was virtually disclaiming the elector's protection, he addressed to him, the third day of his journey, the following letter: --

"Grace and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

"Most serene elector, gracious lord: What has happened at Wittemberg, to the great shame of the gospel, has filled me with such grief, that if I were not certain of the truth of our cause, I would have despaired of it.

"Your Highness knows -- or if not, please to be informed -- I received the gospel not from men, but from heaven, by our Lord Jesus Christ. If I have asked for conferences, it was not because I had doubts of the truth, but from humility, and for the purpose of winning others. But since my humility is turned against the gospel, my conscience now impels me to act in a different manner. I have yielded enough to your Highness in exiling myself during this year. The devil knows it was not from fear I did it. I would have entered Worms, though there had been as many devils in the town as there were tiles on the roofs. Now Duke George, with whom your Highness tries so much to frighten me, is far less to be feared than a single devil. Had that which has taken place at Wittemberg taken place at Leipsic (the duke's residence), I would instantly have mounted my horse and gone thither, even though (let your Highness pardon the expression) for nine days it should have done nothing but rain Duke Georges, and every one of them been nine times more furious than he is. What is he thinking of in attacking me? Does he take Christ, my Lord, for a man of straw? The Lord be pleased to avert the dreadful judgment which is impending over him.

"It is necessary for your Highness to know that I am on my way to Wittemberg, under a more powerful protection than that of an elector. I have no thought of soliciting the assistance of your

Highness; so far from desiring your protection, I would rather give you mine. If I knew that your Highness could or would protect me, I would not come to Wittemberg. No sword can give any aid to this cause. God alone must do all without human aid or co-operation. He who has most faith is the best protector. Now, I observe that your Highness is still very weak in the faith.

"But since your Highness desires to know what to do, I will answer with all humility. Your electoral Highness has already done too much, and ought to do nothing at all. God does not wish, and cannot tolerate, either your cares and labors, or mine. Let your Highness, therefore, act accordingly.

"In regard to what concerns myself, your Highness must act as elector. You must allow the orders of his Imperial Majesty to be executed in your towns and rural districts. You must not throw any difficulty in the way, should it be wished to apprehend or slay me; for none must oppose the powers that be, save He who established them. "Let your Highness, then, leave the gates open, and respect safe-conducts, should my enemies themselves, or their envoys, enter the States of your Highness in search of me. In this way you will avoid all embarrassment and danger.

"I have written this letter in haste, that you may not be disconcerted on learning my arrival. He with whom I have to deal is a different person from Duke George. He knows me well, and I know something of Him.

"Your electoral Highness's most humble servant,"MARTIN LUTHER.

"Borna, the Conductor Hotel, Ash-Wednesday, 1552. During his absence, fanatical spirits had arisen, and extreme and somewhat violent steps had been taken, and amongst the first words which he spoke upon his arrival in Wittemberg were these: --

"It is by the word that we must fight; by the word overturn and destroy what has been established by violence. I am unwilling to employ force against the superstitious or the unbelieving. Let him who believes approach; let him who believes not stand aloof. None ought to be constrained. Liberty is of the essence of faith."5

In 1524 the Swabian peasants revolted, and in January, 1525, Luther addressed to them the following words: --

"The pope and the emperor have united against me; but the more the pope and the emperor have stormed, the greater the progress which the gospel has made. . . Why so? Because I have never drawn the sword, nor called for vengeance; because I have not had recourse either to tumult or revolt. I have committed all to God, and awaited his strong hand. It is neither with the sword nor the musket that Christians fight, but with suffering and the cross. Christ, their captain, did not handle the sword; he hung upon the tree."6

And when, June 25, A. D. 1530, the memorable confession of Protestantism was made at Augsburg, that confession, framed under the direction of Luther, though absent, accordingly announced for all future time the principles of Protestantism upon the subject of Church and State. Upon this question that document declared as follows: --

"ARTICLE XXVIII "OF ECCLESIASTICAL POWER

"There have been great controversies touching the power of the bishops, in which some have in an unseemly manner mingled together the ecclesiastical power, and the power of the sword. And out of this confusion there have sprung very great wars and tumults, while the pontiffs, trusting in the power of the keys, have not only instituted new kinds of service, and burdened men's consciences by reserving of cases, and by violent excommunications; but have also endeavored to transfer worldly kingdoms from one to another, and to despoil emperors of their power and authority. These faults godly and learned men in the church have long since reprehended; and for that cause ours were compelled, for the comforting of men's consciences, to show the difference between the ecclesiastical power and the power of the sword. And they have taught that both of them, because of God's command, are dutifully to be reverenced and honored, as the chief blessings of God upon earth.

"Now, their judgment is this: that the power of the keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the gospel, is a power or command from God, of preaching the gospel, of remitting or retaining sins, and of administering the sacraments. For Christ sends his apostles forth with this charge: `As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.' John xx, 21-23. `Go, and preach the gospel to every creature,' etc. Mark xvi, 15.

"This power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the gospel, and administering the sacraments, either to many, or to single individuals, in accordance with their call. For thereby not corporeal, but eternal things are granted; as, an eternal righteousness, the Holy Ghost, life everlasting. These things cannot be obtained but by the ministry of the word and of the sacraments; as Paul says, `The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.' Rom. i, 16. Seeing, the, than the ecclesiastical power bestows things eternal, and is exercised only by the ministry of the word, it does not hinder the civil government any more than the art of singing hinders civil government. For the civil administration is occupied about other matters, than is the gospel. The magistracy does not defend the souls, but the bodies, and bodily things, against manifest injuries; and coerces men by the sword and corporal punishments, that it may uphold civil justice and peace.

"Wherefore the ecclesiastical and the civil power are not to be confounded. The ecclesiastical power has its own command, to preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments. Let it not by force enter into the office of another; let it not transfer worldly kingdoms; let it not abrogate the magistrates' laws; let it not withdraw from them lawful obedience; let it not hinder judgments touching any civil ordinances or contracts; let it not prescribe laws to the magistrate touching the form of the State; as Christ says, `My kingdom is not of this world.' John xviii, 36. Again: `Who made me a judge or a divider over you?' Luke xii, 14. And Paul says, `Our conversation is in heaven.' Phil. iii, 20. `The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations,' etc. 2 Cor. x. 4, 5.

"In this way ours distinguish between the duties of each power, one from the other, and admonish all men to honor both powers, and to acknowledge both to be the gifts and blessings of God.

"If the bishops have any power of the sword, they have it not as bishops by the command of the gospel, but by human law given unto them by kings and emperors, for the civil government of their goods. This, however, is another function than the ministry of the gospel.

"When, therefore, the question is concerning the jurisdiction of bishops, civil government must be distinguished from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Again, according to the gospel, or, as they term it, by divine right, bishops, as bishops, that is, those who have the administration of the word and sacraments committed to them, have no other jurisdiction at all, but only to remit sin, also to inquire into doctrine, and to reject doctrine inconsistent with the gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the church wicked men, whose wickedness is manifest, without human force, but by the word. And herein of necessity the churches ought by divine right to render obedience unto them; according to the saying of Christ, `He that heareth you, heareth me.' Luke x, 16. But when they teach or determine anything contrary to the gospel, then the churches have a command of God which forbids obedience to them:

`Beware of false prophets.' Matt. vii, 15. `Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed.' Gal. i, 8. `We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.' 2 Cor. xiii, 8. Also,`This power the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction.' 2 Cor. xiii, 10."

This confession is a sound exposition of the doctrine of Christ concerning the temporal and the spiritual powers. It clearly and correctly defines the jurisdiction of the State to be only in things civil; that the sword which is wielded by the powers that be, is to preserve civil justice and peace; and that the authority of the State is to be exercised only over the bodies of men and the temporal concerns of life, that is, of the affairs of this world. This shuts away the State from all connection or interference with things spiritual or religious. It separates entirely religion and the State.

While doing this for the State, it also clearly defines the place of the church. While the State is to stand entirely aloof from spiritual and religious things and concern itself only with the civil and temporal affairs of men, the church on its part is to stand aloof from the affairs of the State, and is not to interfere in the civil and temporal concerns of men. The power of the church is not to be mingled with the power of the State. The power of the church is never to invade the realm, or seek to guide the jurisdiction, of the State. The duty of the clergy is to minister the gospel of Christ and not the laws of men. In dealing with its membership in the exercise of discipline, the church authorities are to act without human power, and solely by the word of God. The ministry of the gospel is with reference only to eternal things, and is not to trouble itself with political administration.

This is Protestantism. This is Christianity. Wherever these principles have been followed, there is Protestantism exemplified in the Church and the State. Wherever these principles have not been followed, there is the principle of the papacy, it matters not what the profession may have been.

THE LUTHERANS IN GERMANY

In his later years, having refused to walk in the advancing light, and so having less of the word of God and therefore less faith, even Luther swerved from the genuine Christian and Protestant principle, denied any right of toleration to the Zwinglians, and advocated the banishment of "false teachers" and the utter rooting out of the Jews from "Christian" lands.7 At Luther's death many Protestants set themselves to maintain the doctrines stated by him, and steadily refused to take a single advance step. These thus became Lutherans rather than Protestants, and thus was formed the Lutheran Church. And though this church to this day holds the Augsburg Confession as one of its chief symbols; and though about the end of the seventeenth century "the Lutheran churches adopted the leading maxim of the Arminians, that Christians were accountable to God alone for their religious sentiments, and that no individual could be justly punished by the magistrate for his erroneous opinions, while he conducted himself like a virtuous and obedient subject, and made no attempts to disturb the peace and order of civil society" (Mosheim8); yet ever since the year 1817, the Lutheran Church has been a part of the Established Church of Prussia. And in the face of the declarations of the Augsburg Confession, the emperor of Germany to-day, as king of Prussia, is the supreme pontiff of the Lutheran Church in Prussia. In the Scandinavian countries also, the Lutheran Church is the State Church.

THE REFORMATION IN SWITZERLAND

Zwingle, who gave the cast to the Reformation in Switzerland, sanctioned, if he did not really create there, the union of Church and State. His view was that the State is Christian. "The Reformer deserting the paths of the apostles, allowed himself to be led astray by the perverse example of popery." He himself "resolved to be at one and the same time the man of the State and of the Church, . . . at once the head of the State and general of the army -- this double, this triple, part of the Reformer was the ruin of the Reformation and of himself." For when war came on in Switzerland, Zwingle girded on his sword, and went with the troops to battle. "Zwingle played two parts at once -- he was a reformer and a magistrate. But these are two characters that ought no more to be united than those of a minister and of a soldier. We will not altogether blame the soldiers and the magistrates: in forming leagues and drawing the sword, even for the sake of religion, they act according to their point of view, although it is not the same as ours; but we must decidedly blame the Christian minister who becomes a diplomatist or a general."

He who took the sword, perished by the sword. In the first battle that was fought -- October 11, A. D. 1531 -- twenty-five of the Swiss reform preachers were slain, the chief of whom was Zwingle, who fell stricken with many blows. "If the German Reformer had been able to approach Zwingle at this solemn moment and pronounce those oft-repeated words, `Christians fight not with sword and arquebuse, but with sufferings and with the cross,' Zwingle would have stretched out his dying hand and said, `Amen.'" -- D'Aubidgne.9

THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND

Although the Reformation was begun in England by Tyndale about the same time that it was commenced by Luther in Germany, it attracted no public notice until 1521, when Henry VIII, as the doughty champion of the papacy, promptly took up the enforcement of the pope's bull; and Luther's writings were publicly burnt in London, May 21. Cardinal Wolsey was master of ceremonies. "Before, a priest of a stately figure carried a rod, surmounted by a crucifix; behind him another, no less stately, carried the archiepiscopal cross of York; a nobleman, walking at his side, carried his cardinal's hat. He was attended by nobles, prelates, embassadors of the pope and the emperor, and these were followed by a long train of mules, carrying trunks with the richest and most splendid coverings. At London, amidst this magnificent procession, the writings of the poor monk of Wittemberg were carried to the flames.

On arriving at the cathedral, the proud priest made even his cardinal's hat be placed upon the altar. The virtuous bishop of Rochester took his station at the foot of the cross, and there, in animated tone, inveighed against heresy. The impious writings of the heresiarch were then brought forward, and devoutly burned in presence of an immense crowd. Such was the first news which England received of the Reformation." -- D'Aubigne.10

But Henry was not content with this; nor even with opposing the Reformation in his own dominions. He wrote to the Archduke Palatine of Germany, in the following words: --

"This fire, which has been kindled by Luther, and fanned by the arts of the devil, is raging everywhere. If Luther does not repent, deliver him and his audacious treatises to the flames. I offer you my royal co-operation, and even, if necessary, my life."11

Nor did he stop here. He entered the lists as a theologian, and wrote against Luther a book entitled the "Defense of the Seven Sacraments Against Martin Luther, by the Most Invincible King of England, France, and Ireland, Henry, Eighth of the Name." In the book he set himself forth as a sacrifice for the preservation of the church, and also proclaimed the papal principles, in the following words: --

"I will throw myself before the church, I will receive in my breast the poisoned darts of the enemy who is assailing her. To this the present state of affairs calls me. Every servant of Jesus Christ, whatever be his age, rank, or sex, must bestir himself against the common enemy of Christendom.

"Let us arm ourselves with double armor -- with heavenly weapons, that by the arms of truth we may vanquish him who combats with the arms of error. But let us also arm ourselves with terrestrial armor, in order that, if he proves obstinate in his wickedness, the hand of the executioner may constrain him to silence; and he may thus, for once at least, be useful to the world by his exemplary punishment."12

He denounced Luther as "an infernal wolf, a venomous viper, a limb of the devil," and other such handsome things. By his partisans and flatterers, Henry's book was extolled to the skies. It was declared "the most learned work that ever the sun saw," and, appropriately enough indeed, it was compared with the works of St. Augustine. Henry himself they pronounced a Constantine, a Charlemagne, and even a second Solomon. Henry was no less pleased in fact with his performance, than the others pretended to be. He had his embassador at Rome deliver to the pope in person a copy of the book; and the embassador, in presenting it to the pope, who received him in full consistory, said: "The king, my master, assures you that, after refuting the errors of Luther with his pen, he is ready to combat his adherents with the sword."13

The grateful pope, as was to be expected, struck even yet a higher note of praise to Henry. Leo X replied that the book of the king of England could only have been composed with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and in return gave the embassador both his foot and his cheek to be kissed, saying, "I will do for your master's book as much as the church has done for St. Jerome and St. Augustine." To his cardinals Leo said, "We must honor those noble champions who show themselves prepared to cut off with the sword the rotten members of Jesus Christ. What title shall we give to the virtuous king of England?" One suggested, "Protector of the Roman Church," another, "Apostolic King;" as the final result, a bull was issued by the pope, proclaiming Henry VIII "Defender of the Faith," and granting ten years' indulgence to all who would read the king's book.

The bull was promptly sent by a messenger to Henry, who of course was overjoyed when he received it. A moment after Henry received the bull, the king's fool entered the room. Henry's joy was so marked that the fool asked him the cause of it. The king replied, "The pope has just made me `Defender of the Faith.'" The fool being the only wise man in the whole transaction, replied, "Ho! ho! good Harry, let you and me defend one another; but take my word for it, let the faith alone to defend itself." Henry decided that the new dignity thus bestowed upon him should be publicly proclaimed. "Seated upon an elevated throne, with the cardinal at his right hand, he caused the pope's letter to be read in public. The trumpets sounded; Wolsey said mass; the king and his court took their seats around a sumptuous table, and the heralds-at-arms proclaimed, "Henricus Dei gratia Rex Angliae et Franciae, Defensor Fidei et Dominus Hibernaie!" -- "Henry, by the grace of God king of England and France, defender of the faith, and lord of Ireland."14

Thus was acquired by the sovereign of England, the title and dignity of "Defender of the Faith," which has been worn by all the successors of Henry, and is held to-day by Queen Victoria.

Luther was not the man to keep silence, not even when kings spoke. He had faced the emperor; he had defied the pope; and now he both contemns and defies Henry, and all the rest of the papal brood together. Besides meeting and overthrowing the king's arguments in detail, his ringing words of defiance of the papacy, and his faith in the word of God only and its power, were a call to all Europe to take refuge under the standard of the Reformation, and are worthy forever to be held in remembrance. The opening and the closing of his reply to Henry is as follows: --

"I will not deal mildly with the king of England; it is in vain (I know it is) to humble myself, to yield, beseech, and try the ways of peace. I will at length show myself more terrible than the ferocious beasts who are constantly butting me with their horns. I will let them feel mine: I will preach and irritate Satan until he wears himself out, and falls down exhausted. `If this heretic retracts not,' says the new Thomas, Henry VIII, `he must be burnt.' Such are the weapons now employed against me; first, the fury of stupid asses and Thomastical swine, and then the fire. Very well! Let these swine come forward, if they dare, and burn me! Here I am, waiting for them. My wish is, that my ashes, thrown, after my death, into a thousand seas, may arise, pursue, and engulf this abominable crew. Living, I will be the enemy of the papacy; burnt, I will be its destruction. Go, swine of St. Thomas; do what seemeth to you good. You shall ever find Luther as a bear in your way, and a lion in your path. He will thunder upon you from all quarters, and leave you no peace until he has brayed your brains of iron, and ground to powder your foreheads of brass. For me, I cease not to cry, `The gospel! the gospel! Christ! Christ!' while my opponents cease not to reply, `Customs! customs! ordinances! ordinances! Fathers! Fathers!'

`Let your faith,' says St. Paul, `stand not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God,' And the apostle, by this thunderbolt from heaven, overthrows and scatters, like the dust before the wind, all the silly crotchets of this Henry. To all the sayings of Fathers, men, angels, devils, I oppose not the antiquity of custom, not the multitude, but the word of the Eternal Majesty, the gospel, which they themselves are constrained to approve. By it I hold; on it I rest; in it I glory, triumph, and exult over papists, Thomists, Henrys, and all the hellish sty. The King of heaven is with me, and therefore I fear nothing, even should a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, and a thousand churches, of which Henry is defender, rise up against me. It is a small matter for me to despise and lash an earthly king, who himself has not feared, in his writing, to blaspheme the King of heaven, and profane his holiness by the most audacious falsehood.

Papists! Will you not desist from your vain pursuits? Do as you please, the result, however, must be, that before the gospel which I, Martin Luther, have preached, popes, bishops, priests, monks, princes, devils, death, sin, and whatever is not Jesus Christ or in Jesus Christ, shall fall and perish."15

Soon, however, Henry wanted a divorce from his wife, Catherine, that he might marry Anne Boleyn. The pope, Clement VII, proposed to grant him his wish, and actually signed a "decretal by which he himself annulled the marriage between Henry and Catherine." He also "signed a valid engagement by which he declared beforehand that all retractation of these acts should be null and void." -- D'Aubigne.16 Both these documents were committed to the legate, Compeggio, whom he was sending to England professedly to conduct the proceedings and accomplish the fact of the divorce; but at the same time gave him positive command that he must never let the decretal go out of his hands. Compeggio departed for England; the political winds suddenly veered, messengers were sent with all speed after him, directing him to delay both his journey, and all the proceedings as much as possible; and especially commanding him not to use the decretal, nor take any other step favorable to the divorce, without a new and express order from the pope himself. The outcome of it all was that the pope, finding it impracticable under the circumstances to offend the emperor, who was Catherine's nephew, played so long his lingering game with Henry , with the hope of holding both sovereigns, that Henry grew impatient, and divorced both Catherine and the pope. This being accomplished, he proceeded at once, A. D. 1533, to put Anne Boleyn in the place of Catherine, as queen; and himself in the place of the pope, as head of the church in England. It was in the fullest sense of the word that Henry put himself in the place of the pope in the realm of England.

In 1534 the "Act of Supremacy" was passed by Parliament, by which "authority in all matters ecclesiastical was vested solely in the crown. The courts spiritual became as thoroughly the king's courts as the temporal courts at Westminster. The statute ordered that the king `shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England, and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and state thereof as all the honors, jurisdictions, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity belonging, and with full power to visit, repress, redress, reform, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, contempts, and enormities which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction might or may lawfully be reformed.'" -- Green.17

The very pattern of the Inquisition was established in England. At the close of 1534 a statute was made which declared to be treason "the denial of any of the king's titles," and as the king in 1535 assumed the title, "On earth supreme head of the Church of England," any denial of his headship of the church was therefore treason; and Thomas Cromwell pushed this principle to the utmost limit. "Spies were scattered broadcast over the land, secret denunciations poured into the open ear of the minister. The air was thick with tales of plots and conspiracies. . . . The confessional had no secrets from Cromwell. Men's talk with their closest friends found its way to his ear. Words idly spoken, the murmurs of a petulant abbot, the ravings of a moonstruck nun, were, as the nobles cried passionately at his fall, tortured into treason. The only chance of safety lay in silence. But even the refuge of silence was closed by a law more infamous than any that has ever blotted the statute-book of England. Not only was thought made treason, but men were forced to reveal their thoughts on pain of their very silence being punished with the penalties of treason. All trust in the older bulwarks of liberty was destroyed by a policy as daring as it was unscrupulous. The noblest institutions were degraded into instruments of terror." -- Green.18

That which was now the Church of England was simply that which before was the Catholic Church in England. "In form nothing had been changed. The outer Constitution of the church remained entirely unaltered." In faith, likewise, nothing had been changed in fact, except in the mere change of the personages who assumed the prerogative of dispensers of it. Henry, as both king and pope, was now the supreme head of the church. "From the primate to the meanest deacon, every minister of it derived from him sole right to exercise spiritual powers. The voice of its preachers was the echo of his will. He alone could define orthodoxy or declare heresy. The forms of its worship and belief were changed and rechanged at the royal caprice." For as early as 1532, Henry had laid down the proposition that "the king's majesty hath as well the care of the souls of his subjects as their bodies; and may by the law of God by his Parliament make laws touching and concerning as well the one as the other." -- Green.19

Such was the "Reformation" accomplished by "Henry, Eighth of the Name," so far as in him and his intention lay. But to be divorced from the pope of Rome was a great thing for England. And as Henry had set the example of revolt from papal rule when exercised from the papal throne, the English people were not slow in following the example thus set, and revolting from the same rule when exercised from the English throne. It began even in Henry's reign, in the face of all the terrors of a rule "which may be best described by saying that it was despotism itself personified." -- Macaulay.20 During the regency of Edward VI and under the guidance of Cranmer and Ridley, advance steps were taken even by the Church of England itself -- the use of images, of the crucifix, of incense, tapers, and holy water; the sacrifice of the mass, the worship of saints, auricular confession, the service in Latin, and the celibacy of the clergy, were abolished. During the Catholic reaction under Mary, the spirit of revolt was confirmed; and under Elizabeth, when the polity of the Church of England became fixed, and thenceforward, it constantly, and at times almost universally, prevailed.

In short, the example set by Henry has been so well and so persistently followed through the ages that have since passed, that, although the Church of England still subsists, and, although the sovereign of England still remains the head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, both the office and the title are of so flexible a character that they easily adapt themselves to the headship and defense of the faith of Episcopalianism in England and of Presbyterianism in Scotland. And yet even more and far better than this, the present sovereign of England, Queen Victoria, has distinctly renounced the claim of right to rule in matters of faith. In 1859 Her Majesty issued a royal proclamation to her subjects in India, in which she said these words: --

"Firmly relying, ourselves, on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects. We declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that none be in any wise favored, none molested or disquieted, by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure.

"And it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity to discharge."

CALVINISM IN GENEVA

The views of Calvin on the subject of Church and State, were as thoroughly theocratic as the papal system itself. Augustine was his master and model throughout. When at the age of twenty-eight, at the urgent call of Farel, Calvin settled in Geneva, he drew up a condensed statement of Christian doctrine, in fact a synopsis of his "Institutes," consisting of twenty-one articles which all the citizens were called up in bunches of ten each, "To profess and swear to, as the confession of their faith." This method of making a Calvinistic city was gone through with, Calvin himself said, "with much satisfaction." This oath and confession of faith were made as citizens, not particularly as church members. They were not asked whether they were converted; they were not required to be church members; but simply as men and citizens, were required to take the oath and accept this as the confession of their faith.

In fact, the oath of allegiance as a citizen, and the confession of faith as a Christian, were identical. This was at once to make the Church and the State one and the same thing with the Church above the State. Yea, more than this, it was wholly to swallow up the civil in the ecclesiastical power; for the preachers were supreme. It was but another man-made theocracy, after the model of the papacy. Indeed, according to Calvin's "Institutes," the very reason of existence of the State, is only as the support and the servant of the church; and accordingly, when the magistrate inflicts punishment, he is to be regarded as executing the judgment of God. "What we see on the banks of the Leman is a theocracy; Jehovah was its head, the Bible was the supreme code, and the government exercised a presiding and paternal guardianship over all interests and causes, civil and spiritual." -- Wylie.21

Serious difficulty, however, arose, when it came to enforcing the strictness of scriptural morality, and the Calvinistic restrictions regarding the dress and manner of life of the citizens which the two preachers had adopted.22 All who had been made Christian citizens by the machine method before mentioned, resented it, and desired that the strictness of discipline should be modified. This the preachers looked upon as an attempt of the civil power to dictate in spiritual matters, and they refused to yield in the least degree. The people insisted, and the preachers stood firm. The dissension soon grew so violent that the preachers refused to administer the sacraments to the people; then the people rose up and banished them from the city, A. D. 1539.

Calvin went to Strasburg, where he remained two years, during which time much disorder prevailed in Geneva, and the friends of Calvin insisted all the time that if only he were recalled, order could be restored. In 1541 the decree of banishment was revoked, and at "the earnest entreaties of the Genevese, Calvin returned." He was no less determined than before to have his own way, and to make his will absolute; and the circumstances under which he returned, paved the way for him to execute his will as he was not suffered to do before. "He entered upon his work with a firm determination to carry out those reforms which he had originally purposed, and to set up in all its integrity that form of church policy which he had carefully matured during his residence at Strasburg." The town was divided into parishes, with an elder or some one appointed by the council of elders, in charge of each parish, to see that discipline was observed.

"His system of church polity was essentially theocratic; it assumed that every member of the State was also under the discipline of the church; and he asserted that the right of exercising this discipline was vested exclusively in the consistory, or body of preachers and elders. His attempts to carry out these views brought him into collision both with the authorities and with the populace, the latter being enraged at the restraints imposed upon the disorderly by the exercise of church discipline, and the former being inclined to retain in their-own hands a portion of that power in things spiritual, which Calvin was bent on placing exclusively in the hands so of the church rulers. His dauntless courage, his perseverance, and his earnestness at length prevailed, and he had the satisfaction, before he died, of seeing his favorite system of church polity firmly established, not only at Geneva, but in other parts of Switzerland, and of knowing that it had been adopted substantially by the Reformers in France and Scotland. Nor was it only in religious matters that Calvin busied himself; nothing was indifferent to him that concerned the welfare and good order of the State or the advantage of its citizens. His work, as has been justly said, `embraced everything;' he was consulted on every affair, great and small, that came before the council, -- on questions of law, policy, economy, trade, and manufactures, no less than on questions of doctrine and church polity." -- Encyclopedia Britannica.23

It is plain that when every member of the State was subject to the discipline of the Church, and when this discipline was exercised exclusively by the body of preachers and elders with Calvin at the head of that body, his power was practically unlimited. And by this it is further evident that the system there made and established by Calvin, was but the papal system over again, with Calvin as pope.24 And the use which he made of the power with which he was thus clothed, shows that he was as ready to exert the authority, as he was to sit in the place, of a pope.

The people having just thrown off the yoke of the pope of Rome, were not all ready to bear with meekness the yoke of the pope of Geneva. One of the first to speak out, was Gruet, who attacked him vigorously on his supremacy, called him "bishop of Asculum," and "the new pope." Among other points of dissent, Gruet denied the immortality of the soul. He may have been an infidel, but it is not certain; at any rate, he was brought before the council, by which he was condemned and punished with death. Another who dissented was Castalio, master of the public schools of Geneva. He attacked Calvin's doctrine of unconditional predestination. He was deposed from his office and banished. Another was Jerome Bolsec, a monk who had been converted to Protestantism. He, too, attacked the doctrine of absolute decrees. He was thrown into prison, and after a two days' debate with Calvin before the council, was banished.

Out of this grew still another. Jacques de Bourgogne, a lineal descendant of the dukes of Burgundy, and an intimate friend and patron of Calvin, had settled at Geneva solely to have the pleasure of his company. Bourgogne had employed Bolsec as his physician, and when Bolsec became involved in his difficulty with Calvin, Bourgogne came to his support, and tried to prevent his ruin. This so incensed Calvin that he turned his attention to the nobleman, who was obliged to leave Geneva, lest a worse thing should befall him.

Another, and the most notable of all the victims of Calvin's theocracy, was Servetus, who had opposed the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and also infant baptism; and had published a book entitled "Christianity Restored," in which he declared his sentiments. At the instance and by the aid of Calvin, he had been prosecuted by the papal Inquisition, and condemned to death for blasphemy and heresy, but he escaped from their prison in Dauphine, in France, and in making his way to Italy, passed through Geneva, and there remained a short time. He was just about to start for Zurich, when at the instigation of Calvin, he was seized, and out of the book before mentioned, was accused of blasphemy. The result, as everybody knows, was that he was burned to death. The followers of Servetus were banished from Geneva.

Calvin's system of government was not confined to Geneva, however, nor did his idea die with him. It occupies almost as large a place in the subsequent history as does the papacy itself, of which throughout it is so close a counterpart. he himself tried during the reign of Edward VI to have it adopted in England. "He urged Cranmer to call together pious and rational men, educated in the school of God, to meet and agree upon one uniform confession of doctrine according to the rule of Scripture," declaring: "As for me, if I can be made use of, I will sail through ten seas to bring it about." -- Bancroft.25

All his personal effort in this direction failed, however. He died May 27, A. D. 1564.

CALVINISM IN SCOTLAND

It was stated above that before his death Calvin had the satisfaction of knowing that his system of church polity had been adopted in Scotland. No doubt this furnished him much satisfaction indeed. But if he could only have lived to see the time when that system was being worked in Scotland according to its perfect ideal, we may well believe that he would have fairly wept in the fullness of his unspeakable joy.

From A. D. 1638 to 1662, under the Convenanters, the Calvinistic system was supreme in Scotland; and "the arrogance of the ministers' pretensions and the readiness with which these pretensions were granted; the appalling conceptions of the Deity which were inculcated, and the absence of all contrary expression of opinion; the intrusions on the domain of the magistrate; the vexatious interference in every detail of family and commercial life, and the patience with which it was borne, are to an English reader alike amazing. `We acknowledge,' said they, `that according to the latitude of the word of God (which is our theame), we are allowed to treate in an ecclesiastical way of greatest and smallest, from the king's throne that should be established in righteousness, to the merchant's balance that should be used in faithfulness.' The liberality of the interpretation given to this can only be judged of after minute reading." -- Encyclopedia Britannica.26

In fact it was "one of the most detestable tyrannies ever seen on the earth. When the Scotch Kirk was at the height of its power, we may search history in vain for any institution which can compete with it, except the Spanish Inquisition. Between these two, there is a close and intimate analogy. Both were intolerant, both were cruel, both made war upon the finest parts of human nature, and both destroyed every vestige of religious freedom." -- Buckle.

PURITANISM AND THE NEW ENGLAND THEOCRACY

After Scotland, it was in Puritan New England that the Calvinistic system of government most nearly reached its ideal.

The rise of the Puritans was on this wise: To escape the persecutions by Mary, in her attempt to restore Catholicism as the religion of England, many members of the Church of England fled to Germany. The worship of these while in exile was conducted by some with the rites of the Church of England as established under Edward VI, while others adopted the Swiss or Calvinistic form of worship. This caused a division, and much contention between them. "The chief scene of these disturbances was Frankfort." John Knox took the leadership of those who were inclined to Calvinism, while Cox, who afterward became bishop of Ely, was the chief of those who defended the forms of the Church of England. Those who maintained the English form of worship were called Conformists, and those who advocated Calvinistic forms, were called Non-Conformists. The contentions finally grew so bitter that the Conformists drove the Non-Conformists out of the city.

At the accession of Elizabeth, November, 1558, the exiles returned to England carrying their differences with them. There the Non-Conformists acquired the nick-name of "Puritans." "A Puritan, therefore, was a man of severe morals, a Calvinist in doctrine, and a Non-Conformist to the ceremonies and discipline of the Church [of England], though they did not totally separate from it." -- Neal. Yet more than this: they were not only not separate from the Church of England, but it was not the purpose of the Puritans to separate from either the church, or the government, of England. It was their set purpose to remain in, and a part of, both, to "reform" both, and create and establish instead a Puritan Church of England, and a Puritan government of England.

The controversy, as already stated, turned upon the forms of worship -- whether the clergy should wear vestments, whether the church should be governed by bishops, about cathedral churches, and the archdeacons, deans, canons, and other officials of the same; about festivals and holy-days; the sign of the cross, god-fathers, god-mothers, etc. The Conformists held firmly to the form of worship as established under Edward VI; the Puritans insisted on going the full length in renouncing all the remaining forms and ceremonies. The queen was not in favor of adopting even the system established under Edward, but inclined yet more toward the papal system. Under the circumstances, she rather connived at the efforts of the Puritan party until she had made herself secure on the throne. In addition to this, many seeing the queen herself neglecting the forms enjoined by statute, did the same thing. The result was that the Puritan principles so grew in favor that in the convocation of 1562, when a motion was made to abolish most of the usages in dispute, it was lost by only a single vote, the vote standing fifty-eight for the motion and fifty-nine against it.29

As Elizabeth saw that the Puritan party was rapidly growing, she thought to check it by enforcing uniformity according to the established usage. In this she was zealously supported, if not rather led, by the archbishop of Canterbury. This attempt at coercion -- 1567 -- caused the Puritans to add to their objections to caps, surplices, tippets, etc., a strong dislike for the whole system of episcopacy, and a stronger determination to substitute for it the Presbyterian form of ecclesiastical polity. And as "it is manifest that the obstinacy of bold and sincere men is not to be quelled by any punishments that do not exterminate them, and that they were not likely to entertain a less conceit of their own reason when they found no arguments so much relied on to refute it as that of force" (Hallam, the inevitable consequence was that the efforts to enforce uniformity only caused non-conformity to grow more determined and more prevalent.

The Puritans had now grown into a powerful party, and, owing to the difficulties of her position, Elizabeth, whose interest in any matter of religion -- unless that perhaps of the papal -- was more political than anything else, might have been even yet brought to assent to some of their demands if the Puritans could have been content with anything like moderation. But they now made such extravagant demands, and asserted such extreme doctrines, that it became at once apparent that they would be content with nothing less than the utter subversion of the State, and the establishment in England of the system by which Calvin had ruled Geneva.

About 1570 this movement took definite shape; and among the leaders in the movement, "Thomas Cartwright was the chief. He had studied at Geneva; he returned with a fanatical faith in Calvinism, and in the system of church government which Calvin had devised; and as Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, he used to the full the opportunities which his chair gave him of propagating his opinions. No leader of a religious party ever deserved less of after sympathy. Cartwright was unquestionably learned and devout, but his bigotry was that of a mediaeval in-quisitor. The relics of the old ritual, the cross in baptism, the surplice, the giving of a ring in marriage, were to him not merely distasteful, as they were to the Puritans at large; they were idolatrous, and the mark of the beast.

"His declamation against ceremonies and superstition, however, had little weight with Elizabeth or her primates; what scared them was his most reckless advocacy of a scheme of ecclesiastical government which placed the State beneath the feet of the Church. The absolute rule of bishops, indeed, Cartwright denounced as begotten of the devil, but the absolute rule of presbyters he held to be established by the word of God. For the church modeled after the fashion of Geneva he claimed an authority which surpassed the wildest dreams of the masters of the Vatican. All spiritual authority and jurisdiction, the decreeing of doctrine, the ordering of ceremonies, lay wholly in the hands of the ministers of the church. To them belonged the supervision of public morals. In an ordered arrangement of classes and synods, these presbyters were to govern their flocks, to regulate their own order, to decide in matters of faith, to administer `discipline'. Their weapon was excommunication, and they were responsible for its use to none but Christ." -- Green.

The actual relation which the State was to bear toward the Church, the magistrates toward the ecclesiastics, was set forth as follows, in a "Second Admonition to Parliament," -- 1572 -- "the legislator" of the proposed Puritan republic: --

"It must be remembered that civil magistrates must govern the church according to the rules of God prescribed in his word, and that as they are nurses, so they be servants unto the church; and as they rule in the church, so they must remember to submit themselves unto the church, to submit their scepters, to throw down their crowns before the church, yea, as the prophet speaketh, to lick the dust off the feet of the church." -- Cartwright.32

"The province of the civil ruler in such a system of religion as this, was simply to carry out the decisions of the presbyters, `to see their decrees executed, and to punish the condemners of them.' Nor was this work of the civil power likely to be light work. The spirit of Calvinistic Presbyterianism excluded all toleration of practice or belief. Not only was the rule of ministers to be established as the legal form of church government, but all other forms, Episcopalian or Separatist, were to be ruthlessly put down. For heresy there was the punishment of death. Never had the doctrine of persecution been urged with such a blind and reckless ferocity. `I deny,' wrote Cartwright, `that upon repentance there ought to follow any pardon of death. . . . Heretics ought to be put to death now. If this be bloody and extreme, I am content to be so counted with the Holy Ghost!'

"The violence of language such as this was as unlikely as the dogmatism of his theological teaching, to commend Cartwright's opinions to the mass of Englishmen. Popular as the Presbyterian system became in Scotland, it never took any popular hold on England. It remained to the last a clerical, rather than a national, creed; and even in the moment of its seeming triumph under the commonwealth, it was rejected by every part of England save London and Lancashire.33 But the bold challenge which Cartwright's party delivered to the government in 1572, in an `Admonition to the Parliament,' which denounced the government of bishops as contrary to the word of God, and demanded the establishment in its place of government by presbyters, raised a panic among English statesmen and prelates, which cut off all hopes of a quiet treatment of the merely ceremonial questions which really troubled the consciences of the more advanced Protestants. The natural progress of opinion abruptly ceased, and the moderate thinkers who had pressed for a change in ritual which would have satisfied the zeal of the Reformers, withdrew from union with a party which revived the worst pretensions of the papacy." -- Green.34

From this time forward, Elizabeth, zealously supported, if not led, by the archbishop of Canterbury, and his subjects, exerted all her power to crush the Puritans. And though the persecution was cruel, they bore it all with patience; first, because every effort that was made to crush them only multiplied their fame and influence a hundred-fold, and, second, because they lived in strong hope that better days, if not their actual triumph, would come when Elizabeth was gone. And as Elizabeth steadily refused to marry, and thus cut off every possibility of heirship to the throne through her, the hopes of the Puritans strengthened as her age increased; because James of Scotland was next in the line of succession, and was not Presbyterianism established in Scotland? And had not James in 1590, with his Scottish bonnet off and his hands raised to heaven declared: --

"I praise God that I was born in the time of the light of the gospel, and in such a place as to be king of such a church, the sincerest [purest] kirk in the world. The church of Geneva keep Pasche and Yule [Easter and Christmas]; what have they for them? They have no institution. As for our neighbor Kirk of England, their services are an evil-said mass in English; they want nothing of the mass but the liftings. I charge you, my good ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your purity, and to exhort the people to do the same; and I, forsooth, as long as I brook my life, shall maintain the same"?35

And had he not in 1591, written a letter to Elizabeth requesting her to "show favor to Mr. Cartwright and his brethren, because of their great learning and faithful travels in the gospel"? Was not James therefore a good Presbyterian? And would he not surely put the Puritans in their long-coveted position in England?

Elizabeth died March 24, 1603, and was at once succeeded by James. Before he left Scotland for London to be crowned king of England, he gave public thanks to God in the church of Edinburgh, that he was leaving "both kirk and kingdom in that state which he intended not to alter any ways, his subjects living in peace." -- Neal.36

This, however, as well as the speech before quoted, was but a piece of that "kingcraft" upon which James prided himself. He had been brought up under Calvinistic discipline in Scotland, and had enough of it; and as a matter of fact, he was only too glad of the opportunity to break loose from all Presbyterian and Puritan influence; and this opportunity he used to the full when he reached London. He called a conference of the two church parties, at which he openly took his stand for Episcopacy and the Church of England as it was, and renounced all connection with the Puritans, or favor for them. He told the Puritans in the conference, "If this be all your party have to say, I will make them conform, or I will harrie them out of the land, or else worse -- hang them, that's all." Not long afterward, he declared in his council of State, that "his mother and he from their cradles had been haunted with a Puritan devil, which he feared would not leave him to his grave; and that he would hazard his crown but he would suppress those malicious spirits." -- Bancroft.37 Accordingly he issued a proclamation commanding all Puritans to conform or suffer the full extremity of the laws, and the archbishop of Canterbury followed it up "with unrelenting rigor."

Meanwhile, some of the Puritans seeing that the prospect from new Presbytery, was but the same as from old priest, only writ large, drew off from the Puritan party, as well as from the Church of England, and advocated a complete separation from both systems as to church government. They held that each church or assembly of worshipers is entirely independent of all others, and self-governing; that all points of doctrine or discipline are to be submitted to the congregation for discussion and final decision; and that each congregation should elect its own pastor, etc. For this reason they were called Independents or Congregationalists, and were nicknamed Separatists.

Upon these the wrath of both Puritans and Conformists was poured with about equal virulence. As early as 1567, one of these Congregations was formed in London; but it was forcibly broken up, thirty- one of its members being imprisoned for nearly a year. Persecution, however, only caused their numbers to grow, and by 1576 they formed a distinct sect under the leadership of Robert Brown, from whom they were again nicknamed Brownists. And still they were subject to the enmity of both old ecclesiastical parties. Their meetings were broken up by mobs, and the result to individuals is described as follows, by one who wrote at the time an account of a "tumult in Fleet street, raised by the disorderly preachment, pratings, and prattlings of a swarm of Separatists: --

"At length they catcht one of them alone, but they kickt him so vehemently as if they meant to beat him into a jelly. It is ambiguous whether they have kil'd him or no, but for a certainty they did knock him about as if they meant to pull him to pieces. I confesse it had been no matter if they had beaten the whole tribe in the like manner.38

In 1592 Bacon wrote concerning them: "As for those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the most, a very small number of very silly and base people, here and there in corners dispersed, they are now, thanks to God, by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and worn out; so that there is scarce any news of them."39 Yet in 1593 there were twenty thousand of them; and in the same year, at the order of Archbishop Whitgift, three of their leading men were hanged, two of whom had already been in prison seven years. The crime of which they were convicted and for which they were executed, was "separation from the Church of England."

The attitude and the words of King James, were simply a proclamation of the continuance of the war which Elizabeth had already waged against the Puritans and Congregationalists, and caused the Separatist principles and numbers more to grow. The chief of the Separatists was now William Brewster, a prominent man of Scrooby. Assisted by John Robinson, he organized a congregation in 1606, which held its meetings in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. They were so persecuted and abused by all classes, as well as by the officers of the law, that in 1608 they fled to Holland, stopping first at Amsterdam, and afterward going to Leyden in 1609. From there a company of these PILGRIMS sailed, and landed at Plymouth, New England, in 1620.

The success of this venture suggested to the Puritans a new scheme. Was not here an opportunity to establish a complete and unabridged Puritan government? And was not the way fully opened, and the opportunity easy to be improved? Enough! They would do it. The scheme was talked about, pamphlets were written, a company was formed, a grant of land was obtained, and John Endicott, with a company of sixty, was sent over in 1628. They joined a fishing settlement at the place afterward called Salem on Massachusetts Bay.

In 1629 a royal charter was obtained, creating "The Government and Colony of Massachusetts Bay in New England;" and four hundred and six people, led by Francis Higginson, were sent over, and Endicott became governor of the whole colony.

A Puritan or Calvinistic government was at once established and put into working order. A church was immediately organized according to the Congregational form, with Higginson and Samuel Skelton as the ministers. All, however, were not inclined to Puritanism. Two persons of the former company at Salem, John and Samuel Browne, took the the lead in worshiping according to their own wish, conducting their service after the Episcopal order, using the book of common prayer. Their worship was forbidden. The Brownes replied, "You are Separatists, and you will shortly be Anabaptists." The Puritans answered, "We separate, not from the Church of England, but from its corruptions. We came away from the common prayer and ceremonies, in our native land, where we suffered much for non- conformity; in this place of liberty we cannot, we will not, use them. Their imposition would be a sinful violation of the worship of God."40 In return the Brownes were rebuked as Separatists; their defense was pronounced sedition; their worship was declared mutiny; and they were sent back to England as "factious and evil-conditioned men," Endicott declaring that "New England was no place for such as they."

Higginson died in the winter of 1629-30. In 1630 there came over another company led by John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, who were the governor and deputy-governor to succeed Endicott. "Their embarkation in 1630 was the signal of a general movement on the part of the English Puritans. Before Christmas of that year seventeen ships had come to New England, bringing more than one thousand passengers." -- Fiske.41 Dudley's views of toleration and liberty of conscience are expressed in the following lines, which he wrote: --

"Let men of God in courts and churches watch O'er such as do a toleration hatch,

Lest that ill egg bring forth a cockatrice To poison all with heresy and vice."42

And Winthrop's estimate of the preachers is seen in his declaration that "I honored a faithful minister in my heart, and could have kissed his feet."43 It was therefore not at all strange that under the government of Winthrop and Dudley in 1631, the following law should be enacted: --

"To the end this body of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men, it is ordered and agreed that, for the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same."

"Thus the polity became a theocracy; God himself was to govern his people; and the `saints by calling,'. . . were, by the fundamental law of the colony, constituted the oracle of the divine will. . . . Other States have confined political rights to the opulent, to free-holders, to the first-born; the Calvinists of Massachusetts, refusing any share of civil power to the clergy, established the reign of the visible church, a commonwealth of the chosen people in covenant with God." -- Bancroft.44 This was the Calvinistic system precisely. The preachers were not to hold office in itself, but they were to be the rulers of all who did. For, as no man could be a citizen unless he was a member of the church; and as none could become members of the churches or even "propounded to the congregation, except they be first allowed by the elders;" this was to make the preachers supreme. This is exactly the position they occupied. They were consulted in everything, and everything must be subject to their dictation.

Other companies of immigrants continued to come, and the colony rapidly grew. In 1634 there were nearly four thousand in the colony.

In 1631 Roger Williams landed in Boston, and as the death of Higginson had left a vacancy in the church at Salem, the church called Williams to fill his place; but as Winthrop and his "assistants" objected, Williams went to Plymouth Colony.

The leading minister in Massachusetts Colony at this time was John Cotton. He distinctly taught the blessedness of persecution in itself, and in its benefit to the State, in the following words: --

"But the good brought to princes and subjects by the due punishment of apostate seducers and idolaters and blasphemers, is manifold.

"First, it putteth away evil from among the people, and cutteth off a gangrene, which would spread to further ungodliness. . . . .

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

"Thirdly, such executions upon such evil doers causeth all the country to heare and feare and doe no more such wickednesse. . . . Yea, as these punishments are preventions of like wickednesse in some, so are they wholesome medicines, to heale such as are curable of these eviles. . . .

"Fourthly, the punishments executed upon false prophets and seducing teachers, doe bring downe showers of God's blessings upon the civill state . . . .

"Fifthly, it is an honour to God's justice that such judgments are executed.45. . . .

And Samuel Shepard, a minister of Charlestown, preached an election sermon entitled "Eye Salve," in which he set forth the following views: --

"Men's lusts are sweet to them, and they would not be disturbed or disquieted in their sin. Hence there be so many such as cry up tolleration boundless and libertinism so as (if it were in their power) to order a total and perpetual confinement of the sword of the civil magistrate unto its scabbard (a motion that is evidently diestructive to this people, and to the publick liberty, peace, and prosperity of any instituted churches under heaven).

"Let the magistrate's coercive power in matters of religion, therefore, be still asserted, seeing he is one who is bound to God more than any other man to cherish his true religion; . . . and how wofull would the state of things soon be among us, if men might have liberty without controll to profess, or preach, or print, or publish what they list, tending to the seduction of others."46

In accordance with these principles, every inhabitant of the colony was obliged to attend the services of the Established Church on Sunday under penalty of fine or imprisonment. The fine was not to exceed five shillings, equal to about five dollars of the present day, for every absence.

About 1633 Roger Williams was called a second time to the ministry of the Salem church. This time he was allowed to take the place; but it was not long before he was again in trouble with the theocrats. He denounced their laws making church membership a qualification for office, and all their laws enforcing religious observances.

He declared that the worst law in the English code was that by which they themselves when in England had been compelled to attend the parish church; and he reproved their inconsistency in counting that persecution in England, and then doing the same things themselves in New England.

They maintained, as argued by Cotton, that "persecution is not wrong in itself. It is wicked for falsehood to presencute truth, but it is the sacred duty of truth to persecute falsehood." And, as stated by Winthrop, that "we have come to New England in order to make a society after our own model; all who agree with us may come and join that society; those who disagree may go elsewhere; there is room enough on the American continent."47

Roger Williams told them that to compel men to unite with those of a different faith is an open violation of natural right; and that to drag to public worship the irreligious and the unwilling, is only to require hypocrisy. "Persons may with less sin be forced to marry whom they cannot love, than to worship where they cannot believe."48 Accordingly he insisted that "no one should be bound to worship or to maintain a worship against his own consent."

At this the theocrats inquired with pious amaze, "What, is not the laborer worthy of his hire?" To which Roger replied in words which they could not fail fully to understand, "Yes, from them that hire him."

The view that the magistrates must be chosen exclusively from membership in the churches, he exploded with the argument that with equal propriety they should select a doctor of physic or the pilot of a ship, because of his standing in the church.

Against the statements of Cotton and Shepard and the claims of the theocrats altogether, as to the right of the magistrate to forestall corrupting influences upon the minds of the people, and to punish error and heresy, he set the evident and everlasting truth that "magistrates are but the agents of the people or its trustees, on whom no spiritual power in matters of worship can ever be conferred, since conscience belongs to the individual, and is not the property of the body politic; . . . the civil magistrate may not intermeddle even to stop a church from apostasy and heresy; this power extends only to the bodies and goods and outward estate of men."49

The theocrats raised the alarm that these principles subverted all good government. To which he replied: "There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common, and is a true picture of a commonwealth or a human combination or society. It hath fallen out sometimes that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked in one ship; upon which supposal I affirm that all the liberty of conscience that ever I pleaded for turns upon these two hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship, nor compelled from their particular prayers or worship, if they practice any."50 "The removal of the yoke of soul-oppression, as it will prove an act of mercy and righteousness to the enslaved nations, so it is of binding force to engage the whole and every interest and conscience to preserve the common liberty and peace."51

He also denied the right of the compulsory imposition of an oath. The magistrates had decided to require an oath of allegiance to Massachusetts, instead of to the king of England. Williams would not take the oath, and his influence was so great that so many others refused also that the government was compelled to drop the project. This caused them to raise a charge against him as the ally of a civil faction. The church at Salem stood by him, and in the face of the enmity of the theocrats elected him their teacher. This was no sooner done than the preachers met together and declared that any one who should obstinately assert that "the civil magistrate might not intermeddle even to stop a church from apostasy and heresy," was worthy of banishment. A committee of their order was appointed to go to Salem and deal with Williams and the church "in a church way."

Meantime the people of Salem were punished for choosing him for their teacher, by the withholding of a tract of land to which they had laid claim. Williams was ready to meet the committee at every point in expressing and defining his doctrines, and in refuting all their claims. After the committee had returned, the church by Williams wrote letters to all the churches of which any of the magistrates were members, "that they should admonish the magistrates of their injustice." By the next general court the whole of Salem was disfranchised until they should apologize for these letters. The town and the church yielded. Roger Williams stood alone. He was able and willing to do it, and at once declared his "own voluntary withdrawing from all these churches which were resolved to continue in persecuting the witnesses of the Lord," and "hoped the Lord Jesus was sounding forth in him the blast which should in his own holy season cast down the strength and confidence of those inventions of men." In October, 1635, he was summoned before the chief representatives of the State. He went and "maintained the rocky strength" of his position, and declared himself "ready to be bound and banished, and even to die in New England," rather than to renounce his convictions.

By the earnest persuasions of Cotton, the general court of 1635, by a small majority, sentenced him to exile, and at the same time attempted to justify the sentence by the flimsy plea that it was not a restrainment on freedom of conscience, but because the application of the new doctrine to their institutions seemed "to subvert the fundamental state and government of the country." In January, 1636, a warrant was sent to him to come to Boston and take ship for England. He refused to go. Officers were sent in a boat to bring him, but he was gone. "Three days before, he had left Salem, in winter snow and inclement weather, of which he remembered the severity even in his late old age.

`For fourteen weeks he was sorely tost in a bitter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Often in the stormy night he had neither fire, nor food, nor company; often he wandered without a guide, and had no house but a hollow tree. But he was not without friends. The respect for the rights of others which had led him to defend the freedom of conscience, had made him the champion of the Indians. He had learned their language during his residence at Plymouth; he had often been the guest of the neighboring sachems; and now, when he came in winter to the cabin of the chief of Pokanoket, he was welcomed by Massassoit; and `the barbarous heart of Canonicus, the chief of the Narragansetts, loved him as his son to the last gasp.' `The ravens,' he relates, `fed me in the wilderness.'"52

The act of 1631 making membership in the church a test of citizenship had involved the theocrats in another dilemma. There was a considerable number of people who were not members of the churches, and because of unfitness could not be admitted. Even more than this, they did not want to to be admitted. But as membership in the church was necessary to citizenship, and as they wanted to be, and deemed it their right to be, citizens, they took to organizing churches of their own. But the theocrats were not willing that power should slip through their fingers in any such way as this; they found not only a way to escape from the dilemma.,but with that to make their power more absolute. In 1635 the following law was enacted: --

"Forasmuch as it hath bene found by sad experience, that much trouble and disturbance hath happened both to the Church & civill State by the officers & members of some churches, wch which have bene gathered. . . . in an vndue manner, . . . . it is . . . ordered that . . . this court doeth not, nor will hereafter approue of any such companies of men as shall henceforth ioyne in any pretended way of church fellowshipp, without they shall first acquainte the magistrates, & the elders of the greatr of the churches in this jurisdicon, with their intencons, and have their approbacon herein. And ffurther, it is ordered, that noe peson, being a member of any churche which shall hereafter be gathered without the approbacon of the magistrates, & the greater pte of the said churches, shall be admitted to the freedom of this comonwealthe."53

In May, 1636, Henry Vane was elected governor. Some time before this Anne Hutchinson, with her family, had come over from Lincolnshire, being followed later by her brother-in-law, John Wheelwright. She was an excellent woman, and made many friends, and at her house held religious meetings for women. The object of these meetings. was to talk over the sermons for mutual edification; but as was natural, they drifted into the discussion of the ministers rather than their sermons. In one of these meetings Mrs. Hutchinson happened to remark that of the ministers "none did preach the covenant of free grace but Master Cotton," and that they "had not the seal of the Spirit, and so were not able ministers of the New Testament." This remark soon got into circulation among the preachers, and of course was not at all palatable.

As Cotton was named as the one exemplary minister, in October the ministers went in a body to his house to call him to account. Cotton proposed that the other ministers and Mrs. Hutchinson should have a friendly interview at his house, in order to come to an understanding. She, suspecting a trap, was rather wary at first, and declined to commit herself to any definite statement upon the point at issue, but being urged by the "Rev." Hugh Peters to deal fairly and honestly with them, she allowed herself at last to be persuaded to say that the report was in substance true, and that she did in truth see a wide difference between Cotton's preaching and theirs; "that they could not preach a covenant of grace so clearly as he, because they had not the seal of the Spirit."

Instead of the preachers' being reconciled to Mrs. Hutchinson's view, or to Cotton, their enmity was deepened. The matter spread more and more, and the colony was divided into two parties; and at the head of the Hutchinson party was Vane, the governor.

In January 1637, on a fast-day, John Wheelwright preached in Boston to the effect that "it maketh no matter how seemingly holy men be according to the law, if . . . they are such 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 broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments; and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues; and greetings in the market place, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and ye shall be saved, for being justified 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 Christ taken from us is this: we must all prepare a spiritual combat, we must put on the whole armor of God, and must have our loins girt up and be ready to fight; . . . because of fear, in the night, if we will not fight, the Lord Jesus Christ may come to be surprised."54

This brought matters to a crisis. In March the legislature met, and a court was appointed, composed of Henry Vane, twelve magistrates, twelve preachers, and thirty-three deputies. Wheelwright was arraigned before the court. His sermon was brought forth, and an attempt was made to have him admit that when he spoke in the sermon of those under a covenant of works, he meant his brother ministers in the colony. Of course it was easy for him to throw the matter on them. He demanded that they controvert his doctrine. He said he was ready to prove by the Scriptures that the doctrine was true. As to who was meant in the sermon, he told them that "if he were shown any that walked in such a way as he had described to be a covenant of works, them did he mean." The rest of the ministers were asked by the court if they "did walk in such a way." "They all acknowledged that they did," except Cotton, who declared that "Brother Wheelwright's doctrine was according to God in the parts controverted, and wholly and altogether."

By hard work the opposition succeeded in having Wheelwright convicted of sedition; but they were not able to secure sentence at once, and had him remanded to the next session. As soon as the decision was known, more than sixty of the leading citizens of Boston signed a petition to the court in behalf of Wheelwright, in which they referred to the persecution as a restriction of the right of free speech, and among other things said: --

"Paul was counted a pestilent fellow, or a mover of sedition, and a ringleader of a sect, . . . and Christ himselfe, as well as Paul, was charged to bee a teacher of new doctrine. . . . Now wee beseech you, consider whether that old serpent work not after his old method, even in our dailies. . . . Thirdly, if you look at the effects of his doctrine upon the hearers, it hath not stirred up sedition in us, not so much as by accident; wee have not drawn the sword, as sometimes Peter did, rashly, neither have wee rescued our innocent brother, as sometimes the Israelites did Jonathan; and yet they did not seditiously. The covenant of free grace held forth by our brother hath taught us rather to become humble suppliants to your worships, and if wee should not prevaile, wee would rather with patience give our cheekes to the smeiters."55

It is not necessary to follow particulars farther; the question was made the issue at the next election. Wheelwright's enemies carried the day, electing Winthrop governor. At the next session held in November, he was summoned to appear, and was ordered to submit, or prepare for sentence. He maintained that as he had preached only the truth of Christ, he was guilty of neither sedition nor contempt. The court replied that they had not censured his doctrine, but had left that as it was; but the censure was upon the application by which "he laid the magistrates and ministers and most of the people in this church under a covenant of works." He was sentenced to be disfranchised and banished, and he was given fourteen days to leave Massachusetts. Like Roger Williams, he was compelled to go forth alone in the bitterness of the New England winter.

Wheelwright was no sooner out of the way than they proceeded to try his friends who had presented the petition, and these men who had not only in the petition disclaimed any thought of sedition, but had said that if their petition was not heard, they "would rather with patience give their cheekes to the smiters," were held to be public enemies. "Such scruples, however, never hampered the theocracy. Their justice was trammeled neither by judges, by juries, nor by laws." -- Adams.56

This accomplished, they next proceeded to execute vengeance on Anne Hutchinson, the chief traitor, and the cause of all their dissension. In November, 1637, "she was brought to trial before that ghastliest den of human iniquity, an ecclesiastical criminal court. The ministers were her accusers, who came burning with hate to testify to the words she had spoken to them at their own request, in the belief that the confidence she reposed was to be held sacred. She had no jury to whose manhood she could appeal, and John Winthrop, to his lasting shame, was to prosecute her from the judgment seat. She was soon to become a mother, and her health was feeble; but she was made to stand till she was exhausted; and yet abandoned and forlorn, before those merciless judges, through two long, weary days of hunger and of cold, the intrepid woman defended her cause with a skill and courage which even now, after two hundred and fifty years, kindles the heart with admiration.

"The case for the government was opened by John Winthrop, the presiding justice, the attorney- general, the foreman of the jury, and the chief magistrate of Massachusetts Bay. He upbraided the prisoner with her many evil courses, with having spoken things prejudicial to the honor of the ministers, with holding an assembly in her house, and with divulging the opinions held by those who had been censured by that court." -- Adams.57. The proceedings then continued after the following order: --

Governor Winthrop. -- "We have thought good to send for you, . . . that if you be in an erroneous way, we may reduce you that so you may become a profitable member here among us; otherwise if you be obstinate, . . . that then the court may take such course that you may trouble us no further. Therefore I would entreat you. . . whether you do not justify Mr. Wheelwright's sermon and the petition?"

Mrs. Hutchinson. -- "I am called here to answer before you, but I hear no things laid 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 faction."

Mrs. H.-- "In what faction have I joined them?"

Gov. -- "In presenting the petition." . . .

Mrs. H. "But I had not my hand to the petition."

Gov. -- "You have counseled 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 do honor 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, and so you do dishonor us."

Mrs. H. -- "I do acknowledge no such thing, neither do I think that I ever put any dishonor upon you."

Dep.Gov. -- "I would go a little higher with Mrs. Hutchinson. Now. . . . if she in particular hath disparaged all our ministers in the land that they have preached a covenant of works, and only Mr. Cotton a covenant of grace, why this is not to be suffered.". . .

Mrs. H. -- "I pray, sir, prove it, that I said they preached nothing but a covenant of works." . . .

Dep. Gov. -- "If they do not preach a covenant of grace, clearly, then, they preach a covenant of works."

Mrs. H. -- "No, sir; one may preach a covenant of grace more clearly than another, so I said."

Rev. Hugh Peters. -- "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. Myself and others had heard that the prisoner said we taught a covenant of works; we sent for her, and though she was `very tender' at first, yet upon being begged to speak plainly, she explained that there `was a broad difference' between our Brother Mr. Cotton and ourselves. I desired to know the difference. She answered `that he preaches the covenant of grace and you the covenant of works,' and that you are not able ministers of the New Testament, and know no more than the apostles did before the resurrection."

Mrs. H. -- "If our pastor would show his writings, you should see what I said, and that things are not so as is reported."

Mr. Wilson. -- "Sister Hutchinson, for the writings you speak of, I have them not.". . .

Peters was followed by five other preachers, who first with hypocritical meekness expressed themselves as loth to speak in this assembly concerning that gentlewoman, yet to ease their consciences in the relation wherein they stood to the commonwealth and unto God, they felt constrained to state that the prisoner had said they were not able ministers of the New Testament, and that the whole of what Hugh Peters had testified was true. The-court then adjourned till the next day.

When the court opened the next day, Mrs. Hutchinson began her defense by calling as her witnesses Messrs. Leverett, Coggeshall, and Cotton. And the inquisitorial mill again began to grind.

Gov. Winthrop. -- "Mr. Coggeshall was not present."

Coggeshall. -- "Yes, but I was; only I desired to be silent till I should be called."

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 lay against 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. Leverett. -- To my best remembrance, . . . Mr. Peters did with much vehemency and entreaty urge her to tell what difference there was between Mr. Cotton and them, 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 did not preach a covenant of grace so clearly as Mr. Cotton did, and she gave this reason of it, because that as the apostles were for a time without the Spirit, so until they had received the witness of the Spirit they could not preach a covenant of grace so clearly."

Cotton was next called, and took his place as witness.

Mr. Cotton. -- "I must say that I did not find her saying they were under a covenant of works, nor that she said they did preach a covenant 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 the ascension." . . .

Dep. Gov. -- They affirm that Mrs. Hutchinson did say they were not able ministers of the New Testament."

Mr. C. -- "I do not remember it."58

Mrs. Hutchinson believed also in the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, and in the promise of Christ that the Spirit will guide the Christian, especially in the understanding of the Scriptures. She therefore taught that "the Holy Ghost dwells in a justified person," and that it is the duty of Christians to "follow the bidding of the Holy Spirit." For this she was regarded by the formalistic Puritans as little less than a raving fanatic, and her teachings as tending to anarchy. And as "there was nothing which the orthodox Puritan so steadfastly abhorred as the anarchical pretense of living by the aid of a supernatural light," she was denounced as "weakening the hands and hearts of the people toward the ministers," and as being "like Roger Williams, or worse."59

Now at her trial, knowing that although the court was worsted in its case as to the main point, and that she had no hope of escape without an attack upon this phase of her belief, she chose rather to introduce the matter herself than to allow the court to force her upon ground of their own choosing. She therefore stated that she knew by the Spirit of God that her teachings were the truth, and closed a short speech as follows: --

Mrs. H. -- "Now if you condemn me for speaking what in my conscience I know to be truth, I must commit myself unto the Lord."

Mr. Nowell. -- "How do you know that that was the Spirit?" Mr. H. -- "How did Abraham know that it was God?"

Dep. Gov. -- "By an immediate voice."

Mrs. H. -- "So to me by an immediate revelation."

She next stated to the court her conviction that the Lord had showed to her that she would be delivered out of the hands of the court, and referred to some passages in the book of Daniel. In the condition in which the poor woman was, it is not to be wondered at that under the continued and cruel goading of the court, she should speak the following words: --

Mrs. H. -- "You have power over my body, but the Lord Jesus hath power over my body and soul; and assure yourselves thus much, you do as much as in you lies to put the Lord Jesus Christ from you, and if you go on in this 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 so too?"

Mrs. H. -- "I do here speak it before the court. I look that the Lord should deliver 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 understand her; but this I say, If she doth expect a deliverance in a way of providence, then I cannot deny it."

Gov. -- . . . "I see a marvelous providence of God to bring things to this pass. . . . God by a providence hath answered our desires, and made her to lay open herself and the ground of all these disturbances to be by revelations." . . .

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 you witness for her or against her?"

Mr. C. -- "This is that I said, sir, and my answer is plain, that if she doth look for deliverance from the hand of God by his providence, and the revelation 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 that she 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 like ground laid as is for this. The enthusiasts and Anabaptists had never the like." . . .

Mr. Peters. -- "I can say the same; . . . and I think that is very disputable which our Brother Cotton hath spoken." . . .

Gov. -- "I am persuaded that the revelation she brings forth is delusion."

All the court (except two or three ministers). -- "We all believe it, we all believe it." . . .

Coddington. -- "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 your proceedings. Here is no law of God that she hath broken, nor any law of the country that she hath broke, and therefore deserves no censure; and if she say that the elders preach as the apostles did, why they preached a covenant of grace, and what wrong is that to them? . . . Therefore I pray consider what you do, for here is no law of God or man broken."

Mr. Peters. -- "I confess I thought Mr. Cotton would never have took her part."

Gov. -- "The court hath already declared themselves satisfied . . . concerning the troublesomeness of her spirit and the danger of her course amongst us, which is not to be suffered. Therefore if it be the mind of the court that Mrs. Hutchinson . . . shall be banished out of our liberties, and imprisoned till she be sent away, let them hold up their hands."

All but three consented.

Gov. -- "Those contrary minded hold up yours." Messrs. Coddington and Colburn only.

Gov. -- "Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as being a woman not fit for our society, and are to be imprisoned till the court shall send you away."

Mrs. Hutchinson. -- "I desire to know wherefore I am banished." Gov. -- "Say no more: the court knows wherefore, and is satisfied."60

Here the proceedings in the court ended. She was committed to Joseph Welde of Roxbury, whose brother, one of the preachers, had pronounced her a Jezebel. There the preachers continued their tormenting questioning and cross-questioning, until the poor woman was driven so near to distraction that they with "sad hearts" could frame a charge against her of being possessed with Satan. They therefore wrote to the church at Boston offering to make proof of the same, upon which she was summoned to appear to answer before the church.

When she came, one of the ruling elders read a list of twenty-nine "errors," of all of which they accused her. She admitted that she had maintained all of them, and then asked a pointed question herself.

Mrs. H. -- "By what rule did such an elder come to me pretending to desire light, and indeed to entrappe me?"

The elder. -- "I came not to entrappe you, but in compassion to your soul."

The inquisition continued from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night, when sentence of admonition was pronounced. The case was then adjourned for a week, when she was caused once more to appear upon her trial, and was charged, amongst other things, with having denied "inherent righteousness." Of course she was convicted upon all the charges, "so that the church with one consent cast her out. . . . After she was excommunicated, her spirit, which seemed before to be somewhat dejected, revived again, and she gloried in her sufferings."

"And all this time she had been alone; her friends were far away. That no circumstance of horror might be lost, she and one of her most devoted followers, Mary Dyer, were nearing their confinements during this time of misery. Both cases ended in misfortunes over whose sickening details 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.' Let posterity draw a veil over the shocking scene." --Adams. 61

Happily she escaped with her life. A few days after her condemnation, the governor sent her a warrant banishing her from the territory of Massachusetts. At the solicitation of Roger Williams, she and her friends went to Narragansett Bay. Miantonomoh made them a present of the island of Rhode Island, where they settled.

In 1636 about a hundred people, under the leadership of Thomas Hooker, a minister second only to Cotton in the estimate of the colonists, removed from Massachusetts Colony to the valley of the Connecticut, and established there the towns of Springfield, Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield; and January 14, 1639, Springfield preferring to remain in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, the three remaining towns established a form of government under eleven "fundamental orders," the preamble of which is as follows: --

"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the river of Connecticut and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together, the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into combination and confederation together, to maintain and pursue the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such laws, rules, orders, and decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed."62

Order number four was to the effect that the governor should "be always a member of some approved congregation, and formerly of the magistracy within this jurisdiction." The oath of office for the governor was as follows: --

"I, , being now chosen to be governor within this jurisdiction, for the year ensuing, and until a new be chosen, do swear by the great and dreadful name of the everliving God, to promote the public good and peace of the same, according to the best of my skill; as also will maintain all lawful privileges of this commonwealth; as also that all wholesome laws that are or shall be made by lawful authority here established, be duly executed; and will further the execution of justice according to the rule of God's word; so help me God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."63

The oath of the magistrate was substantially the same. Unlike Massachusetts, church membership was not required in order to be a voter. Persons became citizens by vote of the major part of the town where they lived, or the major part of such as should be then present and taking the "oath of fidelity."

In 1637 a colony of Puritan immigrants with John Davenport as their pastor, arrived in Boston, and remained until the spring of 1638, then founded the town and colony of New Haven. In 1639 a colony from New Haven settled the town of Milford, and another company from England settled the town of Guilford. In the same year a form of government was established, and "by the influence of Davenport it was resolved that the Scriptures are the perfect rule of the commonwealth; that the purity and peace of the ordinances to themselves and their posterity were the great end of civil order; and that church members only should be free burgesses." -- Bancroft.64 A committee of twelve was appointed to nominate seven men to become magistrates. In August the seven met together to put into working order the forms of the new government. "Abrogating every previous executive trust, they admitted to the court all church members; the character of civil magistrates was next expounded `from the sacred oracles; ' and the election followed. Then Davenport, in the words of Moses to Israel in the wilderness, gave a charge to the governor to judge righteously; `The cause that is too hard for you,' such was part of the minister's text, `bring it to me, and I will hear it.' Annual elections were ordered; and God's word established as the only rule in public affairs." The other towns followed this example, and thus "the power of the clergy reached its extreme point in New Haven, for each of the towns was governed by seven ecclesiastical officers known as `pillars of the church.' These magistrates served as judges, and trial by jury was dispensed with, because no authority could be found for it in the laws of Moses." -- Fiske.65

In 1643 the four colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and new Haven formed a league called the United Colonies of New England, the purpose of which was defined as follows: --

"Whereas wee all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and ayme; namely, to advaunce the kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the gospell in puritie with peace; And, whereas, in our settleinge (by a wise Providence of God) wee are further dispersed vpon the sea coasts and riuers than was at first intended, so that wee cannot according to our desire with convenience communicate in one govurnment and jurisdiccon, . . . we therefore doe conceiue it our bounden dutye without delay to enter into a present consotiation amongst our selues for mutuall help and strength in all our future concernments: That as in nation and religion so in other respects wee bee and continue one according to the tenor and true meaneing of the ensuing articles: Wherefore it is fully agreed and concluded by and between the parties of jurisdiccons aboue named, and they jointly and seuerally doe by these presents agree and conclude that they all bee and henceforth bee called by the name of The United Colonies of New England.

"1. The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do joyntly and seuerally hereby enter into a firme and perpetuall league of friendship and amytie for offence and defence, mutuall advise, and succour vpon all just occasions both for prescrueing and propagateing the truth and liberties of the gospell and for their owne mutuall safety and wellfare. . . .

"6. It is also agreed that for the managing and concluding of all affaires proper and concerning the whole Confederacon two commissioners shall be chosen by and out of eich of these foure jurisdiccons; namely, two for the Massachusetts, two for Plymouth, two for Connectacutt, and two for New Haven, being all in church fellowship with us which shall bring full power from their seueral generall courts respectively to heare examine, weigh, and determine all affairs," etc.66

The population of the four colonies was about twenty-four thousand, Massachusetts having about fifteen thousand, and the other three colonies about three thousand each. The Federal Commissioners formed an advisory board rather than a legislative body. The formation of this league strengthened the theocracy.

By the strictness of the rules which had been framed by the preachers to regulate the admission of members to the churches, there were so few that joined the churches, that the membership, which was supposed to include at least the great majority of the people, in fact embraced not more than one third of them. And now as a demand began to be made for freedom of worship according to other than Congregational forms, the Congregational clergy saw that something must be done more firmly to confirm their power

Accordingly at Cambridge, August, 1648, after two years' reflection,there was framed a "Platform of Church Discipline Gathered out of the Word of God." It was in fact the establishment of the Congregational Church upon the basis of the confederacy of the four colonies; for throughout, although it professed to maintain the principles of the independence of each congregation, it provided "councils composed of elders, and other messengers of churches to advise, to admonish, and to withhold fellowship from a church," but not to exercise special acts of discipline, or jurisdiction, in any particular church. And further it provided that if any church should separate itself from the communion of the churches, the magistrates might compel them to conform. "The Westminster Confession was promulgated as the creed; the powers of the clergy were minutely defined, and the duty of the laity stated to be `obeying their elders and submitting themselves unto them in the Lord.' The magistrate was enjoined to punish `idolatry, blasphemy, heresy,' and to coerce any church becoming `schismatical.'" -- Adams.67

In October, 1649, the platform was referred to the general court for consideration and adopted, and was further submitted by them to the churches for their approval. In October, 1651, it was confirmed by each of the legislatures. Thus was the theocracy of Massachusetts completed and clothed with all the power of the commonwealth. And as its power was increased, so were its bitter fruits vastly increased. In 1649 Governor Winthrop died, and was succeeded by John Endicott; and in 1652 John Cotton died, and was succeeded by John Norton, and these two men, John Endicott and John Norton, have been not inaptly described as "two as arrant fanatics as ever drew breath." And with the accession of these two men to the headship of the complete and fully furnished theocracy, the New England reign of terror may be said to have begun.

THE SUFFERINGS OF THE BAPTISTS

Of all the pests which so far the New England Puritans dreaded and hated, the Baptists or, as they were nicknamed, "the Anabaptists," were the greatest. It was not one of the least of the offenses of Roger William's that he was a Baptist. Not long after Roger Williams's banishment, that Thomas Shepard of Charlestown in the sermon before referred to entitled "Eye Salve," had told the governor and the magistrates that "Anabaptists have ever been looked at by the godly leaders of this people as a scab;" and the president of Harvard College said that "such a rough thing as a New England Anabaptist is not to be handled over tenderly." According to these principles, therefore, the general court of Massachusetts in 1644 --

"Ordered and agreed that if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first table, and shall appear to the court willfully and obstinately to continue therein, after due time and means of conviction, every such person or persons shall be sentenced to banishment."68

The next year, however, a strong petition was presented for the repeal of the law because of the offense that had been "taken threat by the godly in England, `but many of the elders entreated that the law might continue still in force.'" The law remained, but the representative of the colony who went to England in 1646 explained to Parliament that "`it is true we have a severe law, but wee never did or will execute the rigor of it upon any . . . But the reason 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." In pursuance of this law and in the same year, a Baptist by the name of Painter, for refusing to let his child be sprinkled, "was brought before the court, where he declared their baptism to be antichristian." He was sentenced to be whipped, which he bore without flinching.

And now in 1651 three Baptist ministers, John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, and John Crandall, went from the Providence plantation to Lynn, Massachusetts, to visit an aged Baptist. They arrived on Saturday, July 19, and the next day they worshiped together in his private house. While Mr. Clarke was preaching, two constables entered the house with a warrant to arrest "certain erroneous persons being strangers." The three ministers were carried off at once to the tavern, and were notified that they must attend worship at the parish church in the afternoon. They protested, saying that if they were forced into the meeting-house, they should be obliged to dissent from the service. The constable told them that was nothing to him. He was ordered to bring them to church, and to church they must go. As they entered the meeting-house, the congregation was at prayers, and the three prisoners took off their hats; but as soon as the prayer was over, they put on their hats again, and began reading in their seats. The officers were ordered to take off their hats again.

When the service was over, Elder Clarke asked permission to speak. His request was granted on condition that he would not speak about what he had just heard preached. He began to explain why he had put on his hat, saying that he "could not judge that they were gathered according to the visible order of the Lord." He was allowed to proceed no further, and the three were shut up for the night. The following Tuesday they were taken to Boston and put in prison. July 31, they were tried before the court of assistants, and were fined, Clarke twenty pounds, Holmes thirty, and John Crandall five, "or each to be well whipped." At the beginning of the trial Elder Clarke had asked that they be shown the law under which they were being tried, and now he made the same request again, but Endicott broke in, "You have deserved death. I will not have such trash brought into our jurisdiction. You go up and down, and secretly insinuate things into those that are weak, but you cannot maintain it before our ministers; you may try a dispute with them."

As they were sent away from the court to prison, Elder Holmes says, "As I went from the bar, I exprest myself in these words: `I blesse God I am counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus; whereupon John Wilson (their pastor, as they call him) strook me before the judgment-seat, and cursed me, saying, `The curse of God . . . goe with thee;' so we were carried to the prison."

The Baptists were ready to defend their doctrines as well as to attack the popish ceremonies of the Puritans; therefore Elder Clarke, as soon as they had arrived at the prison, wrote a letter to the court, and proposed to debate the Baptist principles with any of their ministers. He was asked in reply what the Baptist principles were that he would debate. Clarke drew up four propositions, the first stating their faith in Christ; second, that baptism, or dipping in water, is one of the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that a visible believer or disciple of Christ Jesus (that is, one who manifests repentance toward and faith in Jesus Christ) is the only person to be baptized or dipped in water etc.; third, that every such believer in Christ may in point of liberty, and ought in point of duty, to improve that talent which the Lord had given him, and in the congregation may ask for information to himself; or if he can, may speak by way of prophecy, for edification, and upon all occasions and in all places as far as the jurisdiction of his Lord extends, may and ought to walk as a child of light; and, fourth, "I testify that no such believer or servant of Christ Jesus hath any liberty, much less authority, from his Lord, to smite his fellow-servant, nor with outward force, or arm of flesh to constrain, or restrain, his conscience, nor his outward man for conscience' sake, or worship of his God, where injury is not offered to any person, name, or estate of others, every man being such as shall appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, and must give an account of himself to God; and, therefore, ought to be fully persuaded in his own mind for what he undertakes, because he that doubteth is damned if he eat, and so also if he act, because he doth not eat or act in faith, and what is not of faith is sin."

There was at first some talk, or rather a bluff, that Cotton would debate with him; but after consulting together, Cotton declined, and as Elder Clarke's fine had been paid by his friends, he was released, and ordered to go out of the colony as soon as possible. They all three refused to pay the fine that was imposed. Crandall was admitted to bail, but they resolved to hold Elder Holmes, and make him an example. What happened to him he himself tells in a letter to his brethren in London, as follows: --

"I desired to speak a few words: but Mr. Nowel answered, `It is not now a time to speak,' whereupon I took leave, and said. 'Men, brethren, fathers, and countrymen, I beseech you to give me leave to speak a few words, and the rather because here are many spectators to see me punished, and I am to seal with my blood, if God give strength, that which I hold and practice in reference to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. That which I have to say, in brief, is this although I am no disputant, yet seeing I am to seal with my blood what I hold, I am ready to defend by the word, and to dispute that point with any that shall come forth to withstand it.' Mr. Nowel answered, now was no time to dispute; then said I, 'I desire to give an account of the faith and order which I hold,' and this`I desired three times; but in comes Mr. Flint, and saith to the executioner, `Fellow, do thine office, for this fellow would but make a long speech to delude the people,' so I, being resolved to speak, told the people, `That which I am to suffer for is the word of God, and testimony of Jesus Christ.' `No,' saith Mr. Nowel, `it is for your error, and going about to seduce the people; 'to which I replied, `Not for error, for in all the time of my imprisonment, wherein I was left alone, my brethren being gone, which of all your ministers came to convince me of error? And, when upon the governor's words, a motion was made for a public dispute, and often renewed upon fair terms, and desired by hundreds, what was the reason it was not granted?' Mr. Nowel told me, it was his fault who went away and would not dispute; but this the writings will clear at large. Still Mr. Flint calls to the man to do his office; so before, and in the time of his pulling off my clothes, I continued speaking, telling them that I had so learned that for all Boston I would not give my body into their hands thus to be bruised upon another account, yet upon this I would not give an hundredth part of a wampum peague to free it out of their hands; and that I made as much conscience of unbuttoning one button, as I did of paying the thirty pounds in reference thereunto. I told them, moreover, that the Lord having manifested his love towards me in giving me repentance towards God, and faith in Christ, and so to be baptized in water by a messenger of Jesus, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, wherein I have fellowship with him in his death, burial and resurrection, I am now come to be baptized in afflictions by your hands, that so I may have further fellowship with my Lord, and am not ashamed of his sufferings, for by his stripes am I healed. And as the man began to lay the strokes upon my back, I said to the people. `Though my flesh should fail, and my spirit should fail, yet God would not fail;' so it pleased the Lord to come in, and to fill my heart and tongue as a vessel full, and with an audible voice I break forth, praying the Lord not to lay this sin to their charge, and telling the people that now I found he did not fail me, and therefore now I should trust him forever who failed me not; for in truth, as the strokes fell upon me. I had such a spiritual manifestation of God's presence, as I never had before, and the outward pain was so removed from me, that I could well bear it, yea, and in a manner felt it not, although it was grievous, as the spectators said, the man striking with all his strength, spitting in his hand three times, with a three-corded whip, giving me therewith thirty strokes. When he had loosed me from the post, having joyfulness in my heart, and cheerfulness in my countenance, as the spectators observed, I told the magistrates, `You have struck me with roses;' and said, moreover, `Although the Lord hath made it easy to me, yet I pray God it may not be laid to your charge."

When the whipping was over, two men, John Hazel and John Spur, went up to the suffering man, and shook hands with him, Hazel not speaking anything at all, and Spur simply saying, "Blessed be the Lord;" yet both were fined forty shillings, with the choice of paying the fine or being whipped. They both refused to pay the fine, but a friend paid Spur's, and after imprisonment for a week, another paid Hazel's. The whipping of Holmes was thirty lashes with a three-thonged whip of knotted cord wielded with both hands, and was so severe that when taken back to prison, his lacerated body could not bear to touch the bed. For many days he was compelled to rest propped up on his hands and knees. In prison an old acquaintance came "with much tenderness like the good Samaritan," to comfort him and dress his wounds, and even against him information was given, and inquiry made as to who was the surgeon. When Elder Holmes's letter reached his friends in London, they published it, upon which Sir Richard Saltonstall wrote to the Boston preachers the following letter: --

"Reverend and dear friends, whom I unfeignedly love and respect: It doth not a little grieve my spirit to hear what sad things are reported daily of your tyranny and persecution in New England; that you fine, whip, and imprison men for their consciences. First, you compel such to come into your assemblies as you know will not join with you in worship, and when they show their dislike thereof, or witness against it, then you stir up your magistrates to punish them for such (as you conceive) their public affronts. Truly, friends, this practice of compelling any in matters of worship to do that whereof they are not fully persuaded, is to make them sin, for so the apostle tells us (Rom. xiv, 23); and many are made hypocrites thereby, conforming in their outward man for fear of punishment. We pray for you and wish your prosperity every way; hoped the Lord would have given you so much light and love there, that you might have been eyes to God's people here, and not to practice those courses in a wilderness, which you went so far to prevent. These rigid ways have laid you very low in the hearts of the saints. I do assure you I have heard them pray in public assemblies, that the Lord would give you meek and humble spirits, not to strive so much for uniformity as to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. When I was in Holland, about the beginning of our wars,I remember some Christians there, that then had serious thoughts of planting in New England, desired me to write to the governor thereof, to know if those that differ from you in opinion, yet holding the same foundation in religion, as Anabaptists, Seekers, Antinomians, and the like, might be permitted to live among you; to which I received this short answer from your then governor, Mr. Dudley: `God forbid,' said he, `our love for the truth should be grown so cold that we should tolerate errors.'

It is important to know what answer was made to this, and to know the arguments that were used by the New England theocracy to justify these wicked persecutions. The preachers answered Sir Richard's letter, by the hand of their chief, John Cotton. And the letter runs as follows: --

"Honored and dear Sir: My Brother Wilson and self do both of us acknowledge your love, as otherwise formerly, so now in late lines we received from you, that you grieve in spirit to hear daily complaints against us; it springeth from your compassion for our afflictions therein, wherein we see just cause to desire you may never suffer like injury in yourself, but may find others to compassionate and condole with you. For when the complaints you hear of are against our tyranny and persecution in fining, whipping, and imprisoning men for their consciences, be pleased to understand we look at such complaints as altogether injurious in respect of ourselves, who had no hand or tongue at all to promote either the coming of the persons you aim at into our assemblies, or their punishment for their carriage there. Righteous judgments will not take up reports, much less reproaches against the innocent. The cry of the sins of Sodom was great and loud, and reached unto heaven; yet the righteous God (giving us an example what to do in the like case) he would first go down to see whether their crimes were altogether according to the cry, before he would proceed to judgment. Gen. xviii, 20, 21. And when he did find the truth of the cry, he did not wrap up all alike promiscuously in the judgment, but spared such as he found innocent. We are amongst those (if you knew us better) you would account of as (as the matron of Abel spake of herself) peaceable in Israel. 2 Sam. xx, 19. Yet neither are we so vast in our indulgence or toleration as to think the men you speak of suffered an unjust censure. For one of them, Obadiah Holmes, being an excommunicate person himself, out of a church in Plymouth patent, came into this jurisdiction and took upon him to baptize, which I think himself will not say he was compelled here to perform. And he was not ignorant that the rebaptizing of an elder person, and that by a private person out of office and under excommunication, are all of them manifest contestations against the order and government of our churches, established, we know, by God's law, and he knoweth by the laws of the country. And we conceive we may safely appeal to the ingenuity of your own judgment. whether it would be tolerated in any civil state, for a stranger to come and practise contrary to the known principles of the church estate? As for his whipping, it was more voluntarily chosen by him than inflicted on him. His censure by the court was to have paid, as I know, thirty pounds, or else to be whipt: his fine was offered to be paid by friends for him freely; but he chose rather to be whipt; in which case, if his sufferings of stripes was any worship of God at all, surely it could be accounted no better than will worship. The other, Mr. Clarke, was wiser in that point, and his offense was less, so was his fine less, and himself, as I hear, was contented to have it paid for him, whereupon he was released. The imprisonment of either of them was no detriment. I believe they fared neither of them better at home; and I am sure Holmes had not been so well clad for years before.

"But be pleased to consider this point a little further: You think to compel men in matter of worship is to make them sin, according to Rom. xiv, 23. If the worship be lawful in itself, the magistrate compelling to come to it, compelleth him not to sin, but the sin is in his will that needs to be compelled to a Christian duty. Josiah compelled all Israel, or, which is all one, made to serve the Lord their God. 2 Chron. xxxiv, 33. Yet his act herein was not blamed, but recorded among his virtuous actions. For a governor to suffer any within his gates to profane the Sabbath, is a sin against the fourth commandment, both in the private householder and in the magistrate; and if he requires them to present themselves before the Lord, the magistrate sinneth not, nor doth the subject sin so great a sin as if he did refrain to come. But you say it doth but make men hypocrites, to compel men to conform the outward man for fear of punishment. If it did so, yet better be hypocrites than profane persons. Hypocrites give God part of his due, the outward man; but the profane person giveth God neither outward nor inward man. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, we have tolerated in our church some Anabaptists, some Antinomians, and some Seekers, and do so still at this day.69

In 1655 Thomas Gould of Charlestown refused to have his baby sprinkled and christened. The regular preacher ordered the church "to lay him under admonition, which the church was backward to do." Not long afterward he was at church as the law required him to be, and when the time of sprinkling the children came, he went out. He was spoken to about it, but told them he could not stay because he "lookt upon it as no ordinance of Christ. They told me that now I had made known my judgment, I might stay. . . . So I stayed, and sat down in my seat, when they were at prayer and administering the service to infants. Then they dealt with me for my unreverent carriage." Their dealing with him was to admonish him and exclude him from the communion.

In October, 1656, he was accused before the county court for denying baptism to his child. Of course he was convicted. He was admonished and given till the next term to consider his ways. During this time they made it so unpleasant for him that he ceased attending the church at Charlestown, and went to church at Cambridge instead. But this, being an apparent slight upon the minister, was only a new offense. Although not actually punished, he was subjected to petty annoyances, being again and again summoned both to the church and to the court to be admonished, until in May 28, 1665, he withdrew entirely from the Congregational Church, and with eight others formed a Baptist church. This being "schismatical," was counted as open rebellion, and Gould and his brethren were summoned to appear before the church the next Sunday. They told the magistrates that they could not go at that time, but the following Sunday they would be there; but the minister refused to wait, and in his sermon "laid out the sins of these men, and delivered them up to Satan."

They were called before one court after another, until their case reached the general court in October. Those among them who were freeman were disfranchised, and if they should be convicted again of continued schism, were to be imprisoned until further order. In April, 1666, they were fined four pounds, and were imprisoned until September, when they were ordered to be discharged upon payment of fines and costs. In April, 1668, they were ordered by the governor and council to appear at the meeting-house at nine o'clock on the morning of April 14, to meet six ministers who would debate with them. The debate, however, did not amount to much except that it gave to the ministers an opportunity to denounce the Baptists as they wished. The Baptists, asking for liberty to speak, were told that they stood there as delinquents, and ought not to have liberty to speak. Two days were spent in this way, when at the end of the second day, "Rev." Jonathan Mitchell pronounced the following sentence from Deut. xvii, 9-12: --

"And thou shalt come unto the priests and the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose, shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee. According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away evil from Israel.

May 27, Gould and two of his brethern as "obstinate and turbulent Anabaptists," were banished under penalty of perpetual imprisonment. They remained. Accordingly they were imprisoned. By this persecution much sympathy was awakened in the community, and a petition in their behalf was signed by sixty-six of the inhabitants of Charlestown, among whom were some of the most prominent citizens. The petition was to the legislature, and prayed for mercy upon the prisoners, saying, "They be aged and weakly men; . . .the sense of this their . . . most deplorable and afflicted condition hath sadly affected the hearts of many . . . Christians, and such as neither approve of their judgment or practice; especially considering that the men are reputed godly, and of a blameless conversation. . . We therefore most humbly beseech this honored court, in their Christian mercy and bowels of compassion, to pity and relieve these poor prisoners." 70 The petition was by vote declared scandalous and reproachful. The two persons who had taken the lead in getting it up, were fined, one ten and the other five pounds, and all the others who had signed the petition were compelled to sign a document expressing their sorrow for giving the court such just grounds of offense.

Report of these proceedings having reached England, thirteen of the Congregational ministers wrote, by the hand of Robert Mascall, a letter to their brethren in New England, in which they said: --

"O, how it grieves and affects us, that New England should persecute! Will you not give what you take? Is liberty of conscience your due? And is it not as due unto others who are sound in the faith? Amongst many Scriptures, that in the fourteenth of Romans much confirms me in liberty of conscience thus stated. To him that esteemeth anything unclean, to him it is unclean. Therefore though we approve of the baptism of the immediate children of church members, and of their admission into the church when they evidence a real work of grace, yet to those who in conscience believe the said baptism to be unclean, it is unclean. Both that and mere ruling elders, though we approve of them, yet our grounds are mere interpretations of, and not any express scripture. I cannot say so clearly of anything else in our religion, neither as to faith or practice. Now must we force our interpretations upon others, pope-like? How do you cast a reproach upon us who are Congregational in England, and furnish our adversaries with weapons against us! We blush and are filled with shame and confusion of face, when we hear of these things. Dear brother, we pray that God would open your eyes, and persuade the heart of your magistrates, that they may no more smite their fellow-servants, nor thus greatly injure us their brethren, and that they may not thus dishonor the name of God. My dear brother, pardon me, for I am affected; I speak for God, to whose grace I commend you all in New England; and humbly craving your prayers for us here, and remain your affectionate brother, ROBERT MASCALL.

"Finsbury, near Morefield, March 25, 1669."71

It seems that the imprisoned Baptists were by some means released after about a year's confinement, but the next year afterward Gould and Turner were arrested and imprisoned "a long time."

The cases which we have cited are not by any means all the persecutions and oppressions that fell upon the Baptists; but these are sufficient to show that the persecution was shameful enough, even had these been all the cases that ever occurred. The persecution continued even beyond the date which we have now reached, but the Baptists were assisted in their splendid fight for freedom of thought and of worship, and relief came the quicker to them, by the no less heroic and more fearfully persecuted Quakers.

THE SUFFERINGS OF THE QUAKERS

In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Anne Austin, two Quaker women, landed in Boston. By some means, news of their coming had preceded them. Before they were allowed to land at all, Richard Bellingham, the deputy-governor, Governor Endicott being absent, sent officers aboard the ship, "searched their trunks and chests, and took away the books they found there, which were about one hundred, and carried them ashore, after having commanded the said women to be kept prisoners aboard; and the said books were, by an order of the council, burnt in the market-place by the hangman." The women were soon taken from the ship, however, and at once "shut up close prisoners, and command was given that none should come to them without leave; a fine of five pounds being laid on any that 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 to have any candle-light in the night season; nay, what is more, they were stript naked, under pretense to know whether they were witches, tho'in searching no token was found upon them but of innocence. And in this search they were so barbarously misused that modesty forbids to mention it. And that none might have communication with them, a board was nailed up before the window of the jail." 72 August 18, the following order was issued to the jailer: --

To the Keeper of the Boston Jail: --

You are by virtue hereof to keep the Quakers formerly committed to your custody as dangerous persons, industrious to improve all their abilities to seduce the people of this jurisdiction, both by words and letters, to the abominable tenets of the Quakers, and to keep them close prisoners, not suffering them to confer with any person, nor permitting them to have paper or ink.

"Signed, EDWARD RAWSON, "Sec. of the Boston Court.

August 18, 1656."73 They were not only denied food by the authorities, but "liberty was denied even to send them provisions." "Seeing they were not provided with victuals, Nicholas Upshal, one who lived long in Boston, and was a member of the church there," bought of the jailer for five shillings a week the privilege of furnishing them with food. September 7, another order was issued to the jailer, commanding him "to search as often as he saw meet, the boxes, chests, and things of the Quakers formerly committed to his custody, for pen, ink, and paper, papers and books, and to take them from them." 74

"After having been about five weeks prisoners, William Chichester, master of a vessel, was bound in one hundred pound bond to carry them back, and not suffer any to speak with them, after they were put on board; and the jailer kept their beds . . . and their Bible, for his fees." 75 During the imprisonment they were frequently examined by the ministers with a view to getting some hold on them by which they might be dealt with for the heresy of schism, or some other such crime, but all in vain. It was well for the two women that they happened to be sent away when they were, for not long afterward Endicott returned, and was not a little displeased with Bellingham, the deputy-governor, for dealing so gently with them, declaring that if he had been there, he "would have had them well whipped," although as yet the colony had no law at all concerning Quakers.

These two women had not been long gone before eight other Quakers arrived in Boston. They were subjected to the same sort of treatment to which the other two had been. In the same month of September, the Commissioners of the United Colonies met at Plymouth, and the Boston court called upon them to stir up Plymouth Colony to vigilance, especially against the Quakers. The letter ran as follows: --

"Having heard some time since that our neighboring colony of Plymouth, our beloved brethren, in great part seem to be wanting to themselves in a due acknowledgment and encouragement of the ministry of the gospel, so as many pious ministers have (how justly we know not) deserted their stations, callings, and relations; our desire is that some such course may be taken, as that a pious orthodox ministry may be restated among them, that so the flood of errors and principles of anarchy may be prevented. Here hath arrived amongst us several persons professing themselves Quakers, fit instruments to propagate the kingdom of Satan, for the securing of our neighbors from such pests, we have imprisoned them all till they be dispatched away to the place from whence they came." 76

"The commissioners gave advice accordingly," but Bradford, who was governor of Plymouth, would not take any such steps. After his death, however, severe measures were adopted.

October 14, 1656, the general court of Massachusetts enacted the following law: --

"Whereas there is an accursed sect of heretics lately risen in the world, which are commonly called Quakers, who take upon them to be immediately sent of God and infallibly assisted by the Spirit, to speak and write blasphemous opinions, despising governments, and the order of God in the church and commonwealth, speaking evil of dignities, reproaching and reviling magistrates and ministers, seeking to turn the people from the faith, and gain proselytes to their pernicious ways: This court taking into consideration the premises, and to prevent the like mischief as by their means is wrought in our land, doth hereby order, and by the authority of this court be it ordered and enacted that what master or commander of any ship, bark, pink, or catch, shall henceforth bring into any harbor, creek, or cove, within this jurisdiction, any Quaker or Quakers, or other blasphemous heretics, shall pay, or cause to be paid, the fine of one hundred pounds to the treasurer of the county, except it appear he want true knowledge or information on their being such, and in that case he hath liberty to clear himself by his oath, when sufficient proof to the contrary is wanting. And for default of good payment, or good security for it, he shall be cast into prison, and there to continue till the said sum be satisfied to a treasurer as aforesaid. And the commander of any catch, ship, or vessel, being legally convicted, shall give in sufficient security to the governor, or any one or more of the magistrates, who have power to determine the same, to carry them back to the place whence he brought them, and on his refusal to do so, the governor or any one or more of the magistrates, are hereby empowered to issue out his or their warrants to commit such master or commander to prison, there to continue till he give in sufficient security to the content of the governor, or any of the magistrates as aforesaid. And it is hereby further ordered and enacted, that what Quaker soever shall arrive in this country from foreign parts, or shall come into this jurisdiction from any parts adjacent, shall be forthwith committed to the house of correction, and at their entrance to be severely whipped, and by the master thereof to be kept constantly to work, and none suffered to converse or speak with them during the time of their imprisonment, which shall be no longer than necessity requires. And it is ordered, if any person shall knowingly import into any harbor of this jurisdiction any Quaker's books or writings concerning their devilish opinions,he shall pay for such book or writing, being legally proved against him or them, the sum of five pounds; and whosoever shall disperse or sell any such book or writing, and it be found with him or her, or in his or her house, and shall not immediately deliver the same to the next magistrate, shall forfeit or pay five pounds for the dispersing or selling of every such book or writing. And it is hereby further enacted that if any person within this colony shall take upon them to defend the heretical opinions of the Quakers, or any of their books or papers as aforesaid, being legally proved, shall be fined for the first time forty shillings; and if they persist in the same, and shall again defend it the second time, four pounds; if they shall again defend and maintain said accursed heretical opinions, they shall be committed to the house of correction till there be convenient passage to send them out of the land, being sentenced to the court of assistants to banishment. Lastly, it is hereby ordered that what person or persons soever shall revile the person of magistrates or ministers as is usual with the Quakers, such person or persons shall be severely whipped, or pay the sum of five pounds." 77

When this law was published, Nicholas Upshal, the kind and Christian old gentleman who had bought the privilege of feeding Mary Fisher and Anne Austin, when they were in prison, "publicly testified against it." The next morning he was summoned to answer before the general court. He told them that "the execution of that law would be a forerunner of a judgment upon their country, and therefore in love and tenderness which he bare to the people and the place, desired them to take heed, lest they were found fighters against God." He was fined twenty pounds, although a member of one of the churches. And then having absented himself from church on account of these things, he was fined three pounds, and banished, although winter was now come, and he "a weakly, ancient man." 78

Notwithstanding these laws and penalties, and the spirit to inflict the penalties in the severest way, the Quakers continued to come. In fact, wherever such laws were, that was the very place where the Quakers wished to be, because they were opposed to every kind of soul-oppression and every form of the union of Church and State. Not only in this, but in almost everything else, their views made them objects of special hatred to the theocrats of Massachusetts. They recognized no such distinction among Christians as clergy and laity, and could neither be coaxed nor forced to pay tithes. They refused to do military service, and would not take an oath. They would not take their hats off either in church or in court. "In doctrine their chief peculiarity was the assertion of an `inward light,' by which every individual is to be guided in his conduct of life." And "the doctrine of the `inward light,' or of private inspiration, was something especially hateful to the Puritan." -- Fiske. 79 Another thing no less hateful to the Puritan than this, was their refusal to keep Sunday in the Puritan way. They called "in question the propriety of Christians turning the Lord's day into a Jewish Sabbath." -- Fiske. 80 They were denounced as infidels, blasphemers, agents of the devil, and were counted as easily guilty of every heresy and every crime in the Puritan theoretical catalogue.

Admission to the confederacy of the New England colonies had been absolutely refused Rhode Island, on account of its principles of liberty of conscience; but hatred of the Quakers led Massachusetts colony in 1657 to ask Rhode Island to join the confederacy in the endeavor to save New England from the Quakers. "They sent a letter to the authorities of that colony, signing themselves their loving friends and neighbors, and beseeching them to preserve the whole body of colonists against `such a pest,' by banishing and excluding all Quakers, a measure to which `the rule of charity did oblige them.'" -- Fiske. 81

But Roger Williams was still president of Rhode Island, and, true to his principles, he replied: "We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal condition. As for these Quakers, we find that where they are most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all desire to come. Any breach of the civil law shall be punished, but the freedom of different consciences shall be respected." 82

This reply enraged the whole confederacy. Massachusetts threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island. In this strait Rhode Island, by Roger Williams, appealed for protection to Cromwell, who now ruled England. The appeal presented the case as it was, but that which made it of everlasting importance, as the grandest and most touching appeal in all history, is the piteous plea, "But whatever fortune may befall, let us not be compelled to exercise any civil power over men's consciences." 83

In this year, October 14, another law was passed against Quakers, in which it was enacted that --

"If any person or persons within this jurisdiction shall henceforth entertain and conceal any such Quaker or Quakers, or other blasphemous heretics, knowing them so to be, every such person shall forfeit to the country forty shillings for every such hour's entertainment and concealment of any Quaker or Quakers, etc., as aforesaid, and shall be committed to prison as aforesaid, till forfeiture be fully satisfied and paid: and it is further ordered that if any Quaker or Quakers shall presume, after they have once suffered what the law requires, to come into this jurisdiction, every such male Quaker shall for the first offense have one of his ears cut off, and be kept at work in the house of correction till he can be sent away at his own charge, and for the second offense shall have his other ear out off: and every woman Quaker that has fulfilled the law here that shall presume to come into this jurisdiction, shall be severely whipped, and kept at the house of correction at work, till she be sent away at her own charge, and so also for her coming again she shall be alike used as aforesaid: and for every Quaker, he or she, that shall presume a third time herein again to offend, they shall have their tongues burned through with a red-hot iron, and be kept at the house of correction close to work, till they be sent away at their own charge. And it is further ordered that all and every Quaker arising from among ourselves, shall be dealt with, and suffer the like punishments, as the law provides against foreign Quakers." 84

The Quakers, however, not only continued to come, and to come again when imprisoned, whipped, and banished; but their preachings, and much more their persecutions, raised up others in the colonies. This result followed so promptly that May 20, 1658, the following statute was enacted: --

"That Quakers and such accursed heretics, arising among ourselves, may be dealt with according to their deserts, and that their pestilent errors and practices may be speedily prevented, it is hereby ordered, as an addition to the former laws against Quakers, that every such person or persons, professing any of their pernicious ways by speaking, writing, or by meeting on the Lord's day, or at any other time, to strengthen themselves, or seduce others to their diabolical doctrines, shall, after due means of conviction, incur the penalty ensuing; that is, every person so meeting, shall pay to the country for every time ten shillings; and every one speaking in such meeting, shall pay five pounds apiece; and in case any such person, after having been punished by scourging or whipping for such, according to the former law, shall be still kept at work in the house of correction, till they put in security with two sufficient men, that they shall not any more vent their hateful errors, nor use their sinful practices, or else shall depart this jurisdiction at their own charges, and if any of them return again, then each such person shall incur the penalty of the law formerly made for strangers." 85

In 1658 "Rev." John Norton, supported by the rest of the clergy, circulated a petition praying that the penalty of death should be visited upon all Quakers who should return after having been banished. The Board of Commissioners of the United Colonies met in Boston in September. The petition was presented to the Board, which in response advised the general court of each colony to enact such a law. Accordingly, October 16, the general court of Massachusetts enacted the following law: --

"Whereas there is a pernicious sect, commonly called Quakers, lately risen up, who by word and writing have published and maintained many dangerous and horrid tenets, and do take upon them to change and alter the received and laudable customs of our nation, not giving civil respects to equals, or reverence to superiors; whose actions tend to undermine civil government, and to destroy the order of the churches, by denying all established forms of worship, and by withdrawing from orderly church fellowship, allowed and proved by all orthodox professors of truth, and instead thereof, and in opposition thereto, frequently meet by themselves, insinuating themselves into the minds of the simple, or such as are least affected to the order and government of the church and commonwealth, whereby diverse particular inhabitants have been infected, notwithstanding all former laws made, have been upon the experience of their arrogant and bold determinations, to disseminate their practice amongst us, prohibiting their coming into this jurisdiction, they have not been deterred from their impious attempts to undermine our peace and hazard our ruin:

"For prevention thereof, this court doth order and enact that every person or persons, of the accursed sect of Quakers, who is not an inhabitant of, but is found within,this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended without warrant, where no magistrate is at hand, by any constable, commissioner, or selectman, and conveyed from constable to constable, to the next magistrate who shall commit the said person to close prison, there to remain (without bail) till the next court of assistants, where they shall have a legal trial: and being convicted [Note: -- "For which conviction, it was counted sufficient that they appeared with their hats on and said `thee' and `thou'] to be of the sect of the Quakers, shall be sentenced to be banished upon pain of death: and that every inhabitant of this jurisdiction being convicted to be of the aforesaid sect, either by taking up, publishing, or defending the harrid opinion of the Quakers, or stirring up of mutiny, sedition, or rebellion against the government, or by taking up their abusive and destructive practices, viz., denying civil respect to equals and superiors, and withdrawing from our church assemblies, and instead thereof frequenting meetings of their own ;in opposition to our church order, or by adhering to, or approving of, any known Quaker, and the tenets practiced, that are opposite to the orthodox received opinions of the godly, and endeavoring to disaffect others to civil government and church order, or condemning the practice and proceedings of this court against the Quakers, manifesting thereby their plotting with those whose design is to overthrow the order established in Church and State, every such person convicted before the said court of assistants, in manner aforesaid, shall be committed to close prison for one month, and then,`unless they choose voluntarily to depart this jurisdiction, shall give bond for their good behavior, and appear at the next court, where continuing obstinate, and refusing to retract and reform their aforesaid opinions, they shall be sentenced to banishment upon pain of death; and any one magistrate upon information given him of any such person, shall cause him to be apprehended, and shall commit any such person, according to his discretion, till he comes to trial as aforesaid."86

Nor were any of these laws in any sense a dead letter. They were enforced in the regular Puritan way. In 1657 the following order was issued by Governor Endicott: --

"To the marshall general of h;is deputy: You are to take with you the executioner, and repair to the house of correction, and there see him cut of the right ears of John Copeland, Christopher Holder, and John Rouse, Quakers, in execution of the sentence of the court of assistants for the breach of the law instituted, `Quakers.'"87

In the latter of the same year the following order was issued by the court: --

"Whereas Daniel Southwick and Provided Southwick, son and daughter of Lawrence Southwick,absenting themselves from the public ordinances, have been fined by the courts of Salem and Ipswich, pretending they have no assistance, and resolving not to work, the court, upon perusal of the law, which was made upon account of the dates, in answer to what should be done for the satisfaction of the fines, resolves that the treasurers of the several counties are and shall be fully empowered to sell said persons to any of the English nation, at Virginia or Barbadoes, to answer the said fines.88

With this latter sentence there is connected an important series of events. As stated in this order, these two persons were son and daughter of Lawrence Southwick. Lawrence Southwick and his wife Cassandra, were an aged couple who had been members of the Salem church until about the close of 1656. They had three children, Joseph, who was a man grown, and the two mentioned above, who were but mere youth. The old gentleman and his wife were arrested at the beginning of the year 1657, upon a charge of harboring Quakers. The old gentleman was released, but as a Quaker tract was found upon his wife, she was imprisoned seven weeks and fined forty shillings. If they were not Quakers before, this made them such, and likewise some of their friends. A number of them now withdrew from the Salem church, and worshiped by themselves. All were arrested. Lawrence and Cassandra Southwick and their son Joseph, were taken to Boston to be dealt with. Upon their arrival there, February 3, without even the form of a trial they were whipped and imprisoned eleven days, the weather being extremely cold. In addition to this, they were fined four pounds and thirteen shillings, for six weeks' absence from church on Sun days, and their cattle were seized and sold to pay this fine.

The following summer two Quakers, William Leddra and William Brend, went to Salem. They with five others, among whom were the Southwicks who before had suffered, were arrested for meeting together. They were all taken to Boston, and put all together in a room in the prison, of which the windows were boarded up close. Food was denied them unless they would work to pay for it. "To work when wrongfully confined, was against the Quaker's conscience." -- Adams."89 They therefore went five days without anything to eat. This, however, was only a part of their sufferings, for on the second day of their imprisonment, they all were severely whipped, and then with raw wounds were thrown back into the close dark room, in the July heat, with nothing to lie upon but the bare boards. On the second day afterwards they were informed that they could go if they would pay the constables and jail fees. They refused to pay anything. The next day the jailer, in order to force them to yield, took Brend, and with irons bound his neck and heels together, and kept him that way for sixteen hours, from five o'clock in the morning till me nine o'clock at night.

The next day Brend was put to the mill and ordered to work. He could not have worked if he would, as he could scarcely move; but he would not have worked if he could and so he refused. Then in a rage 'the gaoler took a pitched rope, about an inch thick, and gave him twenty blows over his back and arms with; all his strength, till the rope untwisted; then he fetched another rope, thicker and stronger, and told Brend that he would cause him to bow to the law of the country, and make him work. Brend thought this in the highest degree unreasonable, since he had committed no evil, and was wholly unable to work, having been kept five days without eating, and whipped also, and now thus unmercifully beaten. Yet in the morning the gaoler relented not, but began to beat again with his pitched rope on the poor man's bruised body, and foaming at the mouth like a madman, with violence laid four score and seventeen more blows upon him, as other prisoners, who beheld this cruelty with grief and passion reported. And if his strength and his rope had not failed him, he would have laid on more. He thought also to give him the next morning as many blows more . . . . To what condition these blows must have brought the body of Brend, who had nothing on but a serge cossack over-shirt, may easily be conceived. His back and arms were bruised and bleeding, and the blood hanging, as it were, in bags under his arms, and so into one was his flesh beaten that the sign of a particular blow could not be seen. His body being thus cruelly tortured, he lay down upon the boards so extremely weakened that the natural parts decaying, and his strength failing, his body turned cold ; there seemed, as it were, a struggle between life and death; his senses were stopped, and he had for some time neither seeing, feeling, nor hearing; till at length a divine power prevailing, life broke through death, and the breath of the Lord was breathed in his nostrils."90

The people now, horrified at the outrage, would bear no more. A cry was raised, they rushed to the jail, and rescued the tortured prisoner. This rather frightened the government. Endicott sent his own family doctor to succor Brend, but the surgeon pronounced the case hopeless -- that the flesh would "rot from off his bones ,"and he must die. The cry of the people grew louder, and their indignation more fierce. They demanded that the barbarous jailer should be brought to justice. The magistrate posted up on the church door a promise that he should be brought to trial, but here the "Rev." John Norton stepped forth, declaring: "Brend endeavored to beat our gospel ordinances black and blue; if he then be beaten black and blue, it is but just upon him and I will appear in his behalf that did so." He rebuked the magistrates for their faintness of heart, and commanded them to take down the notice from the church door. They obeyed, and the cruel jailer was not only justified, but was commanded to whip the Quakers who were yet in prison "twice a week if they refused to work, and the first time to add five stripes to the former ten, and each time to add three to them.91

The other prisoners now presented a petition to the court praying to be released. Their petition was dated, "From the House of Bondage in Boston, wherein we are made captives by the wills of men, although made free by the Son (John viii, 36), in which we quietly rest, this sixteenth of the fifth month, 1658." They were brought into court for examination. They made so strong a defense that there appeared some prospect of their acquittal; but the preachers rallied in force. The "Rev. "Charles Chauncy, in "the Thursday lecture," preached as follows: --

"Suppose you should catch six wolves in trap [there were six Salem Quakers], . . . and ye cannot prove that they killed either sheep or lambs: and now ye have them, they 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?"92

By their diligence the preachers not only prevented any acquittal, but succeeded in forcing through the law of October 16, 1658, above quoted (page 643), inflicting capital punishment upon all who remained, or returned after sentence of banishment. The very day on which this law was passed, the prisoners were brought into court, and sentence of banishment was pronounced, the Southwicks being commanded to leave before the spring elections. They did not go. In May, 1659, they were called up again, and charged with rebellion for not going as commanded. They pleaded that they had no place to go to, and that they had done nothing to deserve either banishment or death, though all they had in the world had been taken from them. Major-General Dennison replied that `they stood against the authority of the country in not submitting to their laws: that he should not go about to 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 power is in our hand, and therefore the stronger must send off.'"93

Accordingly the sentence of banishment was again pronounced under the penalty of death. "The aged couple were sent to Shelter Island,but their misery was well-nigh done; they perished within a few days of each other, tortured to death by flogging and starvation." -- Adams.94 Their son Joseph was sent away in a ship to England.

Then the two children, Daniel and Provided, were brought before the court. They were asked why they had not come to church. Daniel replied, "If you had not so persecuted our father and mother, perhaps we might have come." They were fined. As parents and home and all were gone, it was impossible for them to pay any fine; and as there was not much prospect of the government's making anything out of an attempt to force children to work, even by flogging, the sentence quoted on page 645 was pronounced. commanding the county treasures to sell them to recover the fine.

The treasurer of Salem took the children to Boston, and went to a ship's captain who was about to sail for Barbadoes, and began to bargain for their passage to that place to be sold. The captain said he was afraid they would corrupt his ship's company.

The treasurer. -- "Oh no, you need not fear that, for they are poor, harmless creatures, and will not hurt anybody."

The captain -- "Will they not so? And will ye offer to make slaves of so harmless creatures?"95 Harmless creatures as they were, however, it seems that they were really sent away thus to be sold.

In September, 1659, three Quakers, William Robinson, Marmaduke Stevenson, and Mary Dyer, who had but lately come to Boston, were banished. Mrs. Dyer was wife of the secretary of Rhode Island. She returned home. Robinson and Stevenson went as far as Salem, where they turned about and went back to Boston. Not long afterward, Mrs. Dyer returned. October 20, they were brought before the general court. Being called to the bar, Governor Endicott commanded the officer to pull off the men's hats. He then said:--

"We have made several laws to keep the Quakers from amongst us, and neither whipping, nor imprisonment, nor cutting off ears, nor banishment upon pain of death, can keep them from us. Neither I nor any of us desire the death of any of them. Give ear and hearken to your sentence of death."96

He then sentenced them one by one to be hanged. October 27 was the day set for the execution. For fear the people might effect a rescue, a guard was put upon the prison. As the day drew near, the dissatisfaction of the people became more marked, and when the time came, it was deemed necessary to have a company of two hundred armed men, to make sure that the theocrats might accomplish the hanging. The three prisoners marched hand in hand to the scaffold on Boston Common, with drums beating before them to drown any words that they might speak. As the procession moved along, "Rev." John Wilson, the Boston preacher, with others of the clergy, stood ready to join in the march.

Wilson tauntingly cried out, "Shall such jakes as you come in before authority, with your hats on?" Robinson replied, "Mind you, mind you,it is for not putting off the hat we are put to death." When they reached the gallows, Robinson attempted to speak to the people, but Wilson interrupted him with, "Hold your tongue, be silent; thou art going to die with a lie in thy mouth." The two men were then bound and hanged. The rope was placed round Mrs. Dyer's neck, but her son just then arrived from Rhode Island, and upon his earnest entreaty and promise to take her away, they let her go. The bodies of the two men were tumbled into a hole in the ground, and left exposed with no sort of burial. The next spring, however, Mrs. Dyer returned again. June 1, she was again marched to the gallows. At the last moment she was told that see might go if she would promise to stay away. She answered, "In obedience to the will of the Lord, I came, and in his will I abide faithful unto death." And so they hanged her.97

In November, William Leddra, who had been banished, returned to Boston. He was at once arrested, but public opinion was now so strong against the persecution that the government made every effort to persuade him to go away. But he would not go. He was kept in prison four months, and at last, in March, he was sentenced to be hanged. A few days before his execution, he was called before the court, and as he was being questioned, Wenlock Christison, another Quaker who had that moment returned from banishment, walked into the court room, and , standing before the judges with uplifted hand, said: "I am come here to warn you that ye shed no more innocent blood." He was arrested and taken at once to jail.

Leddra was hanged, but Christison remained; and as he had openly rebuked the judges, his case was the more notorious. But as the discountented murmurings of the people grew louder and louder, the government hesitated to proceed. The theocrats, however, were not yet ready to yield, and so they brought him to trial before the general court, both the governor and the deputy-governor being present.

Endicott. -- "Unless you renounce your religion, you shall die."

Christison -- "Nay; I shall not change my religion, nor seek to save my life; neither do I intend to deny my Master; but if I lose my life for Christ's sake, and the preaching of the gospel, I shall save my life."

Endicott. -- "What have you to say for yourself, why you should not die?"

Christison. -- "By what law will you put me to death?"

Endicott. -- "We have a law, and by our law you are to die."

Christison. -- "So said the Jews of Christ, `We have a law, and by our law he ought to die!' Who empowered you to make that law?"

One of the Board. -- "We have a patent, and are the patentees; judge whether we have not power to make laws."

Christison. -- "How, have you power to make laws repugnant to the laws of England?"

Endicott. -- "No."

Christison. -- "Then you are gone beyond your bounds, and have forfeited your patent; and that is more than you can answer. Are you subjects to the king? yea or nay?"

One of the Court. -- "Yea, we are so."

Christison. -- "Well, so am I. Therefore seeing that you and I are subjects to the king, I demand to be tried by the laws of my own nation."

One of the Court. -- "You shall be tried by a bench and a jury."

Christison. -- "That is not the law, but the manner of it; for I never heard nor read of any law that was in England, to hang Quakers."

Endicott. -- "There is a law to hang Jesuits."

Christison. -- "If you put me to death, it is not because I go under the name of a Jesuit, but of a Quaker. Therefore I appeal to the laws of my own nation."

One of the Court. -- "You are in our hands, you have broken our law, and we will try you."

In the very midst of the trial, a letter was brought in and handed to the court. It was from Edward Wharton, yet another Quaker who had returned from banishment .The letter states: "Whereas you have banished me on pain of death, yet I am at home in my own house at Salem, and therefore purpose that you will take off your wicked sentence from me, that I may go about my occasions out of your jurisdiction."

The trial was over; but what should they do with the Quaker? They were afraid to sentence him, and they could not bear to confess defeat by letting him go. The court debatted among themselves more than two weeks what to do. "Endicott was exasperated to frenzy, for he felt the ground crumbling beneath him; he put the fate of Christison to the vote, and failed to carry a condemnation. The governor seeing this division, said, `I could find it in my heart to go home; being in such a rage, that he flung something furiously on the table . . . Then the governor put the court to vote again; but this was done confusedly, which so incensed the governor that he stood up and said, `You that will not consent, record it: I thank God I am not afraid to give judgment . . . Wenlock Christison, hearken to your sentence: You must return unto the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and there you must be hanged until you are dead, dead, dead.'"98

The sentence of the court was to put Christison to death; but they never dared to execute it. "Even the savage Endicott knew well that all the train bands of the colony could not have guarded Christison to the gallows from the dungeon where he lay condemned." -- Adams.99

The sentence of death, as such, they were thus forced to abandon; but they still hoped to accomplish the same thing by another, and as their chief apologist defined, a "humaner policy." For this purpose the "Vagabond Act" was passed May 22, 1661, by which it was enacted that, "Any person convicted before a county magistrate of being an undomiciled or vagabond Quaker, was to stripped naked to the middle, tied to the cart's tail, and flogged from town to town, to the border. Domiciled Quakers to be proceeded against under Act of 1658 to banishment, and then treated as vagabond Quakers. The death penalty was still preserved, but not enforced." -- Adams. 100

The first victim of this new and "humaner" law was Joseph Southwick, who returned from banishment in 1661, and in the "seventh month" was sentenced to its penalty. On the trial, Endicott told him that they had made the new law "to save his life, in mercy to him." He inquired whether it were not as good to take his life now, as to whip him after their manner, twelve or fourteen times on the cart's tail through their towns,and then put him to death afterward? He was sentenced to be flogged through Boston, Roxbury, and Dedham. "The peculiar atrocity of flogging from town to town lay in this: that the victim's wounds became cold between the times of punishment, and in the winter sometimes frozen, which made the torture intolerably agonizing." -- Adams. 101

In response to their sentence, Joseph Southwick said: "Here is my body; if you want a further testimony of the truth I profess, take it and tear it in pieces. . . . It is freely given up, and as for your sentence, I matter it not." Then "they tied him to a cart, and lashed him for fifteen miles and while he `sang to the praise of God,' his tormentor swung with all his might a tremendous two-handed whip, whose knotted thongs were made of twisted cat-gut; thence he was carried fifteen miles from any town into the wilderness." -- Adams. 102 And there they left him.

In the middle of the winter of 1661-62, a Quaker woman, Elizabeth Hooton, was subjected to the same torture, being whipped through Cambridge, Watertown, and Dedham.

In 1662 three Quaker women fell under the notice of "Rev." John Rayner; "and as the magistrate was ignorant of the technicalities of the law, the elder acted as clerk, and drew up for him the following warrant: --

"To the constables of Dover, Hampton, Salisbury, Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, Wenham, Linn Boston, Roxbury, Dedham, and untill these vagabond Quakers are carried out of this jurisdiction: --

"You and every one of you are required, in the king's majesty's name, to take these vagabond Quakers, Anne Coleman, Mary Tomkins, and Alice Ambrose,and make them fast to the cart's tail, and driving the crat through your several towns, to whip them on their backs, not exceeding ten stripes apiece on each of them in each town, and so to convey them from constable to constable, till they come out of this jurisdiction, as you will answer it at your peril: and this shall be your warrant. Per me, "RICHARD WALDEN.

"At Dover, dated December the 22d, 1662."

"The Rev. John Rayner pronounced judgement of death by flogging; for the weather was bitter, the distance to be walked was eighty miles, and the lashes were given with a whip, whose three-twisted, knotted thongs cut to the bone.

"`So, in a very cold day, your deputy, Walden, caused these women to be stripp'd naked from the middle upward, and tyed to a cart,and after awhile cruelly whipp'd them whilst the priest [John Rayner], stood and looked, and laughed at it. . . . They went with the executioner to Hampton, and through dirt and snow at Salisbury, half way the leg deep, the constable forced them after the cart's tayl at which he whipp'd them.'

"Had the Rev. John Rayner but followed the cart, to see that his three hundred and thirty lashes were all given with the same ferocity which warmed his heart to mirth at Dover, before his journey's end he would certainly have joyed in giving thanks to God over the women's gory corpses, freezing amid the snow. His negligence saved their lives, for when the ghastly pilgrims passed through Salisbury, the people, to their eternal honor, set the captives free." -- Adams. 103

There are many other instances of these horrible tortures to both men and women; but these, without any mention of the hanging of witches, are enough to explain and to justify the deserved and scathing sentence of the historian of the United States, that "the creation of a national and uncompromising church led the Congregationalists of Massachusetts to the indulgence of the passions which disgraced their English persecutors, and Laud was justified by the men whom he had wronged." -- Bancroft. 104

Yet it must not be supposed that the legislation with respect to the views of the Baptists and the Quakers was exceptional in its nature or even its severity; only , as the laws regarding them were more openly disregarded, the penalties were inflicted upon them in greater measure than upon any others. There was a law running as follows: --

"Albeit faith is not wrought by the word, nevertheless, seeing that blasphemy of the true God cannot be excused by an ignorance or infirmity of human nature,' therefore, `no person in this jurisdiction, whether Christian or pagan, shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme his holy Name, either by willful or obstinate denying the true God, or his creation or government of the world, or shall curse God, or reproach the holy religion of God, as if it were but a public device to keep ignorant men in awe, nor shall utter any other eminent kind of blasphemy of like nature or degree,' under penalty of death."

Another law subjected to fine, whipping, banishment, and finally to death, "any who denied the received books of the Old and New, Testaments to be the infallible word of God." -- Hildreth. 105

Another and about the mildest form of punishment is shown by the following law, enacted in 1646:-- "It is therefore ordered and decreed, that if any Christian (so-called) within this jurisdiction shall contemptuously behave himself towards the word preached or the messenger thereof called to dispense the same in any congregation, when he faithfully executes his service and office therein according to the will and word of God, either by interrupting him in his preaching, or by charging him falsely with an error which he hath not taught in the open face of the church, or like a son of Korah, cast upon his true doctrine or himself any reproach, to the dishonor of the Lord who hath sent him, and to the disparagement of that his holy ordinance, and making God's ways contemptible or ridiculous, that every such person or persons (whatsoever censure the church may pass) shall for the first scandal, be convented and reproved openly by the magistrate, at some lecture,and bound to their good behavior; and if a second time they break forth into the like contemptuous carriages, they shall either pay five pounds to the public treasure, or stand two hours openly upon a block or stool four foot high, upon a lecture day, with a paper fixed on his breast, written with capital letters, `A WANTON GOSPELLER:' that others may fear and be ashamed of breaking out into the like wickedness."106

Yet Massachusetts, though the worst, was not by any means the only one, of the colonies that had an established religion, and that per-consequence persecuted. The other Puritan colonies were of the same order. Plymouth and New Haven were second only to Massachusetts, and Connecticut was not far behind. New Haven had a law against Quakers, ordering that: --

"Every Quaker that comes into this jurisdiction shall be severely whipped, and be kept at work in the house of correction; and the second time, be branded in one hand, and kept at work as aforesaid; the third time be branded in other hand, and the fourth time, to be bored through the tongue with a red-hot iron."

That the law was by no means a nullity, is seen by the fact that Humphrey Norton, merely passing through Southbold on his way to one of the Dutch plantations, was apprehended, without being asked whither he was going, and committed to the marshall, conveyed to New Haven, and there cast into prison, chained to a post,and none suffered to visit him in the bitter cold winter. . . . At length, he was had before the court, where was their priest [minister], John Davenport, to whom Humphrey Norton had sent some religious queries; and the priest having spoken what he pleased in answer to those queries, Humphrey attempted to reply, but was prevented by their tying a great iron key across his mouth, so that he could not speak. After that he was had again to prison, and after ten days more, sentenced to be severely whipped, and burned in the hand with the letter `H' for heresy, and to be sent out of the colony, and not to return upon pain of the utmost penalty they could inflict by law, and to pay ten pounds towards the charge of the court and colony. And they ordered this sentence to be executed the same day. Accordingly, the drum was beat, and the people gathered; `the poor man was fetched, and stripped to the waist, and set with his back towards the magistrates, and had given, in their view, thirty-six cruel stripes, and then turned, and his face set towards them, his hand made fast in the stocks, where they had set his body before, and burned very deep with a red-hot iron: then he was sent to prison again, and there kept, till a Dutchman, a stranger to him, paid down twenty nobles for his fine and fees. It was remarkable that as soon as he had suffered this cruel sentence, and was let loose from the stocks, he knelt down, and prayed to the Lord, to the astonishment of his persecutors."107

The "Blue Laws" of Connecticut are proverbial; yet they were copied almost bodily from the Massachusetts code. For instance, the "Wanton Gospeller" statute of Massachusetts was adopted by Connecticut, word fro word, with only the change of the inscription to "An Open and Obstinate Contemner of God's Holy Ordinances."

Nor was it alone in New England that Church and State were united. It was so to a greater or less extent in every one of the thirteen original colonies in America, except Rhode Island. In New England the established religion was Congregationalism, while in all the colonies south from New York to Georgia, except only Pennsylvania, the Church of England was the favored one. In Pennsylvania there was no union with any particular denomination as such, but no one could hold office or even vote except "such as possess faith in Jesus Christ." And protection from compulsory religious observances was guaranteed to no one, except those "who confess and acknowledge one almighty and eternal God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world." As all were thus required to be religious, and to possess faith in Jesus Christ, it was therefore required "that according to the good example of the primitive Christians, every first day of the week, called the Lord's day, people shall abstain from their common daily labor, that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their understandings." 108

Maryland, while held by the Roman Catholics, was freer than any other colony, except Rhode Island; yet even there, as in Pennsylvania, it was only toleration that was guaranteed, and that only to persons "professing to believe in Jesus Christ." But in 1692 the Episcopalians took possession, and although other forms of religion were still tolerated, "Protestant Episcopacy was established by law," and so continued until the Revolution.

The Church and State system in Georgia, and even its practical working as late as 1737, may be seen in the persecution of John Wesley. The case grew out of Wesley's refusing the sacrament to certain women, and this was made only the opportunity to vent their spite upon him in whatever else they could trump up. The first step was taken thus: --

"GEORGIA. SAVANNAH SS

"To all Constables, Tythingmen, and others whom these may concern: You and each of you are hereby required to take the body of John Wesley, clerk, and bring him before one of the bailiffs of the said town, to answer the complaint of William Williamson and Sophia his wife, for defaming the said Sophia, and refusing to administer to her the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in a publick congregation, without cause; by which the said William Williamson is damag'd one thousand pound sterling. And for so doing, this is your warrant, certifying what you are to do in the premises. Given under my hand and seal the eighth day of August, Anno Dom., 1737. THO. CHRISTIE."

Wesley was arrested, and brought before the recorder for examination. When questioned upon this matter, he replied that "the giving or refusing the Lord's Supper being a matter purely ecclesiastical, I could not acknowledge their power to interrogate me upon it." The case was deferred to the next regular sitting of the court. When the court convened, the judge charged the grand jury to "beware of spiritual tyranny, and to oppose the new illegal authority that was usurped over their consciences." The grand jury, says Wesley, was thus composed: "One was a Frenchman who did not understand English, one a Papist, one a profest infidel, three Baptists, sixteen or seventeen others, dissenters, and several others who had personal quarrels against me, and had openly vow'd revenge."

A majority of this grand jury framed an indictment of ten counts, as follows: --

"That John Wesley, clerk, has broken the laws of the realm, contrary to the peace of our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity.

"1. By speaking and writing to Mrs. Williamson against her husband's consent.

"2. By repelling her from the holy communion.

"3. By not declaring his adherence to the Church of England. "

4. By dividing the morning service on Sundays.

"5. By refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's child otherwise than by dipping, except the parents would certify it was weak, and not able to bear it.

"6. By repelling Wm. Gough from the holy communion.

"7. By refusing to read the burial service over the body of Nathaniel Polhill. "

8. By calling himself ordinary of Savannah.

"9. By refusing to receive Wm. Agliorly as a godfather, only because he was not a communicant.

"10. By refusing Jacob Matthews for the same reason, and baptizing an Indian trader's child with only two sponsors.

The prosecution was made to drag along with Wesley neither convicted nor acquitted, but held, as he describes it, as a sort of "prisoner at large," until, willing to bear it no longer, he determined to go back to England. That he should leave Georgia and go somewhere was just what the Georgians wanted, and although a pretense of opposing his going was made, they were glad when he left, December 2, 1737. 109

Of the Southern colonies, Virginia took the lead, and was next to Massachusetts in intolerance and persecution. The colony was divided into parishes, and all the inhabitants were taxed to maintain the worship of the Episcopal Church. All the people were required to attend the churches of the establishment. The rights of citizenship were dependent upon membership in the Episcopal Church. Whoever failed to attend church any Sunday "without an allowable excuse," was to be fined one pound of tobacco, and if any one should be absent from Sunday service for a month, the fine was fifty pounds of tobacco.

Virginia, however, though standing in the lead of the Southern colonies in the severity of its religious legislation, was the first of all the colonies to separate Church and State, and to declare and secure by statute the religious rights of all men.

From this review of Protestantism, it plainly appears that after Martin Luther, until the rise of Roger Williams, not a single Reformer preached in sincerity the principles of Christianity and of Protestantism as to the rights of conscience, and that in not a single place except the colony of Rhode Island, was there even recognized, much less exemplified, the Christian and Protestant principle of the separation of Church and State, of the religious and civil powers.

Throughout this whole period we find that in all the discussions, and all the work, of the professed champions of the rights of conscience, there everywhere appears the fatal defect that it was only their own rights of conscience that they either asserted or defended. In other words, their argument simply amounted to this: It is our inalienable right to believe and worship as we choose. It is likewise our inalienable right to compel everybody else to believe and worship as we choose.

But this is no assertion at all of the rights of conscience. The true principle and assertion of the rights of conscience is not our assertion of our right to believe and worship as we choose. This always leaves the way open for the additional assertion of our right to compel others to believe and worship as we choose, should occasion seem to demand; and there are a multitude of circumstances that are ever ready strongly to urge that occasion does demand.

The true principle and the right assertion of the rights of conscience is our assertion of every other man's right to believe and worship as he chooses, or not to worship at all if he chooses. This at once sweeps away every excuse and every argument that might ever be offered for the restriction or the invasion of the rights of conscience by any person or any power.

This is the Christian doctrine. This is the Roger Williams doctrine. This is the genuine Protestant doctrine, for it is "the logical consequence of either of the two great distinguishing principles of the Reformation, as well of justification by faith alone as of the equality of all believers." -- Bancroft.110

In the promulgation of the principles of Protestantism, and in the work of the Reformation, the names of MARTIN LUTHER and ROGER WILLIAMS can never rightly be separated. Williams completed what Luther began; and together they gave anew to the world, and for all time, the principles originally announced by Him who was the Author and Finisher of the faith of both -- JESUS CHRIST, THE AUTHOR OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

-----------------------------------

1 [Page 570] D'Aublgne's "History of the Reformation," book vi,chap. xi, par.9.

2 [Page 570] Id., par. 13.

3 [Page 571] Id., book vii, chap. xi, par. 13.

4 [Page 573] Id., book ix, chap. viii, par. 14.

5 [Page 573] Id., par. par. 22.

6 [Page 573] Id., book x, chap. par. 19.

7 [Page 576] Schaff's "History of the Christian Church, "Vol. xiv, section 11, par. 22, 23.

8 [Page 577] "Ecclesiastical History," Century xvii, sec. ii, part ii, chap. 1, par. 16

9 [Page 578] For these quotations, under "Zwingle," see D'Aubigne's "History of the Regormation," book xvi, chap. iv par. 1. chap. i, par. 7. chap. iv, par. 2: and chap. viii, par. 6 from the end.

10 [Page 579] Id., book ix, chap. x, par. 9.

11 [Page 579] Id., book. xviii, chap. v, par.5.

12 [Page 579] Id., book ix, chap. x. par. 12.

13 [Page 580] Id., par. 17.

14 [Page 581] Id., book xviii chap. v, par. 10-12

15 [Page 582] Id., book ix, chap. x, par. 20-24

16 [Page 582] Id., book xix, last chap., last par. but one.

17 [Page 583] "Larger History of the English People, "book v, chap. iv, par. 16.

18 [Page 584] Id., par. 21, 22.

19 [Page 585] Id., book vi, chap. 1, par. 5, 1 and book v, chap. iv, par. 13.

20 [Page 585] Essays, "Hallam," par. 27.

21 [Page 587] "History of Protestantism," book xiv, chap. x, last par. but one.

22 [Page 587] Id. Everybody had to be at home by nine o'clock at night; and hotel keepers were required to see that this rule was observed by their guests. Rules were made "restraining excess in dress, and profusion at meals:" and everybody was required to attend both preaching and other religious services.

23 [Page 589] Article "Calvin" It was written by W. Lindsay Alexander, D. D., one of the Bible revisers, and in clearly favorable to him.

24 [Page 589] Hallam describes him as "a sort of prophet-king," in "Constitutional History," chap. iv, par. 13, note.

25 [Page 590] "History of the United States," chap. "Prelates and Puritans," par. 11. It is not without reason that, by one of his admirers, Calvin has been compared with Innocent III. -- Wylie's "History of Protestantism," book xiv, end of chap. xxiv.

26 [Page 591] Article "Presbyterianism," par. 32.

27 [Page 592] "History of Civilization," Vol. ii, chap. v, last par. To this "famous chapter" the reader is confidently referred as the best and most fruitful result of that "minute reading" which is above said to be requisite to enable a person to judge concerning the system.

28 [Page 593] "History of the Puritans," preface, par. 6.

29 [Page 593] Hallam's "Constitutional History," chap. iv, par. 5.

30 [Page 594] Id., par. 3 from the end.

31 [Page 595] "Larger History of England," book vi, chap. v, par. 31.

32 Quoted by Hallam, "Constitutional History," chap. iv par. 13.

33 [Page 596] It was good cause that it was so rejected; for even before the death of Charles I, the Presbyterian Parliament had dealt "the fiercest blow at religious freedom which it had ever received." "An Ordinance for the Suppression of Blasphemies and Heresies, 'which Vane and Cromwell had long held at bay, was passed by triumphant majorities. Any man, ran this terrible statute, denying the doctrine of the Trinity or of the divinity of Christ, or that the books of the Scripture are the 'word of God,' or the resurrection of the body, or a future day of judgment, and refusing on trial to abjure his hereby, 'shall suffer the pain of death.' Any man dealing (among a long list of other errors) 'that man by nature hath free will to turn to God,' that there is a purgatory, that images are lawful that infant baptism is unlawful ; any one denying the obligation of observing the Lord's day, or asserting 'that the church government by presbytery is anti-Christian or unlawful,' shall, on refusal to renounce his errors, 'be commanded to prison,'" -- Larger History of England," book vii, chap. x, par. 11.

34 [Page 597] Id., book vi, chap. v, par. 31.

35 [Page 598] "Neal's History of the Puritans," part ii, chap. i. par. 2.

36 [Page 598] Id.

37 [Page 598] "History of the United States," chap. "The Pilgrims," par. 8.

38 [Page 599] Fiske's "Beginnings of New England," p. 67.

39 [Page 600] Bancroft's "History of the United States," chap. "Prelates and Puritans," par. 3 from the end.

40 [Page 601] Bancrfot's "History of the United States," chap. "New England's Plantation," last par. but one.

41 [Page 601] "Beginnings of New England," pp. 103, 104.

42 [Page 602] Id., p. 103.

43 [Page 602] Adams's "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 32.

44 [Page 602] "History of the United States," cha. "Self-Government in Massachusetts," par. 25.

45 [Page 603] "The Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 35, 36.

46 [Page 604] Id., pp. 36, 37.

47 [Page 604] "Beginnings of New England," p. 178.

48 [Page 605] Backus's "Church History of New England," pp. 62, 63.

49 [Page 605] Bancroft's "History of the United States," chap. "The Providence plantations," par. 3-6.

50 [Page 606] Blakely's "American State Papers," page 68, note.

51 [Page 606] Bancroft's "History of the United States," chap. "The Providence Plantation," par. 6.

52 [Page 608] Id., par. 7-11.

53 [Page 608] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 29.

54 [Page 610] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 55.

55 [Page 611] Id., p. 57.

56 [Page 612] Id., p. 65.

57 [Page 612] Id., pp. 65, 66.

58 [Page 615] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 66-70.

59 [Page 616] "Beginnings of New England," p. 49 ; and Bancroft's "History of the United States," chap. "The Colonization of new Hampshire," par. 8.

60 [Page 617] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 72-75.

61 [Page 620] Id.

62 [Page 620] Charters and Constitutions, Connecticut.

63 [Page 621] Id.

64 [Page 621] "History of the United States," end of chap. "The Colonization of Connecticut."

65 [Page 622] "Beginnings of New England," p. 136.

66 [Page 623] "National Reform Manual," 1890, pp. 223, 224.

67 [Page 624] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 98.

68 [Page 625] Id., p. 105. Under the year 1649, Hildreth gives the copy of a law embodying the provisions cited above, with other important points. It seems to be the same law, it if really belongs under 1949, it must be a re-enactment with addition. It runs thus: "'Although no human power be lord over the faith and consciences of men, yet because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian faith and destruction of the souls of men, ought duly to be restrained from such notorious impieties,' therefore 'any Christian within this jurisdiction who shall go about to subvert or destroy the Christian faith or religion by broaching and maintaining any damnable heresies, as denying the immortality of the soul, or resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin, or denying that Christ gave himself a ransom for our sins, or shall affirm that we are not justified by his death and righteousness, but by the perfection of our own works or shall deny the morality of the fourth commandment, or shall openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the administration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first table, or shall endeavor to seduce other to any of the errors and heresies above mentioned; ' -- any such were liable to banishment.' -- History of the United States," Vol. 4, chap. xii, par. 1, 2.

69 [Page 632] Backus's "Church History of New England," pp.75-81.

70 [Page 635] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 118-125.

71 [Page 635] Backus's "Church History of New England," pp. 99-101.

72 [fn72] [Page 637] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 143,144.

73 [Page 637] Besse's "Suffering of the Quakers,."

74 [Page 637] Id.,

75 [Page 637] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 144.

76 [Page 638] Backus's "Church History of New England," p. 89.

77 [Page 639] Besse's "Sufferings of the Quakers."

78 [Page 640] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 146.

79 [Page 640] "Beginnings of New England," p. 180.

80 [Page 641] Id.

81 [Page 641] Id., p. 184.

82 [Page 641] Id., pp. 184, 185. This was not in any sense on expression of difference as to the teachings of the Quakers; because by discussion Roger was constantly combating them. He wrote a book against them entitled, "George Fox Digged out of his Burrowes," and at the age of seventy-three he "rowed himself in a boat the whole length of Narragansett Bay to engage in a theological tournament against three Quaker champions." -- Id., p. 186.

83 [Page 642] Id.

84 [Page 642] Besse's "Sufferings of the Quakers."

85 [Page 643] Id.,

86 [Page 644] Id.,

87 [Page 644] Id.,

88 [Page 645] Id.

89 [Page 646] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p.164.

90 [Page 647] Besse's "Sufferings of the Quakers."

91 [Page 648] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 166.

92 [Page 648] Id., p. 169.

93 [Page 649] Id., p. 170.

94 [Page 649] Id.

95 [Page 649] Id., p. 173.

96 [Page 650] Besse's "Sufferings of the Quakers."

97 [Page 651] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 175, 176; "Beginnings of New England," pp. 188, 189.

98 [Page 653] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 18, 151, 152; "Beginnings of New England," p. 190.

99 [Page 653] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," p. 177.

100 [Page 654] Id., p.142.

101 [Page 654]Id., pp. 148, 149.

102 [Page 654]Id., p. 172.

103 [Page 655] "Emancipation of Massachusetts," pp. 155-157.

104 [Page 656] "History of the United States," chap. "The Place of Puritanism in History," par. 5. In his last revision, however, this is softened into this: "The uncompromising Congregationalists of Massachusetts indulged the passions of their English persecutors."

105 [Page 656] "History of the United States," Vol. i, chap. xii, par. 1, 2.

106 [Page 657] Trumbull's "Blue Laws, True and False," p. 83, with note.

107 [Page 658] Besse's "Sufferings of the Quakes."

108 [Page 659] Charters and Constitutions, Pennsylvania.

109 [Page 661] "John Wesley a Missioner to Georgia," by William Stevens Perry, D.D., bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Iowa; New York Independent, March 5, 1891, pp. 5, 6.

110 [Page 662]"History of the United States," chap. "Self-Government in Massachusetts,"par. 22.