Guernsey and Jersey, wherein all the particulars they so much stumbled at were omitted."1 The original charter for Maryland bears date 1632, and was granted to Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic nobleman of high character and honourable renown. Upon condition of yielding two Indian arrows at Windsor Castle every Easter Tuesday, he received with the ownership of the lands the Governorship of the Colony. He also became invested with all advowsons, and with the power of licensing churches and chapels-to be consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of this kingdom. To the same Governor were further granted such royal rights "as any Bishop of Durham ever had." The inconsistency of granting such a charter to any individual who was a Roman Catholic, however excellent a man he might be, is obvious to every one. An establishment, according to Protestant law, thus came under the complete control of an individual of a perfectly different communion. Yet, though the procedure appears so inconsistent, it, in fact, happily proved the means of securing to the Maryland people the blessing of religious liberty to a greater extent than that in which it was enjoyed in any other Colony. An oath, which was required to be taken by the Governor and Council, in these words: "I will not, by myself or any other, directly or indirectly, trouble, molest, or discountenance any person professing to believe in Jesus Christ, for or in respect of 1 Anderson, i. 308. This was a French translation of Edward the Sixth's Prayer Book. Edward the Sixth's first Prayer Book (1549) was translated into French for the use of the King's subjects in Calais and the Channel Islands, by command of Sir Hugh Paulet, Governor of Calais. This book was corrected, according to the revision of the second Prayer Book, in 1532Procter on the Book of Common Prayer, 37. religion"—was perhaps framed especially with the view of affording refuge for persecuted Roman Catholics on the shores of Chesapeake Bay; but it is pleasant to recollect that under its shadow and in harmony with its design Protestants also found shelter from Protestant intolerance.2 A Colony of a very different nature commenced in 1620. That year certain adventurers were incorporated as "the Council established at Plymouth, in the county Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and governing New England, in America." Yet not from them has New England obtained its illustrious name in American history, but from the men who fled across the Atlantic without the knowledge or the aid of either company or king. A band of persons holding Congregational views of Church government, and driven from their native shores by persecution, had settled in Holland some years earlier, and now their numbers having increased, some of them determined to emigrate. Their thoughts at first turned towards Virginia, and they procured a patent under the Virginia Company's seal. But it ran in the name of a gentleman who did not proceed thither, and consequently it became of no service to the emigrants. These, at last, trusting alone in God, resolved to direct their course to` the shores of New England. On the 6th September, 1620-fourteen years after the first colonization of Virginia, and two months before the incorporation of the Company at Plymouth-the Pilgrim Fathers set sail on their memorable voyage. This is not the place to tell the story of their adventures-of the parting of the May Flower" from the " Speedwell" of the solitary 66 course of the former vessel, of its battle with the elements of the landing of the voyagers at Cape Cod, and the dreary coasting expedition of the afflicted party until their feet touched the Plymouth Rock. The story may well inspire American historians with an enthusiasm, deeper as it is more pure, than that of the poet who sang the fortunes of Æneas: "Troja qui primus ab oris Italiam, fato profugus, Lavinia venit Littora." Before landing, the Pilgrims covenanted, as the loyal subjects of King James-having undertaken, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith, a voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern parts of Virginia that they would combine together as a body politic for the furtherance of those ends, and enact equal laws meet for the general good of the Colony.' These Christian-minded men, wearied with the injustice which they had endured, and distressed at the irreligion which they had witnessed at home, constituted themselves at once, in the simplicity of their hearts and the fervour of their zeal, a Christian Church and a political Statenot perceiving the inconsistency of the act, and not foreseeing the difficulties into which such an identification of the civil and the ecclesiastical would very speedily plunge them. The Council for New England-just mentioned as established at Plymouth in the year 1620-granted a patent for the establishment of a Colony in the country of Massachusetts. The Puritans in England took an interest in its progress; and, by means of influence which they exerted on its behalf, a Charter for the Company of Massachusetts Bay, in the course of Anderson, i. 359. twelve months, passed the Royal Seal.1 That Charter constituted it a trading corporation, and conveyed power to make all necessary ordinances for Government, so as that such ordinances were not repugnant to the laws and statutes of this our realm of England. It conceded no rights of self-government, and, according to strict interpretation, it allowed the people no liberty of worship. Yet in the covenant which the emigrants subscribed, at the moment of landing on the shores of their new home, they bound themselves to walk together according as God revealed Himself unto them-in matters of worship resolving to cleave unto Him alone-and to reject all contrary ways, canons, and constitutions. At the same time, they promised to act with all watchfulness and tenderness toward their brethren, avoiding jealousies, suspicions, backbitings, and secret risings of spirit.2 Winthrop, the Governor of the new colonists, spoke, at the same time, in their name, of the Church of England in terms of the strongest filial love, calling her a dear mother, from whom the pilgrim emigrants had parted in tears, having in her bosom received their share in the common salvation, and having sucked it, as it were, from her breasts.3 It was not, however, as Ecclesiastical Puritans that Winthrop and his companions made these professions. Their wellknown opinions, in relation to the Church of England, sufficed to indicate that they could not intend their words to be applied to her formularies and her government; A copy of the Charter may be found in the State Paper Office, Col. Series, under date 1629, March 4th. An account of it is given in Bancroft, i. 342. 2 Cotton Mather's Magnalia,i. 66. The distinct origin of the Massachusetts colony has been overlooked by some historians. Baird's Religion of the United States, 107, 108.-Anderson, ii, 156, 157. but as doctrinal Puritans these men could employ such language with the most perfect sincerity. They spoke, as some can speak still, who, on grounds of polity and of worship alone, dissent from her communion. "We Whatever may be thought of the interpretation practically given by Winthrop and his brethren to the terms of the Royal Charter, everybody must acknowledge the affectionate spirit towards the Church of England which was breathed in his memorable letter;-but it must be confessed that equally inconsistent with the Charter, and with the Epistle, was the conduct of the Council of Massachusetts before the end of the year 1629, when they sent into banishment two of their number, who, whilst they were described as "sincere in their affection for the good of the plantation," were charged with upholding worship according to the Book of Common Prayer. "You are Separatists," said the Episcopalians to their Puritan brethren, "and you will shortly be Anabaptists.' separate," it was replied, "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 Nonconformity; in this place of liberty we cannot, we will not use them. Their imposition would be a sinful violation of the worship of God."1 It is easy to imitate the special pleading so often heard on the High Church side of the great controversy of which this was but a small part, and to suggest certain excuses for the Massachusetts rulers; and to say that this was a measure of self-defence, and that it was intended to crush in the germ what might have grown into formidable mischief. But we attempt 1 Bancroft, i. 349. The treatment of Roger Williams, who, with all his folly and rashness, nothing of that kind. We blended qualities of the noblest kind,-can never be justified. |