General History of Connecticut, from Its First Settlement Under George Fenwick to its Latest Period of Amity with Great BritainPeters, Samuel
History
General History of Connecticut, from Its First Settlement Under George Fenwick to its Latest Period of Amity with Great Britain
Peters, Samuel
Connecticut -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775; Connecticut -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783
Those two sects differed about the coercive power of the civil
magistrate. The Old Lights held that the civil magistrate was a
creature framed on purpose to support ecclesiastical censure with the
sword of severity; but the New Lights maintained that the magistrate
had no power or right to concern himself with Church excommunication,
and that excommunication was all the punishment any one could undergo
in this world, according to the rules of the Gospel. These were, and
always have been, two great articles of faith in New-England;
nevertheless, Mr. Neal says he can assure the world that “religion is
no part of the quarrel.” I hope Mr. Neal did not mean to quibble, as
the New-Englanders generally do, by Jesuitism, viz. that religion is
peaceable and admits not of quarrels; and yet, if he did not, he meant
not a full representation of the matter, for he well knew that the
difference in respect to the intent and power of the magistrates was a
religious point, and formed the partition wall between the Old and New
Lights. The civilians and magistrates were too wise to countenance the
New Lights, who promised little good to them; while the Old Lights
gave them a power of punishing, even unto death, those whom they had
anathematized, and who would not submit to their censures by penitence
and confession. The Old Lights, in short, supported the practice of
the inquisitors of Spain and Archbishop Laud--the ostensible occasion
of their ancestors flying from England to the wilderness of America.
But Mr. Neal contented not himself with one mistake; he added, “that
the people of New-England are a dutiful and loyal people.” They never
merited this character, and they always had too much honesty and
religion to claim it. From the first they have uniformly declared, in
Church and State, that America is a new world, subject to the people
residing in it, and that none but enemies of the country would appeal
from their courts to the King in Council. They never have prayed for
any earthly king by name. They have always called themselves
republicans, and enemies to kingly government, to temporal and
spiritual lords. They hate the idea of a Parliament, consisting of
King, Lords, and Commons; they declare that the three branches should
be but one, the king having only a single vote with the other members.
Upon this point they have always quarrelled with the governors. They
never have admitted one law of England to be in force among them till
passed by their assemblies. They have sent agents to fight against the
kings of England. They deny the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London,
which extends over America by a royal patent. They hold Jesus to be
the only King, whom if they love and obey they will not submit,
because they have not submitted, to the laws of the King of Great
Britain.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account