cipline. Having declared their affent to a confeffion of faith drawn up by one of the minifters, the greater number, agreeably to the fpirit of independence, figned an affociation, in Auguft, 1629, which is extremely characteristic of them. "We covenant, faid they, with the Lord, and with one another, to walk together in all his ways, according as he is pleafed to reveal himself to us; nor will we deal oppreffingly with any wherein we are the Lord's flewards." They immediately chose pastors and other ecclefiaftical officers, who were feparated to their feveral functions by the impofition of the hands of the brethren. A religious fociety, or church, being thus formed, feveral perfons were received into it by giving teftimony of their fober converfations: and none was admitted to communion with them without giving fatisfaction to the church concerning his faith and manners. But the mode how that should be given was left to the arbitrary difcretion of the elders, as particular cafes should arife: thus erecting in wilds, which freedom was to people and cultivate, that inquifitorial power which had laid waste the fruitfulle& European plains.

It will be extremely difficult, if not impoffible, to fupport the legality of the affociation before mentioned; except on principles of pure independence, or as a voluntary compact, which was obligatory on none but the affociators. The emigrants carrying with them those laws of the realm which were fuitable to their fituation, fo much of the jurifprudence of England inftantly became that of the colony. According to the ancient common law, which hath been declared by ftatute, there can be no provincial church established, nor any ecclefiaftical proceeding, without the confent of the King, the fupreme head. Thefe falutary principles of policy were expressly enforced by their charter, with a caution which feemed to forefee, though it could not prevent, what afterwards happened. Nor did they ask the approbation of the Governor and Company in England, who were invested, as we have feen, with a legislative authority over them. Yet, by the covenant itfelf, they promised "to carry themfelves in all lawful obedience to thofe that are over them in church or commonwealth." Thofe emigrants were men, however, above all worldly ordinances. The laws of England, fo justly celebrated by the panegyric of nations, they confidered as not binding on them; becaufe inapplicable to fo godly a people. And the Jewish fyftem of rules they almoft literally adopted; becaufe more fuitable to their condition. Men of difcernment perceived with regret the ruling principle of Maffachufets for the first time difclofed. It verbally admitted the King to be fupreme head of the church, and promised all lawful obedience to his power: but it asked not his affent when the church was established. And it would probably have deemed the royal interference as an invafion of its chartered rights.

Of all compacts not frictly legal, it is to be lamented as a mif fortune, that what in the beginning is merely voluntary too foon be. comes compulfory, when bigotry is accompanied with power, Among the first emigrants there were fome perfons of a religion extremely different from that of the members of the before-mentioned fociety; and they were perfons too of eftates and confequence, and

Hh 3

of

of the number of the firft patentees. Obferving that the minis iters did not ufe the book of common prayer, thefe men, with a laudable fpirit of attachment to the ufages of their fathers, established a feparate meeting, according to the forms of the church of England. And this meafure, it should feem, was equally reasonable as the former; perhaps more confiftent with the charter, and more agreeable to the conftitutions of the flate. The focieties of the colony were founded on a principle of freedom and independence; which is always fo refpectable even when productive of inconvenience. It is only to be deplored, that their zealous members did not, according to the admirable temper of Chriftianity, allow that liberty of choice and of action to others, which they had themselves exerted. The Governor, being nevertheless greatly alarmed, fummoned before him. the fupporters of the church of England, to give an account of their proceedings: thus confidering nonconformity as a crime, which the civil magiftrate ought to watch and to punish. They accufed, the minifters, in their defence, of departing from the order of the ancient eftablishment: adding, "That they were Separatifts, and would foon be Anabaptifts; but, as for themfelves, they would hold faft to the forms of the church established by law." The minifters denied the charge, and infifted; "That they did not feparate from the church of England, but only from her diforders; that, far from being Separatists or Anabaptifts, they had only come away from the common-prayer and ceremonies, because they judged the impofition of thefe things to be finful corruptions of the word of God." Thefe anfwers, fo agreeable to the fentiments of the majority, were generally approved of: and two of their accufers, who were perfons of confideration, on the pretence fo common on fuch occafions, of their endeavouring to raife a mutiny among the people, were expelled and fent to London. The expulfion of its chiefs inflicted a wound on the Church of England, which it never recovered: and the liberalminded exclaimed, that the fame conduct has been invariably purfued at all times, and in every country; the perfecuted, when they acquire power, will always perfecute. With fuch a church, and fuch minifters, Blackflone, an epifcopal clergyman, could never be induced to communicate: giving, for a reafon, what ought to have taught moderation to all; that, as he came from England, because, he did not like the Lord bishops, fo he would not join with them, because he could not be under the Lord-brethren.'

What must we think of the tolerating principles and fpirit of a writer, who can pronounce it an illegal act, for a number of perfons fettled in a new colony, to "covenant with the Lord and with one another, that they would walk together in all his ways, according as he hath revealed himself to them, and that they will not deal oppreffively with any ;" and in confequence of this, to form themfelves into a religious fociety, and make choice of proper perfons to perform the offices of religion? Were fuch proceedings more criminal in a Chriftian country, than they were under an heathen Emperor, when Pliny, in excufe for the Chriftians, faid to Trajan, that "it was affirmed,

that

that all the offence they had committed was, that they were accustomed to affemble before day-light, to fing an hymn to Chrift as to a God, and to bind themfelves by an oath not to be guilty of theft, adultery, deceit, treachery, or any other crimes?" Was there any thing in this conduct in the New-Englanders fo inconfiftent with fubjection to civil authority, and deftructive of the order of fociety, that the bold innovators must be ridiculed as men "above all ordinances," who "defpifed the authority of the laws of England, as inapplicable to fo godly a people." In judging for themselves, and choofing their own form of religion, what did they more, than follow the example of those who firft eftablished the Church of England, which every one knows was a feparation or diffent from the Church of Rome, and which would never have been accomplished had the reformers fuffered themfelves to be governed by that "laudable spirit of attachment to the ufages of their fathers," which Mr. Chalmers appears fo much to admire? If it would have been fo agreeable to the admirable fpirit of Chriftianity for thefe new fettlers to allow the liberty of choice and act" to the Epifcopalians, furely it could not be very contrary to the spirit of Chriftianity, or to its great law of equity, that we ought to do to others as we would that they fhould do to us, that they fhould be permitted to enjoy that liberty themselves.

The code of regulations inftituted for Carolina by John Locke, and that framed for Penfylvania by William Penn, as might be expected, are treated by our Author with contempt. Concerning the latter he fays; "Though it flattered the vanities of men, it was too theoretical to be practicable, too flimfy) to prove lafting, too complicated to enfure continual harmony, and too wild to be useful." Yet he acknowledges in another place, that in executing this plan, Penn at once "promoted his own defigns, and the happiness of the people;" and that "Penfylvania flourished exceedingly, and increased so fast in population, industry, and wealth, that the foon outstripped her neighbours, and in a fhort period became perhaps the most commercial, rich, and powerful of all the plantations. Could all this good arife in the ftate, and no fhare of the merit belong to the legiflator? Or had a system which [though "too wild to be useful"]"promoted the happiness of the people," no claim to" praise from philofophers?"

Our Author's political principles are fully explained in the laft chapter of this volume, in which he attempts to lay open the grounds on which the Colonies were first fettled, and on these grounds, to maintain the right of the British Parliament to tax America. In the course of these observations, Mr. Chalmers, by a kind of political legerdemain, metamorphofes Whigs

Hh 4

Whigs into Tories, and Tories into Whigs, in the following very ingenious paragraph:

Few doctrines are too abfurd or destructive not to have been propagated and defended by the leaders of faction at all times, and in every country. We ought not to be furprifed, therefore, that even the juft authority of the legiflature has been impugned by different men, with different views. In other times objection was only formed against one part of its authority. And it was formerly contended, with a greater share of plausibility than force," that infufficient was the power of parliament to change or regulate the defcent of the crown." When we confider, however, the various inftances in which this effential right had been exerted from the acceffion of Henry IV. to that of Elizabeth, it must appear fingular that any doubt should have been entertained of the extent of parliamentary power. We must attribute it to the extreme pertinacity of mankind, when influenced by party motives, that, notwithstanding the vigorous declarations of the Parliament during the reign of that Princefs, the fame objections were continued throughout the fubfequent age. And the year 1680 is remarkable in English annals, not only for being the epoch of the justly exploded party names of Whig and Tory, but for thofe projects for excluding the Duke of York from the throne, which created fo great a ferment towards the conclufion of the reign of his brother. But it was apparent to every one, that, were the authority of parliament incompetent to alter the fucceffion, an act of exclufion would pafs to little purpose. The two great parties of the nation prepared, the one to impeach, the other to defend, the power of the legislature. When the bill was debated by the Commons, the Whigs very properly contended in its favour: That, government being founded by accident rather than in natural right, the rules of mere pofitive inftitution must be fubject to the legislature, fince they derived their energy from its will; that there must be lodged confequently fomewhere, in every ftate, an authority abfolute and fupreme, the great fountain of the laws, which all muft revere and obey; that, in the English conftitution, this tranfcendent power is happily placed where it is most fafe, in the Parliament, which, compofed of every order of the state, muft neceffarily poffefs the will, the energy of the ftate; that whatfoever determination receives the powerful approbation of its fanction cannot afterwards admit of any difpute or controul, fince there would be no end to alteration, and the whole might be undone. But against reasonings, which, during thofe days, it was fo difficult to answer, because they were popular, because they proceeded from the voice of the laws and the people, the courtiers and Tories infited: That it was ridiculous to fpeak of an authority altogether abfolute, fince fuch was to be found under no form of government, and omnipotence itfelf can do nothing inconfiftent or impoffible; far lefs could fuch a power be invefted in judicatories, compofed of men fubject to human infirmities, fince every exertion must partake of their weakness; and, confequently, acts of parliament may easily be figured, which muft neceffarily be deemed void, either from the defect of their formation, or from the impoffibility of execution. The fate of the bill; the confequent acceffion of James II. the fol

3

lowing

lowing refolution: all have been related by writers of the greatest talents, and are univerfally known. Upon the before-mentioned principles of the Whigs was founded the interefting event which placed William on the throne; upon thofe principles has the prefent happy establishment been defended by the best and ablest friends of the Constitution; upon no other can the rectitude of both be possibly fupported. The maxims of the law of England will be found too. ftubborn to give way to the fpeculations of theorists, however ingenious or refpectable.

How amufing is it to contemplate the viciffitudes of thofe parties, which, under different forms, must ever exift, while freedom animates the whole. How frequently do they infenfibly change their principles, and imperceptibly take the place of each other. All in their turns have employed force to fupport their fentiments, when they have found their reafonings and intrigues unfuccefsful. Hence the various infurrections, whether denominated rebellion or refiftance, which have disturbed the repofe of the State, from the Revolution to the present day, have been uniformly directed against the conftitutional authority of the Legislature before-mentioned, against the principles of the Whigs of 168c. Meanwhile, a new fet of men have arifen, who, adopting the fentiments of the Tories, though with very different views, have inferred: That, though a King of England may be bound, though the defcent of the crown may be limited by Parliament, yet, that English fubjects, living within the boundaries of the empire, claiming rights from English laws, are exempted from the authority of the English legislature.'

Had the Author condefcended to confult the writings of the Whigs, either of the period of which he is here treating, or of the present times, he would have found them incapable of the inconfiftencies with which he charges them; he would have found it to be their invariable principle, that the original fource of all power, and all law, refides in the Majefty of the People; and that all governors, by whatever names they are diftinguished, are in reality the delegates, and (craving pardon of thofe courtly gentlemen who have of late been fo much offended by the word) we will add, the fervants of the People, and ACCOUNTABLE to their mafters for the important trust committed to them. It is folely on this principle of the Supremacy of the People, and on the fuppofition that their pleasure was expreffed in the voice of the Parliament which changed the fucceffion of the Crown at the Revolution, that this great tranfaction can be juftified. However trite the maxim, while there is on earth a prince, minifter, or fenator, who forgets it, let not the friends of mankind cease to repeat, Salus Populi eft fuprema lex.

[To be concluded in our next ]

ART.