Page images

languages would be represented by several words. One long word in Eliot's translation is Wutappesittukqussunnookweltunkquoh which occurs in Mark i. 40, and means "kneeling down to him." The following is Eliot's version of one of the shorter verses of the New Testament:

Nummeetsuongash asekesukokish assmaunean yeuyeu kesukod.

A second edition of this Indian Bible, revised by Rev. John Cotton, was printed in quarto at Cambridge in 1685. Copies are very rare. In 1868 a copy was sold in New York for $1,130. The Indian tribe for whom it was made have long been extinct, their language has utterly perished, and there have not probably lived during the present century half a dozen persons who could understand a single verse of it.

[ocr errors]

ELIOT, SAMUEL, an American philosophic historian, born at Boston, December 22, 1821. He graduated at Harvard in 1839, was engaged in mercantile business in Boston for two years, and afterward travelled in Europe. From 1856 to 1864 he was Professor of History and Political Science in Trinity College, Hartford; being also President of the College from 1860 to 1866, and subsequently Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law. In 1872 he became Head Master of the Girls' High School in Boston, and in 1878 Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools. He has written A Manual of the United States History (1856), and in 1880 prepared a selection of Poetry for Children. His great work is The History of Liberty, which was planned in 1845, while he was a resident at Rome. An instalment of this was published in 1847, under the title Passages from the History of Liberty, treating mainly of the early Italian reformers. Two years afterward appeared The Liberty of Rome. This was revised and re-written in 1853, and appeared as Part I. of The History of Liberty. In the Preface he says: “I have taken for my subject a principle in which all men are concerned, and to which all the events of human history are related. It has seemed to me that in tracing the course of this history, we might gain some new convictions respecting liberty. Such an aim is far too high to be attained by composing a work for the use merely of what is called the literary class. I write for my fellow-men as well as for my fellowscholars.” He died September 15, 1898.


Liberty is the ability of an individual or of a community to exercise the powers with which either may be endowed. As a right, it depends upon the character of the powers to which it supplies the means of exercise. They who have only the lowest powers have the right only to the lowest liberty. They who have the highest powers—and they alone-have the right to the highest liberty. In other words, liberty is the right to use, and to increase by using, the powers which constitute the endowments of humanity.

As a possession, actually in the hands of men or of nations, liberty depends upon laws as well as upon powers. One may have the noblest powers of which his nature is capable; but he may be incapable of exercising them on account of oppressive laws. Or he may have but imperfect powers; yet they may be developed until they seem to human vision almost perfect, in consequence of the laws encouraging their exercise. No man can possess liberty-whether personal or political, whether physical, intellectual, or spiritual-except the laws above him allow the employment of the powers with which he has been created.

Now the laws under which men live are of two codes: One of these is derived directly from God, whose will it expresses, whose omnipotence it declares. The Divine law, wherever revealed, calls forth the highest powers of which mankind are susceptible. It kindles their holiest aspiration in the service of their Creator. It braces their most generous energies in the service of their fellow-creatures. Consequently, it gives them the right to perfect liberty. That which is made their right is by the same law, if it be obeyed, made their possession likewise. The other code contains human laws. So far as these support the Divine law, they support the liberty which that proclaims. So far, on the other hand, as they uphold the authority or the pleasure of men in contradiction to the will and the omnipotence of God, they are fatal to all liberty worthy of the name. If neither opposing nor maintaining the Divine law, they stand by themselves, unable to create the powers which entitle men to be truly free. The right to liberty declines under merely human laws. Under them, the possession also of liberty is insecure, if it be not wholly lost.

Over the ages of old there broods from first to last a giant shape, conjured up by human laws. Wherever men come together, upon the Eastern plains or around the Western citadels, they dwell in the shadow of centralization. This is one of the two systems by which society is constituted: the other is Union. Centralization binds men together; but it binds them together to the benefit of the minority; the majority is oppressed. Laws are in force not necessarily subverting, though necessarily not upholding, the Divine law. Liberty, as a right, is transformed from the right of developing one's own powers into that of controlling the powers of others. As a possession, it passes from the hands of the most powerful spiritually or intellectually, into those of the most powerful physically or politically. The laws on which it depends are merely human. As such, they recognize only the possessions or the rights of their framers. These are the freemen of the nation united by centralization; the remainder of the nation consists of subjects or of actual bondmen. Centralization prevailed throughout antiquity. The ancient nations know no other laws but what were human, no other freemen but what were rulers. Amongst the masses there was no liberty.-History of Liberty, Vol. I., Book 1, Chap. 1.


The source of the Hebrew law was Divine. Its course was so shaped by men as to be merely human. As such, it made the Hebrews rulers. Those whom it made rul. ers and those only-did it make freemen. The law

« EelmineJätka »