upon our nation its heavy conflict. Above the brightness of the morning sun, Samuel Adams saw its diviner shining on Lexington's field of blood. Compared with its agency in making a Bunker Hill possible, the lurid conflict of that day was only as a glow-worm's light before that of the sun. In every day of storm and almost despair it has been the same; a rainbow of purest glory spanning the clouds that but just before were fierce and threatening.

We do not forget, when speaking of our own national life, the statement of Hume; that England owes her own liberty to the Puritans. Our democratic government, as against the kingly, is largely due to that peer among the New England clergy, John Wise of old Ipswich, who was prophet enough to preach, in 1687, "Democracy is Christ's government in Church and State."

In a letter to James Otis June 8, 1776 (a few days before the writer's death), Dr. Mayhew said: "You have heard of the communion of churches; while I was thinking of this in my bed, the great use and importance of a communion of colonies. appeared to me in a strong light." It is well known that Jefferson confessed himself indebted to the business meetings of a Christian church for

his best ideas upon the form of national government; while some of his "most glittering sentences in the immortal Declaration" are borrowed from the essay of John Wise upon the vindication of New England Churches. Add to these influences of the churches upon government another, and if possible a greater, the National Constitution.

The "Body of Liberties," a marvel of learning and liberality, was formulated in 1641, by Nathaniel Ward, pastor of the Ipswich church. Whence

came this bulwark of our law is thus stated by Bancroft: "He was competent to combine the humane principles of the common law, with the principles of natural right and equality, as deduced from the Bible."

It has been held as a striking significance in the history of the Bible and in our own country, that the version of King James the First was finished in 1611, having been begun four years earlier; the very time when the Cavaliers settled in Jamestown, and when the Pilgrims were finding refuge in Leyden, on their way to our Plymouth. It was surely the spirit of the fathers in the children when, in our late Rebellion, the necessity of the Bible in the conflict it had produced was not forgotten. The spirit of the old Congress of 1777

seemed to breathe in the distribution of seven hundred thousand copies of the sacred Book in our army and navy, in a single year. The flag of truce carried its best message when, in 1864, almost two hundred and eighteen thousand volumes of the Book were forwarded into the seceded States.

In the light of truths that our nation has seen verified, this Deathless Book stands alone. America's great liberator, Garrison, spoke his unshaken faith in the Book, while scorning the deeds of many who professed to love it, when he said, "The Bible Society is doing more to break the fetters of oppression and scatter the mists of delusion than all the patriotic associations and military orders of the world." It was to him the power to impeach crime, to mould public opinion, and to relieve the downtrodden. Again he speaks: "Take away the Bible, and our warfare with oppression, and infidelity, and intemperance, and impurity and crime, is at an end: our weapons are wrested away — our foundation is removed - we have no authority to speak, and no courage to act."

To those whose rec

But not alone the Book! ognition of the Book is by a sneer, we need but recall an incident in the life of Franklin. The scene

was in Philadelphia, in the memorable convention of 1787, for forming the Constitution of the United States. More than four weeks had passed with but little progress when the philosopher, venerable with his eighty-one years, arose and introduced a motion for daily prayers. "In the beginning of the contest with Britain," he said, "when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And, if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?" The motion was overruled, yet, coming from such as he, bears all the more weight.

The multitudes of Christendom have made their final appeal, in all questions, either to the Church or to the Bible. The doctrine of infallibility is the natural outgrowth of an appeal to the first; while the submission of the Bible to a people, practically means the right of private judgment. The difference between the Papal and Protestant churches involves just this point; the papacy decides for

the individual, while Protestantism with the Book makes an appeal to every man's conscience. This appeal to the conscience involves both freedom of inquiry and of thought, and the inevitable result, freedom of action. We are not to be understood as saying that the Church ever abandoned the Book; but it did claim the right to interpret the Book for the people. However truthfully it might do this, though never making a mistake, it would weaken intellectual and political liberty, by taking from every man's conscience this inalienable right; for such a reason the people freest to the use of the Bible are the freest people. The history of the Book is the history of freedom.

The Magna Charta, wrung from King John by the Army of God at Runnymede, was the first great step back toward the freedom men had forsaken, and to which only the truths of the Golden Rule could lead them. More was needed. Wickliffe's translation of the Book was the first recognized step to liberty after the charter of Runnymede.

Great events were contemporary. The mariner's compass marked out highways on oceans. The invention of gunpowder, that great evangel of liberty next to the New Testament, put a power into the