a

colonial legislature, by which " uniformity of religious belief and worship was established and enfor ced," or by which it was made “requisite that every person holding a civil office, should be a church member." In the royal charter, we find no provision relating to this subject. In the colony of New Haven, the Massachusetts qualification of voters was required, but it was abolished on the union of that colony with Connecticut in 1665. After the union of the two colonies, to the year 1818, at which time we are told that "perfect freedom of reli gious profession and worship, with out discrimination, was ordained," we know of no act of the government, on which the representation above quoted from the Commenta ries could be grounded. There was a small property qualification made requisite for voting; but no religious test, either for those who gave their votes, or for those who were candi dates for office, so far as we have been able to discover, was ever im posed. How this subject was view. ed in 1665, may be seen in the report of the King's commissioners, who had visited the colony of Con. necticut to ascertain its condition. On the subject of religion, it is said that the people of Connecticut had "a scholar to their minister in every town or village," and that the colony "will not hinder any from enjoying the sacraments and using the common prayer book, provided that they hinder not the maintenance of the public minister." At this time the people of Connecticut were all Congregationalists, and continued so for nearly half a century later. It would seem, that when the royal commissioners visited the colony, there was no such uniformity of re ligious belief and worship enforced, as to exclude the church of Eng. land; much less does it appear, that there was any religious test whatever for any part of the ma gistracy. In this respect the colony

be regretted that the author has made no reference to the sources from which his information is derived. From the high character of Chancellor Kent, his great accuracy, and his knowledge of the importance of good authority for facts stated, very few, we suppose, would hesitate at once to adopt this report of the progress of legislation in Connecticut respecting religion, as undoubted historical truth. Hence the importance of inquiring into its accuracy. Without saying that the Chancellor is here mistaken in seve ral important particulars, till we are better informed of the grounds of his representation, there can be no impropriety in referring to a few facts, which are thought to have a direct bearing on this subject. In January, 1639, there having been three towns settled on Connecticut river, Hartford, Windsor and Weth ersfield, all the free planters convened at Hartford, and adopted a constitution of government. In this instrument, which may be seen in the appendix of the first volume of Trumbull's History of Connecticut, we find no restriction on the choice of magistrates, except that it was ordained, that the governor "be always a member of some approved congregation;" but it is not said, that he must be a "church member.' This is the more deserving of attention, as these first colonists of Connecticut emigrated from Massachusetts, where they had resided several years, and where no persons but church members were allowed to vote. This failure to adopt the Massachusetts qualification of voters, is strong, if not conclusive evidence, that in forming the first constitution of Connecticut, the planters had this restriction of the right of suffrage to church members directly in view, and deliberately rejected it. From the first formation of the government to the time of the charter of Charles II, which was granted in 1662, we know of no statute of the

differed very widely from the parent country.

In 1708, there was introduced into Connecticut, what was called an established religion; that is, certain churches were "owned and acknow. ledged established by law;" but it was provided that nothing in the act on which this establishment was founded, should be construed "to hinder or prevent any society or church, that is or shall be allowed by the laws of this government, who soberly differ or dissent from the united churches hereby established, from exercising worship and discipline in their own way, according to their consciences." We see here no allusion to political rights. It is not said, that none but church members of the established churches shall vote, or that none but church members of the established churches shall be chosen to office. On these points the act is silent. There were, without doubt, severe laws in Connecticut respecting religion, some of which were passed under peculiar circumstances; but we can point to no statute, by which political privileges were confined to one sect.

In several of the colonies, laws existed respecting religion, much more rigid and exclusive than any in Connecticut. As an illustration of this fact it may be mentioned, that if Connecticut, in compliance with the recommendation of the commissioners of the united colonies, had a law by which Quakers who came within the colony might be imprisoned till they could "conveniently be sent out of the juris diction," New York had a law, at a later period, by which all Jesuits, seminary priests, &c. were ordered from the province; if they were found within its boundaries after a specified time, they were liable to perpetual imprisonment; and if they should escape from confinement, they were considered as felons, and if retaken, were to be punished with death. We might proceed with this

comparison through the Connecticut code; but further detail is unnecessary. How it happens, that Connecticut is so often represented (we do not now refer to what is said by Chancellor Kent) as affording an example of the extreme of religious intolerance in the early British Ăme. rican colonies, we will not now inquire. The investigation, however, of this topic might not be without its use. The disposition to give Connecticut this preeminence, early discovered itself. Douglass, an author by no means partial to puritanism, remarks in his Summary, published in 1760, "I never heard of any persecuting spirit in Connecticut; in this they are egregiously aspersed." We would here repeat our regret that Chancellor Kent has not referred to authorities. If he is right, we should like to be right also; and if he is wrong, we conclude only that even he has a portion of human infirmity, and makes occasional mistakes.

*

There is a passage in an oration lately delivered in New Haven, which seems to call for a few remarks, by way of correction. Its reference, indeed, is not to an event in the early history of Connecticut, but in that of Massachusetts; but which by a species of metonymy is usually ascribed to all New England. The passage to which we refer is the following. "Not many generations have passed away since the witch mania of Europe added an unimaginable gloom to the decrepitude of old age, and made gray hairs no longer venerable tokens of sage experience, but signals of fiendish malignity and unholy associations. And still more recently in our own bright land, the same dark insanity of excited ignorance spread for a time its blighting influences, consigning to torture and to

An Oration delivered at New Haven, before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, August 17th, 1842, by S. Henry Dickson, M. D.

Who

death the old and the young, the parent and the child, the pastor and his flock." The allusion here is clearly to the Salem witchcraft. But is it true, that in 1692 the "witch mania" of Europe had ceased? For this seems to be implied. History certainly informs us, that witches were executed in England and Scot land, as well as on the continent of Europe, long after the tragedy at Salem. We have no wish to thrust the "witch mania" which prevailed in Massachusetts into the shade; nor would we give it any more prominence than belongs to it. The magistrates, clergymen, and others concerned in the executions at Salem, were supported in their opin ions and proceedings by the highest authorities, both civil and ecclesiastical, in the parent country. would they look up to with more confidence as a patron and guide, than Sir Matthew Hale? But he condemned witches. And why should Cotton Mather be set down as a mere driveler, because he believed in witchcraft, when others of the same faith are looked upon as sane men, or, as the case may be, made the subjects of panegyric? Says Bishop Jewell-and who has a higher and more deserved reputation in the English church?-to Queen Elizabeth, "It may please your Grace to understand, that witches and sorcerers, within these four last years, are marvelously increased within your Grace's realm. Your Grace's subjects pine away even unto death, their color fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is benumbed, their senses are bereft ; I pray God, they never practice further, than upon the subject." The language of Judge Blackstone has often been quoted, and will bear to be again. "To deny," says he, "the possibility, nay actual existence of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once flatly to contradict the re

vealed word of God in various pas sages both of the Old and New Testament; and the thing itself is a truth to which every nation in the world hath in its turn borne testimony, either by examples seemingly well tested, or by prohibitory laws; which at least suppose the possibility of a commerce with evil spirits." Why, then, should the executions at Salem in 1692, deserve to be singled out, as some. thing most extraordinary in the his tory of human imperfection and imbecility? In a general view of similar delusions, they dwindle into insignificance. We do not add these remarks on account of Dr. Dickson, whose mistake is probably a mere slip of the pen; but because we sometimes discover a disposition to associate a belief in witchcraft, and the punishment of it as a reality, with some one class of Christians. Nothing is more certain, than that men, women and children, have been put to death for this supposed crime in most, if not all, the coun tries of Europe, both Catholic and Protestant. To attempt to fix a stigma on one form of faith for every fault in the treatment of witches, betrays a great lack of knowledge or something worse. Thus we have heard, since August last, a public speaker in New Ha ven, sneer at Cotton Mather and the colonists of Massachusetts, and laud Sir Matthew Hale, in almost the same breath; but judging from the other parts of his performance, we conclude that he knew no better; and a sin of ignorance may be wink. ed at. We have no inclination or wish to say any more, than the truth will plainly warrant, in defense of those who have been concerned in hanging or burning witches; but we are of the opinion, that bad men and mistaken men may be abused, and that all, even the worst, should have their due.

THE defenders of divine revelation often show an unnecessary fear of their opponents. They shrink from grappling with those whom they suppose to be giants, and feel that discretion is the better part of valor.' The neologist announces his decisions in such a dogmatic tone, and, with an air so contemptuous, pours forth his prodigious stores of learning, that the modest friend of the Bible stands abashed. But this boasted erudition is often allied to a credulity which is nearly incredible. Professing himself to be wise, the neologist becomes a fool. He builds up imposing theories on the slightest basis, which no sane man would think to be worth the trouble of refuting. The great image, that looks formidable in the distance, is seen, on closer inspection, to rest on a foundation of 'miry clay. The learning, which appear. ed so immense, is often nothing more than a heterogeneous conglomerate, whose looseness betokens its speedy downfall. We have only to wait a little time, and the author will furnish his own refutation. Stability is one of the least characteristic marks of a neological hypothe sis. A palpable instance of this has just come to our knowledge. It is well known, that the German writers, such as Rosenmüller and De Wette, have attacked the integrity of the prophecy of Zechariah, contending that the last six chapters are so unlike the first eight, that they must have had a different and much earlier authorship. Hengstenberg, among others, replied to these attacks. Now De Wette, in the last edition of his Introduction to the Old Testament, informs us, that he has given up his skepticism, and is willing to admit the integrity of the book, though he was not convinced by the arguments of Hengstenberg,

but by those of Köster, an earlier writer!

No book of the Old Testament has been subjected to more frequent and merciless assaults than that of Daniel. Old Porphyry blew the trumpet of war. The latest blast, so far as we have heard, is from Zengerke, a rationalist professor at Königsberg. Every possible objection has been urged, internal and external, doctrinal and moral, historical and chronological. Daniel was a dreamer of dreams. His prophecy has this signal advantage over others, as it is an oraculum post eventum. He had the first book of the Maccabees to guide him in his pretended insight into the future. All that is true in his predictions, says Porphyry, was written after their fulfillment. All that really had respect to the future, never came to pass, so that Daniel was an historian and nothing else. These, and similar allegations of the new Platonist, are the foundation of the greater part of what has been subsequently adduced against the book, though stores of learning and powers of acute criticism, of which Porphyry knew nothing, have been marshalled by his German descendants, the great doctors of neology.

No book, in our opinion, has been more unreasonably dealt with. If we can not make this appear to the satisfaction of our readers, it will not be for want of good reasons, but from lack of skill in the advocate. Two positions must be conceded in the outset. First, there is nothing in the miracles which are recorded in the book of Daniel, which should lead us, a priori, to reject them, or to put them over among the myths and sagas of Greek or Norse mythology. God could as easily, if occasion demanded, keep three men from being

burned in a flaming fire, as he could support two millions of people, almost half a century, wandering about in a desert of sand, with countless flocks and herds. There is no more intrinsic difficulty in stopping the mouth of a lion, than in making a dry road through a sea. It would require no more power, so far as we can see, to deprive a king of his reason, than another king, like the presumptuous Herod, of his life. A blaspheming despot may be changed into a maniac as well as into a corpse.

In other

The

words, if we give up the miracles of Daniel as incredible stories, we must cast out at least one half of the miracles recorded in the Bible. The improbability of the former being true is no greater than that which attaches to the latter. The only question is, Does there appear to be adequate reason for the intervention of Almighty power? Are the miracles in Daniel a mere arbitrary play, as it were, of superhuman might, or were they designed to teach valuable moral lessons? The latter most decidedly. church of God was in Babylon. It was embodied, in a sense, in Daniel and his companions. It was in imminent danger of extinction in the fiery furnace and in the lion's den. If the Guardian of the church was ever called upon, we say it with reverence, to come forth from the hiding of his power,' and vindicate his calumniated servants, it was on the plain of Dura.' Besides, the Babylonish exile was manifestly designed to cure the people of God of their tendency to idolatry. And it did this most effectually. After the return, we hear no more of polytheism. The propensity to run after false gods had been extirpated. But how? In part, we reply, by the miracles which they saw or heard of in Babylon. In the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams, the omniscience of Jehovah was brought to a public trial.

6

་

Here was an opportunity to make his 'knowledge' known, such as had been rarely seen on earth. The wise men of the East were all assembled. The college of Chaldean professors, the Royal Institute' of Babylon, was in full session. Astrology had a chance to vindicate its celestial origin. But it was utterly foiled. A poor Jewish boy, belonging to the captivity,' untied a knot which baffled the collected wisdom of an empire; but not by his own. skill. Most emphatically, he ascribed it to the God of the Hebrews, who alone understands the mysteries of the future. Now, could this have been without its effect on the exiled Jews? No. • Confounded be all they who serve graven im ages,' was shown to be a reality, as well as an anathema. The folly of their old idolatrous habits was now proclaimed on the house-tops, in the great metropolis of paganism. Could they return to that senseless worship which had failed its devotees in the hour of their utmost need? Again, the mercy of God was not wholly confined to the Jews. Before the Redeemer's advent, he had thoughts of kindness towards the Gentiles. We observe various preintimations, foreshadowings, as it were, of this. A single ray of true light, now and then, shot athwart the gloom. In Babylon, God did not leave himself without witness. Once and again, he extorted from the hoary polytheist the confession, that Jehovah only is God, and that every human being in his wide realm, ought to serve and worship him alone. This acknowledgment was not confined to the walls of the capital. The courier bore it throughout the hundred and seven and twenty provinces. Did not these things justify the Divine interposi tion? Did not the most benign re sults follow? If a miracle be intended and fitted to teach some great religious lessons, then we may not reject the prophecies of Daniel.