the
two countries." (Minot's History of Massachusetts, etc., Vol. I., p.
51.)]

[Footnote 189: In a Boston town meeting, held January 21, 1684, to
consider the King's declaration, the Rev. Increase Mather, who was then
President of Harvard College, and had for twenty years exerted more
influence upon the public affairs of Massachusetts than any other man
for the same length of time, delivered a speech against submission to
the King, which he miscalled "the surrender of the Charter." He said,
among other things: "I verily believe we shall sin against the God of
heaven if we vote in the affirmative to it. The Scripture teacheth us
otherwise. That which the Lord our God hath given us, shall we not
possess it? God forbid that we should give away the inheritance of our
fathers. Nor would it be wisdom for us to comply. If we make a full and
entire resignation to the King's pleasure, we fall into the hands of men
immediately; but if we do not, we still keep ourselves in the hands of
God; and who knows what God may do for us?" The historian says that "the
effect of such an appeal was wholly irresistible; that many of the
people fell into tears, and there was a general acclamation." (Barry's
Colonial History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., pp. 476, 477.)

It is not easy to squeeze as much extravagance and nonsense in the same
space as in the above quoted words of Increase Mather. Where was the
Scripture which taught them not to submit complaints of their
fellow-colonists to their King and his Council, the highest authority in
the empire? Both Scripture and profane history furnish us with examples
almost without number of usurpers professing that the usurpation and
conquest they had achieved was "that which the Lord our God had given"
them, and which they should "possess" at all hazards as if it were an
"inheritance of their fathers." The "inheritance" spoken of by Mr.
Mather was what had been usurped by the rulers of the colony over and
above the provisions of their Charter against the rights of the Crown,
the religious and political liberties of their fellow-colonists, and
encroaching upon the lands of their white and Indian neighbours. Then to
submit to the King and Council was to "fall into the hands of men
immediately," but to contest with the King in the Courts of Chancery or
King's Bench was to "keep themselves in the hands of God," who, it
seems, according to Increase Mather's own interpretation, judged him and
his adherent