recently made- especially for two Latin lines that he had written in the album of the royal library at Copenhagen: Manus haec inimica tyrannis Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem. This hand, the rule of tyrants to oppose Seeks with the sword fair freedom's soft repose. The second of which lines Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem — was adopted by the founders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the motto to the arms of the State; a motto lasting as the Commonwealth herself, and ever admonishing her sons that the enjoyment of quiet freedom is the only lawful motive for drawing the sword to shed blood in resistance of tyranny, and signally marking at the same time their approbation of this sublime sentiment and their profound veneration for the character of Algernon Sidney.1 Forty-five years after the death of Filmer there was published, in 1698, Sidney's Discourses on Government, which was written for the express purpose of refuting the writings of Filmer. In that work he thus contends: But if these opinions comprehend an extravagancy of wickedness and madness, that was not known among men, till some of these wretches presumed to attempt the increase of that corruption under which mankind groans, by adding fuel to the worst of all vices; we may safely return to our propositions, that, God having established no such authority as our author fancies, nations are left to the use of their own judgment, in making provision for their own welfare; that there is no lawful magistrate over any of them, but such as they have set up; that in creating them, they do not seek the advantage of their magistrate but their own: and having found that an absolute power over the people is a burden, which no man can bear; and that no wise or good man ever desired it; from thence conclude, that it is not good for any to have it, nor just for any to affect it, though it were personally good for himself; because he is not exalted to seek his own good, but that of the public.2 The Social Compact (1842), p. 28. 2 Discourses on Government (1805), i. 453, 454. By this means every number of men, agreeing together, and framing a society, became a complete body, having all power in themselves over themselves, subject to no other human law than their own. All those that compose the society, being equally free to enter into it or not, no man could have any prerogative above others, unless it were granted by the consent of the whole; and nothing obliging them to enter into this society, but the consideration of their own good; that good, or the opinion of it, must have been the rule, motive, and end of all that they did ordain. It is lawful therefore for any such bodies to set up one or a few men to govern them, or to retain the power in themselves; and he or they who are set up, having no other power but what is conferred upon them by that multitude, whether great or small, are truly by them made what they are; and by the law of their own creation, are to exercise those powers according to the proportion, and to the ends for which they were given.1 that this equality of right, and exemption from the domination of any other is called liberty: that he, who enjoys it, cannot be deprived of it, unless by his own consent, or by force: that no man can force a multitude; or, if he did, it could confer no right upon him: that a multitude, consenting to be governed by one man, doth confer upon him the power of governing them; the powers therefore that he has, are from them; and they who have all in themselves can receive nothing from him, who has no more than every one of them till they do invest him with it.2 How deeply these views of Filmer had taken root further appears when we consider the writings of John Locke, the author of the Essay concerning Human Understanding and the framer of the Fundamental Constitutions for the Carolinas, who published in 1690, seven years after Sidney's death, his Two Treatises of Government, on the title-page of one of which he states that "the false principles and foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his followers are detected and overthrown." Locke writes: The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust 1 Discourses on Government, ii. 20, 21. a Ibid. ii. 381. put in it. Freedom then is not what sir Robert Filmer tells us, O. A. 55. "a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws:" but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.1 Hence it is evident, that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all: for the end of civil society being to avoid and remedy these inconveniences of the state of nature, which necessarily follow from every man being judge in his own case, by setting up a known authority, to which every one of that society may appeal upon any injury received, or controversy that may arise, and which every one of the society ought to obey; wherever any persons are, who have not such an authority to appeal to, for the decision of any difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature; and so is every absolute prince, in respect of those who are under his dominion.2 Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.3 Whosoever therefore out of a state of nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society, to the majority of the community, unless 1 Two Treatises, § 22, Works (1823), v. 351. • Ibid. § 90, v. 389, 390. Ibid. § 95, v. 394. they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into, or make up a commonwealth. And thus that which begins and actually constitutes any political society, is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.1 The principles advocated by Sidney and by Locke constitute the foundation of the Declaration of Independence, and in connection with the writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau that of the Constitution of the United States. In conclusion it may be observed that the compact made on the Mayflower is of peculiar interest also because of its counterpart entered into upon the banks of the Moshassuck, in the year 1637, by the founders of the Providence Plantation, in these words: We whose names are hereunder desirous to inhabitt in the towne of prouidence do promise to subject ourselves in actiue or passiue obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for publick good of or body in an orderly way by the maior consent of the present Inhabitants maisters of families Incorporated together into a towne fellowship and others whome they shall admitt unto them only in ciuill things.2 "So live the fathers in their sons, Their sturdy faith be ours, And ours the love that overruns The Pilgrim's wild and wintry day Our Freedom's struggling cause." 3 On behalf of the Hon. HORACE DAVIS, a Corresponding Member, Mr. ANDREW MCF. DAVIS read the following paper: 1 Two Treatises, § 99, v. 396. * Early Records of the Town of Providence, i. 1. • Whittier, The Mayflowers. DR. BENJAMIN GOTT: A FAMILY OF DOCTORS. Dr. Benjamin Gott was a physician of some prominence in Marlboro, Massachusetts, in the middle of the eighteenth century. His father, John Gott, a well-to-do tanner of Wenham, had three sons; the elder two he intended should continue his business, while Benjamin, the youngest, was indentured to Dr. Samuel Wallis of Ipswich to learn the "art and mysteries" of the physician's profession. Benjamin was born March 13, 1705-06, and was probably about thirteen or fourteen years old at the beginning of his apprenticeship. His father died in 1722 during his indenture, and in his will charged his elder sons to "find him with good and sufficient clothing during the time he is to live with Dr. Wallis as may appear by his indenture" and "pay him £200 in silver money or in good bills of credit when he arrives at the age of twenty-one years." Here I lose sight of the boy for six years. He probably finished his term with Dr. Wallis, received his two hundred pounds, moved west to Marlboro, which even in 1727 was well out towards the wilderness, and started in the practice of medicine. On January 20, 1728, being only twenty-two, he married Sarah, daughter of the Rev. Robert Breck of Marlboro. She was only sixteen or seventeen years old, when this young couple launched out into life on their own account. The Rev. Robert Breck, a descendant of Edward Breck of Dorchester, graduated from Harvard College in 1700 and was a clergyman of some note in his day. His wife, Elizabeth, was the daughter of Simon Wainwright of Haverhill, who was killed by Indians in 1708. These Wainwrights form a remarkable family distinguished for their wealth, their military spirit, and the extraordinary number of their college-bred men. Three years later, on January 6, 1731, the Rev. Mr. Breck died leaving to Dr. Gott "two acres of land as recompense for instructing my son Robert in the rules of physic." This Robert Breck, Junior, born July 25, 1713, graduated at Harvard College in 1730, preached in Springfield in 1734, was ordained on January 26, 1736, and was settled over the Springfield parish where he gained considerable distinction as a preacher. It does not appear that he ever practised medicine as a profession, but it was not uncommon in those early |