anted them all settlers who would not renounce the form of worship
established in England from the Reformation, and adopt a new form of
worship, which was not then lawful in England?

The foregoing pages bear witness that I have not taken a sentence from
any writer adverse to the Puritans. I have adhered to their own
statements in their own words, and as printed in their Records. Their
eloquent apologist and defender, Mr. Bancroft, says: "The Charter
confers on the colonists the rights of English subjects; it does not
confer on them new and greater rights. On the contrary, they are
strictly forbidden to make laws or ordinances repugnant to the laws or
statutes of the realm of England. The express concession of power to
administer the oath of supremacy demonstrates that universal toleration
was not designed; and the freemen of the Corporation, it should be
remembered, were not at that time Separatists. Even Higginson, and
Hooker, and Cotton were still ministers of the Church of England."[56]

From this accumulation of evidence--which might be greatly increased--I
think it is as clear as day that the abolition of the worship of the
Church of England, and the establishment of a new form of worship, and a
new confession of faith, and a new ordination to the ministry at
Massachusetts Bay in 1629, was a violation of the Charter, an insult to
the King, and a breach of faith with him, notwithstanding his
acknowledged kindness to them, and a renunciation of all the
professions which were made by the Company in England.

This was the first seed sown, which germinated for one hundred and
thirty years, and then ripened in the American Revolution; it was the
opening wedge which shivered the transatlantic branches from the parent
stock. It was the consciousness of having abused the Royal confidence
and broken faith with their Sovereign, of having acted contrary to the
laws and statutes of England, that led the Government of Massachusetts
Bay to resist and evade all inquiries into their proceedings--to prevent
all evidence from being transmitted to England as to their proceedings,
and to punish as criminals all who should appeal to England against any
of their proceedings--to claim, in short, independence and immunity from
all responsibility to the Crown for anything that they did or might do.
Had Endicot and his party not done what they knew to be contrary to the
loyal Charter and the laws of England, they would have courted inquiry