we discern this antagonism between them,—­never in a single case manifesting itself in an offensive or bitter way, but tending greatly to give a brisk and quickening vigor to their pages.  Arnold claims that a perfectly democratical government and entire religious freedom are “exclusively Rhode Island doctrines, and to her belongs the credit of them both.”  He might afford to give Massachusetts the appreciable honor of having been the indirect means of opening those large visions to the eyes of men who certainly were a most uncomfortable set of citizens while under pupilage.  Mr. Bancroft had previously written thus:—­“Had the territory of Rhode Island corresponded to the importance and singularity of the principles of its early existence, the world would have been filled with wonder at the phenomena of its history."[B] It was only because the State was no larger that it was a safe field for the first trial of such principles.  And it has often proved, that, the larger the principle, the more circumscribed must needs be the field within which it is first tested.  It was well that the first experiments on the capabilities of steam were tried by the nose of a tea-kettle.  Seeing that most of the early settlers of Rhode Island had very little property, and scarce anything of what Christendom had previously been in the habit of regarding as religion, the territory was the most fitting place for the trial of revolutionary principles.  Mr. Arnold says, very curtly, but very truly,—­“No form of civil government then existing could tolerate her democracy, and even Christian charity denied her faith.” (p. 280.) The wonder of the world, however, would have been more curiously engaged in watching what legislation for religion could possibly have devised for a community made up of all sorts of consciences.  The little State deserves the honor claimed for her.  But had she any alternative course?

[Footnote B:  BANCROFT’S History of the United States. I. 380.]

Mr. Arnold, we think, defines with more sharp and guarded accuracy than does Dr. Palfrey the ruling aim and motive of the founders of Massachusetts.  An historian of Massachusetts, knowing beforehand through what a course of unflinching and resolute consistency with their first principles he is to follow her early legislators, has reason to limit their aim and motive at the start, that he may not assume for them more than he can make good.  Especially if he intend to palliate, and, still more, to justify, some of the severer and more oppressive elements of their policy, he will find it wise to qualify their purpose within the same limitations which they themselves set for it.  Dr. Palfrey parts with an advantage of which he afterwards has need to avail himself, when he states the motive of the exiles too broadly, as a search for a place in which to exercise liberty of conscience.  He speaks of these exiles as recognizing in “religious freedom a good of such vast worth as to be protected by the possessor, not only for