How, then, were men of such opinions to interpret the ever-growing agitation for a larger measure of toleration, accompanied as it was by an ever-growing resentment toward the political influence and activities of the Standing Order, as anything other than a covert attack upon religion itself? These bitter complainings over the religious measures adopted by government, these flauntings of authority through stubborn refusal or passive resistance to the payment of ecclesiastical rates, these unrelenting efforts to dispossess the clergy of the Establishment of their traditional honors and emoluments—what were they all but so many proofs of the impiety of the age and an abominable conspiracy to drive pure religion from the land? As the representatives of the Standing Order saw the situation, the church was obviously in grave danger and to steady the tottering ark of the Lord was the most imperative duty of the hour. On the other hand, in the light of the growing liberality of the times, it was impossible for the forces of dissent to be patient with such men. They were men of the past, callously unresponsive to the spirit of the new age. They were an embittered minority, exerting themselves to keep a struggling and confident majority a little longer under their thumb. They were mischievous meddlers in the affairs of others, using religion as a cloak to hide their social and political self-seeking. As for the cry, “The church is in danger!”, that was to be regarded as the most signal proof of the hypocrisy of those who raised it.[151] FOOTNOTES: [47] Lauer, _Church and State in New England_ (Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science. Tenth Series), pp. 95 _et seq._ [48] The term “Standing Order” was generally employed in the speech and literature of the period, and had reference to the alliance between the party of the Establishment and the party of the government. [49] The scope of inquiry prescribed by the special object of this dissertation renders both unnecessary and unprofitable the tracing of this struggle in detail. Valuable special studies in this field are available. Among these the following are to be commended as of exceptional usefulness: Burrage, _A History of the Baptists in New England_; Greene, _The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut_; Reed, _Church and State in Massachusetts, 1691–1740_; Cobb, _The Rise of Religious Liberty in America_; Ford, _New England’s Struggle for Religious Liberty_. Lauer’s excellent treatise has already been cited. Of contemporaneous treatments, Backus, _A History of New England, with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists_, though deficient in literary merit, is doubtless the most trustworthy and replete. The citations made from the latter work refer, unless otherwise indicated, to the edition of 1871 (2 vols.).