knowledg and obedience of the onlie true God and Savior of mankinde, and the Christian fayth, which, in our royall intention and the adventurers free profession, is the principall ende of this plantation. AND WEE DOE, further ... graunte to the saide ... Company ... that it may be lawful [for the Company and its officers] from Tyme to Tyme, and at all Tymes hereafter, for their speciall Defence and Safety, to incounter, expulse, repell, and resist by Force of Armes, as well by Sea as by Lande, and by all fitting Waies and Meanes whatsoever, all such Persons as shall at any Tyme hereafter attempt or enterprise the Destruction, Invasion, Detriment, or Annoyance to the saide Plantation ... [with the usual clause reserving to the English King the privilege of disavowing wrongful acts by the colony if he prefer to put it out of his allegiance, and _without_ the usual half of the "expulse" clause relating to _settlers_ who "may attempt to inhabit" in the colony without the permission of the Company; provided further that other Englishmen may fish on the coasts of the colony; and with the usual clause promising the Company the most favorable construction of any disputed clause.] [=Hints for Study.=--1.--Early New England historians _assumed_ that this charter gave unusual powers. A comparison with the Virginia Company charters of 1609 and 1612, or with the New England Council charter of 1620, shows this assumption wholly false. Students may be asked to find four important powers given to those earlier corporations and not contained in this grant (noting the _limited_ authority here in the inflictions of punishment, and the omission of the power to regulate settlement in connection with the usual "expulse, repel, etc." clause). The charter is not "very liberal," but very limited. This is more apparent when we notice that all these powers missing in this charter (or vaguely phrased here) _reappear_ in the usual explicit form in the charter granted a few months later to the company for planting Providence Isle (No. 55, below). 2.--American historians (_e.g._ John Fiske, in _Beginnings of New England_) have often assumed that this charter used loose language as to the oath of supremacy _in order that_ the Puritans might set up their own form of worship. _The wording, however, is practically identical with that of the Virginia Company charter of 1612--from which unquestionably it was copied_, with only the necessary changes of names. (Let students verify this statement.) 3.--With the overthrow of these false assumptions goes another (in great measure) founded upon them,--_i.e._ that the Puritans intended, when they were securing this charter, to bring it to America and use it as a constitution for a free state. This assumption, however, is worth further investigation by the student, because it offers so admirable a lesson in historical criticism.