Page:History of the United States of America, Spencer, v1.djvu/129

] by later arrivals, the General Court, in December, adopted an apologetical address to the king, petitioning for the preservation of their civil and religious liberties, making excuse for the capital punishments inflicted on the Quakers, etc. The king's answer was prompt and favorable. Soon after, however, early in 1661, an order arrived for the arrest of Whalley and Goffe; but they had retired to New Haven, and though various efforts were made they were never apprehended, most probably because the authorities at no time seriously purposed bringing them to punishment. Further to make show of their loyalty, the authorities condemned Eliot's "Christian Commonwealth," which had been drawn up for the converted Indians, and incautiously published in England. Eliot also himself recanted the anti-monarchical principles contained in his book.

In the struggle which it was evident was approaching, the leaders in New England felt that they must trust, under Providence, mainly to their own determined energies. Their first measure was to draw up and publish a declaration of what they held to be their rights. These were defined to be "the power to choose their own governor, deputy governor, magistrates, and representatives; to prescribe terms for the admission of additional freemen; to set up all sorts of officers, superior and inferior, with such powers and duties as they might appoint; to exercise, by their annually-elected magistrates and deputies, all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial; to defend themselves by force of arms against every aggression; and to reject any and every interposition which they might judge prejudicial to the colony."

At length, after more than a year's delay, Charles II. was formally proclaimed, but all demonstrations usual on such occasions were strictly forbidden, under the ingenious but rather queer pretence that rejoicing was contrary to the orders issued by the king himself!

Beside the enemies of the colonists in England, there were many active opponents of the ruling party at home. Those in favor of liberal measures, as Episcopalians, Baptists, and others, who were excluded from a share in the government, had largely increased, and, encouraged by the posture of affairs, urgently called for a relaxation of the unjust restrictions under which they labored. Even among the theocratic freemen themselves there was a division of opinion. The greater part adhered to their original principles, but many finding them too rigorous, a "half-way covenant" had been adopted, by which those who strictly conformed to the established worship, but without professing themselves regenerate and elect, were admitted to the civil prerogatives of church membership. There were also many who deemed it the wisest policy to bend to necessity, and not to risk the loss of every thing by refusing to make reasonable and timely concessions. But the majority sternly resolved to maintain their independence of English supremacy, whatever might be the issue. To avert, however, if possible, the necessity of a recourse to armed resistance, Norton and