vulgar error, an invention, probably, of
the Puritan historian, and unanswerably disproved by a reference to
Parliamentary records. See Miss Aikin's _Life of Charles I._, vol. i.,
p. 472; Bancroft's _History of the United States_, vol. i., p. 411. The
exultation of the Puritan writers on the subject is excessive. They
ascribe all the subsequent misfortunes of Charles I. in connection with
the scheme of Providence to this tyrannical edict, as they call
it.--Russell's _Modern Europe_, vol. ii., p. 237. See Bancroft's
_History of the United States_, vol. i., p. 412.

"Nothing could be more barbarous than this! To impose laws on men which
in conscience they thought they could not comply with, to punish them
for their noncompliance, and continually revile them as undutiful and
disobedient subjects by reason thereof, and yet not permit them
peaceably to depart and enjoy their own opinions in a distant part of
the world, yet dependent on the sovereign: to do all this was base,
barbarous, and inhuman. But persecutors of all ages and nations are near
the same; they are without the feelings and the understandings of men.
Cromwell or Hampden could have given little opposition to the measures
of Charles in the wilds of North America. In England they engaged with
spirit against him, and he had reason to repent his hindering their
voyage. May such at all times be the reward of those who attempt to rule
over their fellow-men with rigor: may they find that they will not be
slaves to kings or priests, but that they know the rights by nature
conferred on them, and will assert them! This will make princes cautious
how they give themselves up to arbitrary counsels, and dread the
consequences of them."--Harris's _Life of Cromwell_, p. 56.]

[Footnote 331: "Mr. Dudley, one of the most respectable of the
governors, was found, at his death, with a copy of verses in his pocket,
which included the following couplet:

"'Let men of God in court and churches watch
O'er such as do a toleration hatch'"--CHALMERS.]

[Footnote 332: "The cutting the hair very close, which seemed supported
by St. Paul's authority, was the chief outward symbol of a Puritan. In
the case of a minister, it was considered essential that the ear should
be thoroughly uncovered. Even after the example of Dr. Owen and other
eminent divines had given a sanction to letting the hair grow, and even
to periwigs, a numerous association was formed at Boston (where Mr. John
Co