497 its pretensions? None whatever. In just this, however, the nation had the advantage. According to feudal usage no burden could be laid upon a subject without his consent; the king must have money, the nation alone could furnish it. "T want funds," said the king to the three orders. "Give us guaranties against the invasion of our rights and you shall have them," said the three orders to the monarchy. Rhetoric aside, the growth of liberties in the European States was largely a matter of barter,-mere bargain and sale. It was the interest of the king to yield as little and get as much in return as possible; that of the people, to give as little and gain as much as they could. Liberty in the abstract has slight influ ence over men's minds. Specific immunities, specific guaranties, these are what the national assemblies bargained for in exchange for grants.

Thus the third estate, or commous, representing the free cities, gained a seat in the feudal council, which by this enlargement became properly a national assembly. Owing to their wealth the representatives of the towns as a body rose rapidly in influence, ere long holding the balance of power in the State. The commons became the determinative element in politics. In England they sided with the nobility, in France and Germany with the king-a coalition of elements that did much to decide the future history of those countries. The peasant population, gradually freed from serfdom, except in England had no voice directly in the national assembly; they were in theory at least, represented by the nobles on whose lands they lived. Yet here we have a body of recognized standing and influence, representing, though imperfectly, the whole nation, and from the condition of things able to act as a counterpoise of the monarchy, to bargain with it, to fix limitations upon it. In this we have the origin of that group of institutions to which belonged the English Parliament, the German Diet, the Parliaments of Scotland and Sardinia, the Estates of Denmark, of Sweden and of Norway, the States General of France and of Holland, the Cortes of Aragon and Castile, and the representative bodies of the Italian States. These were all the outgrowth of like conditions, all attempts at the realization of the same ends; yet how different the vicissi

tudes through which they passed, how different the destinies. allotted to them! In England the people, favored by many circumstances, had pluck and persistency enough to force the monarchy to keep its promises. This abuse done away with, that cause of oppression removed, this wrong righted, that right recognized and its maintenance guaranteed-the sum of concessions such as these gained by the parliament from the crown in the periods of its need or weakness in time made up a well-rounded and secure and liberal constitution. In France and in other countries the people from various causes did not compel the crown to keep its faith with them, and the national assemblies after a beginning of so much promise lost ground, finally sinking into forgetfulness or lingering on in an enfeebled condition. Yet who can estimate the influence they had for good in giving even an incomplete embodiment to ideas of rights that were beginning to awaken in men's minds? They formed a basis of reality for traditions of freedom, which later ages were to see revived and enlarged upon and realized in concrete form.

Modern free institutions, then, have their roots deep in the soil of the past. The remote origin of our liberties is to be found in the freedom and loyalty of the early Germans. These gave the impulse, the outworking of which lies at the basis of all that is fairest and best in the constitutions of the civilized nations of to-day. Yet behind all political and social movements there has been another potent and deepening influence in favor of popular rights-the influence of Christianity.

Men have sought in the Bible to find support for the most diverse political theories. The divine right of kings, liberty, equality, fraternity, and even communism, have not neglected to strengthen their claims to acceptance by texts from the New Testament. But Christ came not to found a temporal kingdom; his teachings were moral and spiritual. These were to influence political society, not through precepts on the State, but by regenerating the hearts and quickening the consciences and purifying the lives of men. Stoicism had grasped at the thought of the oneness of humanity, and pagan antiquity had risen to the generalization that by natural law men are free. Rome, moreover, with harsh hand of conquest reduced the

world to an outward, political unity. But Christianity taught that all men are brothers. By the doctrine of sin it brought all to the same level, while by the doctrine of a Saviour it built up a spiritual unity through Christ. While other faiths are ethnic, Christianity is truly catholic, and from the first empha sized its mission as the religion of mankind. It inculcated humility, love, mercy; and enforced equality before a higher power. Starting in the lowest ranks of society, its progress though gradual was firm, and ere long crowned heads bowed in submission to its decrees.

Not only did the teachings of Christianity thus promote in directly the development of popular rights, but also the expounders of it made direct application of the doctrines to political facts. At a time when Europe was quaking with political commotions, Thomas Aquinas declared that government belongs to the domain of human regulation; that therefore the right to make laws belongs to the 'people, and that in a good government all must have a share. St. Bonaventura preached the right of resistence, and maintained that political power ought not to be unlimited. True, indeed, the Church herself, adopting the traditions of the Roman Empire, sought supremacy in matters temporal as well as spiritual, and many utterances of her representatives had no other aim than to prepare the way for papal usurpation; yet none the less did she help to mold. general opinion in favor of the rights of the people and we must not forget that it was on the estates of the Church that the serfs of medieval Europe first began to be set free.

The organization of the Church, moreover, was founded in principles of freedom. At first the voice of the people was supreme in all matters connected with ecclesiastical discipline and government. It was from the lower orders of society that the ranks of the priesthood were mainly recruited, and promotion in offices was through merit. By the institution of councils the Church furnished the type of a representative body, and foreshadowed the most stable form of national political organization.

Thus Christianity, while elevating men through character and life, has done more to advance the cause of civil rights than any other agency. While we grant to the Germanic race the

high honor of having been commissioned by Providence to work out in its institutions and to transmit to humanity the idea of individual liberty, to Christianity the world is indebted for giving to this principle of freedom the highest impulse to development, a rational basis, and a principle of control. Tried at the bar of the Teutonic conscience the religion of peace said to the bold, liberty-loving warrior,-"Love thy neighbor as thyself." Christianity checked the bold spirit of independence by a regard for the rights of others; and in these two elements is laid the foundation of stable, free institutions.

ARTICLE IV.-THE CHARTER OF CONNECTICUT AND

THE CHARTER OF YALE COLLEGE.

II.

THERE remain the anonymous pamphlets, which cannot be considered as heavy artillery. The guns came too late into the field, and are old and rusty and were long ago condemned. It is necessary to understand the situation. Two measures of President Clap's administration caused much irritation. was the formation of a college-church and congregation or religious society in the college. This Dr. Woolsey thinks has proved wise and it agreed with the practice in Harvard and the British universities, and such church and congregation have been continued ever since. The other measure was unwise. That was an order of the corporation, that the Rev. Mr. Noyes, one of the fellows and pastor of the first church in New Haven, appear and be examined by them, for the purpose of inquiring into the soundness of his faith. This order Mr. Noyes resisted and refused to submit to, and the proceeding was abandoned. The corporation has no right to remove a member for his opinions. It has the right, for unfaithfulness to his trust, "for any misdemeanor, unfaithfulness, default or incapacity." The law deals with acts and failures or inability to act, not with opinions. The power has never needed to be and has never been exercised.

In 1753 the General Assembly resolved, that to "one principal end in erecting the college," it was requisite that the students "should have the best instruction in divinity, and the best patterns of preaching set before them. And that the settling of a learned, pious and orthodox professor of divinity in the college would greatly tend to promote that good end." At the request of the corporation President Clap performed the duties of a professor of divinity until a professsor should be procured, preaching in the college hall on Sunday, and the president and the students were withdrawn from attendance on divine service at the first church in New Haven, under the