received. The fort at Castle Island was immediately built, and a large commission appointed, consisting of the principal inhabitants, of which Winthrop was at the head, for " military affairs," to organize and arm the whole strength of the country for either "offensive or defensive war." The idea was familiarly expressed by all, that they would no sooner relinquish their rights under the charter than their estates, that they would fight for both; and, if driven from their houses and lands on the seashore, they would withdraw deeper and deeper into the forests, carrying their charter, the ark of their covenant, with them. And finally, when James II. abrogated the charter and took ruthless possession of the country, with a design, as the colonial statesmen believed, in pursuance of a secret treaty, to cede it to France, the people of Boston and the vicinity rose in their wrath. Sir Edmund Andros found himself, the next morning, in the lock-up at Fort Hill. He was removed for safer keeping to Castle Island, which, by holding as a prisoner the deposed royal governor, fairly won a right to the title, subsequently given it, of Fort Independence. Finally, he was shipped back to England. In the mean time, old Simon Bradstreet, in his eighty-seventh year, who, fifty-nine years before came over with Winthrop, and was the first secretary and the last governor under the First Charter in Massachusetts, was recalled to his place by an insurgent people, and for three more years affairs were administered as in the days of the old charter. The bold procedure was acquiesced in at home and abroad, no one was called to account for it, and Andros got no redress. The First Charter history of Massachusetts thus closed in glory.

The study of these records will help us avoid errors into which the Fathers of Massachusetts were led. A large department of their legislation, that embracing sumptuary laws and police regulations, is now considered as passing beyond the boundaries of the legitimate power of government, and trenching upon the rights of private life, and the domain of personal freedom. The severities of their penal code are condemned by the sentiments of a more enlightened age; but, in reference to this point, allowance must be made for their circumstances. In the prevention and punishment of crime, they had not what we possess in philanthropic, reformatory, and penitentiary establishments.

In initiating and organizing a government, errors were committed, but they were readily rectified when discovered. In 1636 and 1637, the General Court was led into a measure singularly in conflict with its usual policy and the spirit of the people a council for life was established, and Winthrop, Dudley, and Endicott elected to it. The prevalence of sounder views prevented any further proceedings, and the plan was dropped.

There is one branch of their administration exposed especially to stricture, and universally condemned, at the present day, which must not be overlooked; for their views and designs in relation to it are proved to have been fallacious and impracticable. They came here with a purpose most dear to their hearts, of establishing and enjoying a system of society and government in which all would be of one mind, in the reception of a particular theological creed and ecclesiastical order. This did not, in their view, involve any violation of the rights of conscience. The New World, as they reasoned, could accommodate persons of all persuasions. They had purchased and planted their territory, and cherished the hope of enjoying it in peace and unity. This idea had captivated their imaginations. The agitations and dissensions arising from conflicting religious theories were distasteful to their feelings. They had left the Old World to get rid of them, and thought it no wrong to ask those who desired to establish and propagate opinions in conflict with theirs, as there was room enough for all, to go elsewhere. To preserve peace, tranquillity, and order, they undertook to keep out Anabaptists, Antinomians, and Quakers. It was an error to expect to succeed in such a policy, and the attempt involved them in the follies and mischiefs of intolerance and persecution. As followers of the divine Word, and disciples of the Great Teacher, they ought to have known better. Tares will spring up with the wheat. LET THEM BOTH GROW TOGETHER UNTIL THE HARVEST. The Lord of the harvest, and he alone, has the right or the power to separate them. In this, then, it cannot too emphatically be affirmed, the founders of Massachusetts were in the wrong, and their example is to be held up as a warning. For having pursued the opposite policy, in opening a shelter for all sorts of opinions, and patiently enduring the

turmoil of wrangling bigots and fanatical enthusiasts, rather than suffer the hand of the civil power to be lifted against them, the name of Roger Williams will be illustrious, and the peculiar honor of Rhode Island secure for ever.

At the very first meeting of the Massachusetts General Court, after the transfer of the charter, at which a governor and assistants were chosen, on the 18th of May, 1631, it was voted, that "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; "" and they suffered no churches to be gathered, but such as were sound in doctrine, according to the estimation of the General Court. Admitting that the policy announced in this vote was erroneous, and rejoicing, as we all do, that it has long ago been repudiated, it is but fair to give heed to what may be offered in its palliation. It was, in part, suggested by their peculiar situation. It was necessary, by all means, to keep their government from falling into the hands of persons who might appear among them with a disposition to win favor from the parties hostile to them around the royal court; and this seemed the most sure way to keep them out. Further, in spite of all precautions to prevent it, here, as in all first settlements, there were individuals of loose and profligate lives, wholly unfit to share in the government. It was an effectual bar against them. And, after all, it must be conceded, that there was one good feature in it. It ignored the distinction between high and low, rich and poor, bond and free; and was, as far as it went, in this view, a liberal measure. It is due to the Church, Catholic and Protestant, to give it the credit, in every age and every communion, whatever other barriers it has raised, of having welcomed to its bosom persons of all ranks and races, without reference to their position in the scale of society. It has been in advance of the State in this particular.

While we condemn the policy of the Fathers in reference to religious opinions, we must not charge them with having contemplated an established religion as a part of the frame of their government. To that they were utterly opposed. They often, it is true, sought the advice of the ministers concerning public affairs, appreciating their learning and wisdom, but never allowed them to participate in the government. They went further in

this respect than we do. No minister, or church officer of any kind, not even a lay-elder, was permitted to hold any legislative, political, or civil appointment.

Increase Nowell, an original patentee and assistant, belonging to a high family at home, who came over with the charter, was a man of eminent gifts and graces, and all his life in distinguished public employment. When the church at Charlestown was planted, he was chosen a ruling or lay elder, and acted as such. The question was raised, whether he, being a magistrate, could hold office in a church. It was decided that he could not, and Nowell laid down his eldership.

Samuel Sharp was probably one of the best educated men of the first age of the colony. Bred to learning during his youth, and transferred at opening manhood to business as a merchant, he continued through life to cultivate his mind and gratify his literary tastes. He seems to have been a proficient also in military knowledge, as he was intrusted, from the first, with all that related to engineering, fortification, and ordnance, in the plantation. Colonial enterprise seems to have particularly attracted his interest. He was one of the company in London which managed the first settlement at Plymouth. The Records of the Massachusetts Company show the active part he took in its affairs, and the extent to which it availed itself of his business efficiency. When Endicott was elected temporary local governor, April 30, 1629, he divided the vote with him, was appointed one of his council, and authorized, in conjunction with Samuel Skelton, the first pastor of the Salem church, in the event of Endicott's death, to assume the government of the plantation. Although Matthew Cradock never came to America in person, he took lands, and shipped over successive cargoes of provisions, live stock, and other needful articles, selecting suitable persons to look out for their disbursement and distribution. Sharp was his chief agent, and enjoyed his full confidence. Henry Haughton was also concerned in the management of Cradock's affairs. The latter, at the formation of the Salem church, was elected its layelder; but, dying a few months afterwards, Sharp was chosen to his place, which he filled to his death in 1656. In consequence of holding this office, the great talents and capacity of Elder Sharp were lost to the civil service of the colony. His name,

although consecrated by the memory of his various usefulness, Christian learning, and eminent piety, is seen no more on its records, except as having, with Endicott and others, been bound over to answer before the General Court, as representatives of the Salem church, for having denounced the proceedings of the Court against its minister, Roger Williams.

These instances sufficiently show how thoroughly the policy was carried out of not allowing any officers whatever of a church to hold political or civil appointments, or in any degree or shape to have share in the government.

The Fathers of Massachusetts have been ridiculed for the respect in which they held the Hebrew polity, and for bringing the authority of the Scriptures, particularly of the Old Testament, to corroborate their legislation. But it may be asked, Where else could they have gone? Not surely to precedents drawn from ancient despotisms, or European monarchies. References to the statutes of the Pentateuch were more to their purpose, and justly carried greater weight, than to feudal rolls of parliaments, basely obsequious to Tudors and Stuarts. The Hebrew government, for the ends it was designed to accomplish, was the most perfect ever contrived. It left a deeper imprint on national character than any government ever has. It gave to a people a national life which no power on earth has been able to extinguish. Subjugation, dispersion, and the scorn, hate, and persecution of all nations. for two thousand years, have made no impression on it. The Jewish race has survived it all. In our day the proudest monarchs are bowing before its banking-houses, and it affords leading minds to parliaments and cabinets. Its perpetuity, as a distinct people, although scattered everywhere, and everywhere trodden down for ages, is the marvel of the world's history, and attests the greatness of Moses as a lawgiver.

The Massachusetts statesmen of the first age did not follow indiscriminately the details of the Jewish system; but, as the Records show, sought to discover and obey the requirements of eternal moral laws. They acted, in their secular administration, upon principles that will stand the test of all time; but found gratification and confirmation in the ancient Scriptures. It is wonderful to what an extent they were able to avail themselves of this resource. Any one who verifies, collates, and examines