continuation of the record of Englishmen, to be studied on narrow insular lines, it would fill a much broader field, reaching back to Continental Europe, linking itself to the old civilization of the Romans, and forming more distinctly a part of that modern history which has been said to begin with the call of Abraham.

The pressure of professional labors prevented me for many years from devoting much time directly to this branch of study, but it was largely the occupation of my leisure. I was able to make two visits to Holland, and meanwhile a great mass of literature appeared throwing new light upon some of these questions. Finally, about six years ago, a permanent illness gave me an enforced rest, and I concluded to finish my history of New York. After reading over my old manuscript, I set out to write an extended introduction to the work, treating of the various settlers of America before they crossed the Atlantic, their civilization at home, the character of the institutions among which they were developed, and the connection of those institutions with the historic past. That introduction, as I extended my investigations, has slowly grown into the present book. Its conclusions may seem novel to some readers; but if true, they will stand despite their novelty.

I have chosen as a title "The Puritan in Holland, England, and America," because the Puritan, who has done so much for the modern world, was not the product of any one race or country. He was born out of the uprising against the abuses of the Church of Rome. He came to maturity in upholding liberty against the as

saults of kingly power. In him was represented the principle of religious and civil freedom.*

* I have used the word "Puritan" in this book, when applied to Englishmen (except when otherwise qualified), as it has been generally used in history. It came into the language about 1564, shortly after Elizabeth ascended the throne. Fuller's "Church History," ix. 66. Its strict meaning changed from time to time, being sometimes religious, with varying applications, and then again political, thus creating a confusion that has led to many historical blunders, but its popular signification has always been the same. See, for example, its employment by Shakespeare. Among the people of England at large the name came finally to be applied to all those who were religious and moral, and who, either by word or life, protested against the irreligion and immorality of the time. In Baxter's “Autobiography" we see illustrated the use of the word in the reign of Charles I. Baxter's family were called Puritans, although they were strict Conformists, or Episcopalians, because they never got drunk and went to, church regularly. The people judged them rightly, for Baxter became a chaplain in Cromwell's army. Religion and morality revolted against authority as it was then represented by the Stuarts. Strictly speaking, as will be shown in its proper place, the name was confined to those Calvinistic members of the English Church who sought its reformation from within. These men formed the large majority of the settlers of New England. Those who left the church were called Brownists, Separatists, or Independents, and from them came the Pilgrim Fathers who settled Plymouth. The name Puritan, however, was not confined to England, nor have I given it any such narrow limitation. In 1587, Lord Buckhurst visited Holland as the representative of Queen Elizabeth. He reported of the people of the Provinces that they consisted "of divers parts and professions, as, namely, Protestants, Puritans, Anabaptists, and Spanish hearts." Buckhurst to the Queen, May 27th, 1587; Motley's "United Netherlands,” ii. 123. See also Motley's “Barneveld,” ii. 119, 284, 285.

The armed contest began in Holland, and lasted there for eighty years before it was transferred to England. In its early days, nearly a hundred thousand Netherlanders, driven from their homes by persecution, found an asylum on British soil. Throughout it was a Puritan warfare. The Earl of Leicester, sent by Elizabeth to aid the rebellious Netherlands, was politically in sympathy with the English Puritans. The grandfathers and fathers of the men who fought with Cromwell at Naseby and Dunbar received their military training under William of Orange and his son, Prince Maurice. Thousands upon thousands of them, during a period of some seventy years, served in the armies of the Dutch Republic. Many others, driven out of England by Elizabeth and her successors, settled in Holland, and a still larger number went there for business purposes, engaging in trade and manufactures, while keeping in close relations with their native land. Some of the refugees, after a residence of years among the Puritans of the Netherlands, emigrated to America; others returned to England, and took up arms under the Long Parliament.*

*

Fairfax, Essex, Monk, Warwick, Bedford, Skippon, and many others-in fact, the men who organized the Parliamentary army-—received their military training in the Low Countries. "The Fighting Veres," by Clements Robert Markham, p. 456. The famous Ironsides of Cromwell were trained by Colonel Dalbier, a Hollander, and the same officer did a much more important work by giving Cromwell his first instruction in the military art, teaching him, as Carlyle says, "the mechanical part of soldiering." Carlyle's "Cromwell,” i. 193 (ed. Wiley & Putnam, 1845). The first judge advocate of the Parliament's army was also a Hollander, Dr. Dorislaus. Idem, p. 231.

The Englishmen, very many thousands in number, who found a temporary home in Holland were the most active and enterprising of their race. They went from a monarchy, where the power of the crown over many questions of Church and State was unlimited, to a republic, where the people for centuries had been accustomed to self-rule. They went from a land where, from natural causes, material and intellectual progress had been much retarded to one which, in almost every department of human endeavor, was then the instructor of the world. That they must have learned much, apart from the art of war, and that they must have communicated much to England, seems apparent at a glance to any one conversant with the situation. And yet we shall search through English histories in vain for any but the slightest allusions to the effects of this foreign influence.

Important as this subject is to Englishmen who care for the truth of history, to Americans it is still more important. In England, after the restoration of the Stuarts, the influence of the Netherland Republic, great as it was for a time, seemed to be almost lost. It was not lost, in fact, any more than are those streams which suddenly disappear beneath the surface of the earth, only to break out in what appear new fountains farther on their course. In America, however, there was nothing to cause even such a temporary disappearance. The Pilgrims who settled Plymouth had lived twelve years in Holland. The Puritans who settled Massachusetts / had all their lives been exposed to a Netherland influence, and some of their leaders had also lived in Hol

land. Thomas Hooker, coming from Holland, gave life to Connecticut, which has been well called the typical American commonwealth. Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island, was so much of a Dutch scholar that he taught the language to the poet Milton. Penn, who founded Pennsylvania, was half a Dutchman. New York and New Jersey were settled by the Dutch West India Company. Here, then, we might expect to find traces of the influence of the great Netherland Republic even more marked than in the case of England.

And how have the historians of America dealt with this subject? Here is a country which was settled by men of diverse nationalities. It has always been cosmopolitan. Its institutions differ radically from those of England. The modes of thought of its people are not English. The two countries are, in some respects, drawing together to-day, but this is simply because England is adopting ideas like our own, and coming towards our republican institutions. Despite all these facts, known to every American, we are continually told that we are an English people, with English institutions; and all American history has been written upon that theory. Scarcely an attempt is made to trace out the cause of the manifest differences between the two countries, by looking at the institutions and modes of thought of the other nations which influenced our early settlers, and contributed so largely to our population. Our descendants will probably view the result somewhat as we regard most of the classical histories of a century ago.

Such is the mode in which American history has been written. Why it has been so written is an inter