voluntary civil subjection, arising merely from a mutual compact between them and the king, founded upon the charter. By this compact they acknowledged themselves bound; so that they could not be subject to or seek protection from any other prince, neither could make laws repugnant to those of _England_, &c. but, on the other hand, they maintained, that they were to be governed by laws made by themselves, and by officers of their own electing[13]. They meant to be independent of English parliaments; and therefore when their intimate friends were become leading members in the house of commons, and they were advised, on account of the great liberty to which king Charles left the parliament, to send over some to solicit for them, and had hopes given that they might obtain much, the governor and assistants, after meeting in council upon the occasion, “declined the motion, for this consideration, that, if they should put themselves under the protection of the parliament, they must then be subject to all such laws as they should make, or at least such as they might impose upon them, in which course, (though they should intend their good, yet) it might prove very prejudicial to them[14].” Whatever approbation such sentiments may meet with from the friends of liberty, these must regret the inconsistencies to which human nature is subject, in those very persons whose experience should have taught them, to do unto others, as they would that others should have done unto them, when they themselves were suffering under the relentless hand of arbitrary government. But, what is man! [May 18, 1631.] So early as the second general court after the arrival of the governor and company, instead of resolving to admit all the suitable and deserving, to a generous participation of their freedon, they passed the pernicious and disingenuous order, “For time to come no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the churches, within the limits of the same[15].” They soon after concluded, that none but such should share in the administration of civil government, or have a voice in any election. Thus a powerful and mischievous alliance was formed between the churches and the state. The ascendency of the clergy was secured and much increased; for no one could be proposed to the church for a member, unless the minister allowed it. The ministers were consulted by the general court, in all matter of great moment; and nothing was determined in such cases, without a formal reference to them; who, of course, used their influence with the people to procure an approbation of the measures which they themselves had advised[16];