1. Colbourn, H. Trevor, The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1965), pp. 211–212, 217–219;Google ScholarPapers of John Adams, ed. Taylor, Robert J. and others (Cambridge, Mass., 1977–l ), 4:74 (see also pp. 79, 87)Google Scholar; Jefferson, Thomas, Writings, ed. Peterson, Merrill D. (New York, 1984), p. 1177.Google Scholar

2. The Papers of James Madison, ed. Hutchinson, William T. and others (Chicago, 1962- ), 6:81, 85.Google ScholarMadison, remarked to Jefferson in February 1825 that “Sidney and Locke are admirably calculated to impress on young minds the right of nations to establish their own Governments, and to inspire a love of free ones.” Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, 4 vols. (Philadelphia, 1865),3:481.Google Scholar

3. Madison, , Papers, 1:145, 160Google Scholar; Bonwick, Colin, English Radicals and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1977), pp. 14, 205Google Scholar; Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750–1776, ed. Bailyn, Bernard (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 209Google Scholar; Colbourn, , Lamp of Experience, p. 60. In 1748 The Independent Advertiser of Boston (16 May) and the South Carolina Gazette (25–29 July) published selections from John Trenchard's Cato's Letters incorporating Sidney's views on magistracy.Google ScholarBailyn, , The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 59–60 n.Google Scholar

4. Colbourn, , Lamp of Experience, pp. vii, 9–10, 211 and following. Burnet's History was included in the 1783 Congressional list. Madison, Papers, 6:74.Google Scholar

5. Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, N.J., 1975), pp. 506–513, 519–523Google Scholar; Bailyn, Bernard, The Origins of American Politics (New York, 1968), pp. 11–13Google Scholar; Bailyn, , Ideological Origins, pp. 94–95, 119–125, 144–159;Google ScholarWood, Gordon, “Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style: Causality and Deceit in the Eighteenth Century,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 39 (1982): 401–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See the important qualifications of the Neo-Whig interpretation with respect to the changing meaning of corruption and the growing importance of economic activity, especially for private gain, in Kramnick, Isaac, “Republican Revisionism Revisited,” American Historical Review 87 (1982): 629–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Cushing, Harry Alonzo, 4 vols. (New York, 1904–1908), 3:25.Google Scholar

7. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Boyd, Julian P. and Bryan, Mina R., 20 vols. (Princeton, N.J., 1956), 13:442;Google ScholarGreaves, Richard L., Deliver Us from Evil: The Radical Underground in Britain, 1660–1663 (New York, 1986), pp. 70–72, 112–129. Samuel Adams was offended in 1778 at charges that Sidney and William Lord Russell had received French bribes. Adams, Writings, 4:73.Google Scholar

8. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols., ed. Lipscomb, Andrew A. and Bergh, Albert Ellery (Washington, D.C., 1903), 16:182Google Scholar; Adair, Douglass, “Rumbold's Dying Speech, 1685, and Jefferson's Last Words on Democracy, 1826,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 9 (1952):530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Bailyn, , The Origins of American Politics, pp. 140–141, n. 25.Google ScholarSee also Adams, John, “Novanglus,” in Adams and Jonathan Sewall, Novanglus, and Massachusettensis (New York, 1968), p. 45.Google Scholar

10. Erler, Edward J., “The Constitution and the Separation of Powers,” in The Framing and Ratification of the Constitution, ed. Levy, Leonard W. and Mahoney, Dennis J. (New York, 1987), p. 156.Google Scholar See also Mahoney, “The Declaration of Independence as a Constitutional Document,” in ibid., p. 56.

11. Jones, J. R., The Revolution of 1688 in England (New York, 1972), p. 330Google Scholar; Schwartz, Bernard, The Great Rights of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights (New York, 1977), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

12. Bonwick, , English Radicals, p. 25.Google Scholar

13. Madison, Papers, 1:118. Some of the colonists attempted to benefit from the 1688–1689 revolution in the mother country. In 1696 the Maryland Assembly tried unsuccessfully to claim all the rights and liberties of England's “fundamental laws,” including Magna Carta, the 1628 Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights.Google ScholarLovejoy, David S., The Glorious Revolution in America (New York, 1972), pp. 369–370.Google ScholarJohn Adams would later remind his readers that Massachusetts, like England, had made “an original express contract” with William III. The Works of John Adams, ed. Adams, Charles F., 10 vols. (Boston, 1850–1856), 4:114.Google Scholar

14. Schwartz, , Great Rights, pp. 1–2, 23, 87–90. Madison himself recognized the limits of the English Bill of Rights: The English “have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown: the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite.” The Founders' Constitution, ed. Kurland, Philip B. and Lerner, Ralph, 5 vols. (Chicago, 1987), 5:26.Google Scholar

15. Hatch, Nathan, The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican Thought and the Millennium in Revolutionary New England (New Haven, Conn., 1977), pp. 21–54.Google ScholarSee also Bloch, Ruth H., Visionary Republic: Millennial Themes in American Thought, 1756–1800 (Cambridge, 1985),CrossRefGoogle Scholarand Stout, Harry, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England (New York, 1986), pp. 166–179.Google Scholar

16. Foster, Herbert D., “International Calvinism Through Locke and the Revolution of 1688,” American Historical Review 32 (1926–1927): 476. Calvin, of course, was not an advocate of religious freedom.Google ScholarBouwsma, William J., John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York, 1988), p. 211.Google Scholar

17. See especially Levy, Leonard W., Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination (New York, 1968).Google Scholar

18. Ashcraft, Richard, Revolutionary Politics & Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, N.J., 1986), chs. 2 and 3;Google ScholarScott, Jonathan, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic, 1623–1677 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 4, 217;Google ScholarPublic Record Office, State Papers (hereafter PRO SP) 29/171/65 (in these citations, the first number refers to the reign of Charles II, second is volume number, and third is document number).Google ScholarFor Milton's radical context see Hill, Christopher, Milton and the English Revolution (New York, 1978).Google Scholar

19. PRO SP 29/56/48, 77; 29/92/110; 29/98/152; 29/115/44; 29/277/29, 95, 204, 204.1; 29/278/158; 29/387/41; 29/418/43, 89;29/419/19; 29/421/127; 29/441/1; 44/62, p. 125.

20. PRO SP 29/93/8; 29/276/82; 29/277/14, 204, 204.1; 29/281/97; 29/287/63; 29/335/302; 29/362/67; 29/363/53, 71; 29/383/74; 29/386/16; 29/414/54; 29/422/79; 29/436/55, 111, 144; True Protestant Mercury no. 158(8–12 July 1682).

21. In 1765 Philadelphia Presbyterians unwittingly adopted the battlecry of the Vennerites, “No King but King Jesus.”Google ScholarBloch, Ruth H., “Religion and Ideological Change in the American Revolution, in Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the 1980s, ed. Noll, Mark A. (New York, 1990), p. 51.Google Scholar

22. Greaves, , Deliver Us from Evil, pp. 50–57;Google ScholarRogers, John, Sagrir, or Doomes-day Drawing Nigh (London, 1653), sigs. A2r–A3r;Google ScholarRogers, , Mr. Pryn's Good Old Cause Stated and Stunted (London, 1659), p. 11. Bailyn has argued that “if a single short period of years is sought as the seedbed of the eighteenth-century ideology—a time when the element of the later configuration can be seen converging for the first time into what would become a familiar pattern—it is undoubtedly the 1670's and early 1680's.” I agree, though I would add that radical thought of this period grew out of the ideology of the preceding three decades. Bailyn, The Origins of American Politics, p. 33, n. 20.Google Scholar

23. A True and Exact Relation of the Araignment, Tryal, and Condemnation (London, 1662), p. 15;Google ScholarKingdomes Intelligencer 50 (8–15 12 1662);Google Scholar[Hill, William], A Brief Narrative of That Stupendous Tragedy (London, 1662), pp. 14, 34, 39;Google ScholarParker, Samuel, History of His Own Time, tr. Newlin, Thomas (London, 1727), pp. 62–63Google Scholar; Greaves, , Deliver Us from Evil, pp. 112–129.Google Scholar

24. The Horrid Conspiracie of Such Impenitent Traylors (London, 1663), p. 2Google Scholar; A Collection of the State Letters of … Roger Boyle, the First Earl of Orrery, ed. Morrice, Thomas, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1743), 1:135Google Scholar; Carte, Thomas, An History of the Life of James Duke of Ormonde, 2 vols. (London, 1736), 2:268Google Scholar; Bodleian Library, Carte MSS 68, fol. 572r;Google ScholarHistorical Manuscripts Commission 7, Eighth Report, p. 624Google Scholar; Greaves, , Deliver Us from Evil, pp. 140–150.Google Scholar

25. British Library (BL) Add. MSS 38,856, fols. 79r–80r;Google ScholarGreaves, , Deliver Us from Evil, pp. 174–192.Google Scholar

26. [Jones, Roger], Mene Tekel;Google Scholar or, the Downfal of Tyranny (n.p., 1663), pp. 5–10, 26, 30–31, 39–41,66–82.

27. PRO SP 29/179/69; BL Add. MSS 23,125, fols. 175r, 198r, 255r; Greaves, , Enemies Under His Feet: Radicals and Nonconformists in Britain, 1664–1677 (Stanford, 1990), pp. 64–76.Google Scholar In practice, the Church Commission exercised restraint in its dealings with nonconformists. Buckroyd, Julia, Church and State in Scotland 1660–1681 (Edinburgh, 1980), pp. 55, 58–61.Google Scholar

28. Edinburgh University Library (EUL) MSS La.II.89, fol. 136r–v; La.III.684, pp. 352–353; Bodleian Library, Carte MSS 45, fols. 484v–485r, 514r–515r.

29. BL Add. MSS 23,244, fols. 14v–15r; Greaves, , Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688–89 (Stanford, 1992), ch. 2.Google Scholar

30. EULMSSDc.1.16, no. 22.

31. EULMSSDc.1.16, no. 19.

32. BL Add. MSS 23,247, fols. 42r–44v.

33. EUL MSS La.II.89, fols. 137r–138r.

34. Owen, John, A Brief and Impartial Account of the Nature of the Protestant Religion (London, 1682), p. 12Google Scholar; Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom, chs. 3–5.

35. The demand for free trade reflected the influence of an emerging economic liberalism that eventually became a key force in shaping American thought, especially in the post-revolutionary era. Appleby, Joyce, “The Social Origins of American Revolutionary Ideology,” Journal of American History 64 (1978): 935–937,CrossRefGoogle Scholarand her fuller explication in Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s (New York, 1984). The demand for a limited veto reflects the long campaign to restrict and then abolish royal power in the making of laws.Google Scholar See Weston, Corrine C., “Co-ordination—a Radicalising Principle in Stuart Politics,” The Origins of Anglo-American Radicalism, ed. Jacob, Margaret and Jacob, James (London, 1984), pp. 85–104.Google Scholar

36. BL Add. MSS 38,847, fols. 96r–v, 102r, 104v; PRO SP 29/427/98; 29/428/15.1; Nottingham University Library MSS PwV 95, p. 296; Copies of the Informations and Original Papers, 3rd ed. (London, 1685), pp. 12, 24–25, 76–77.Google Scholar On the eve of the Declaration of Independence, American readers were reminded how far certain contemporary Whigs had deviated from the principles of Locke and the Rye House martyrs Russell, Sidney, and John Hampden. [Robinson-Morris, Matthew, Rokeby, Lord], Considerations on the Measures Carrying on with Respect to the British Colonies in North America, 2nd ed. (London, 1774), p. 10. Rokeby's pamphlet was reprinted seven times in the colonies in 1774–1775.Google Scholar

37. London Gazette 2036 (21–25 May 1685).

38. BL Lansdowne MSS 1152, fol. 258r (printed); BL Harleian MSS 6845, fols. 256r–259v (draft).

39. Schwoerer, Lois G., The Declaration of Rights, 1689 (Baltimore, 1981), pp. 22–23, 295–300.Google Scholar

40. The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, ed. Thomson, Thomas, 12 vols. (Edinburgh, 1814–1844), 9:37.Google Scholar

41. Levy, Leonard W., Original Intent and the Frainers' Constitution (New York, 1988), p. 140.Google Scholar

42. In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) the Supreme Court ruled that the fourteenth amendment (1868) made the guarantee of the free exercise of religion applicable to the states.

43. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Elliot, Jonathan, 5 vols. (Philadelphia, 1836), 3:659.Google Scholar

44. Baptist Confessions of Faith, ed. Lumpkin, William L. (Philadelphia, 1959), pp. 232–233, 279–280, 331–332.Google Scholar

45. The Scottish Claim of Right actually protested against the publication of Catholic works.

46. Schwoerer, , The Declaration of Rights, pp. 74–78.Google Scholar

47. Cress, Lawrence Delbert, “An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms,” Journal of American History 71(1984): 22–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor an opposing view see Shalhope, Robert E., “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment,” Journal of American History 69 (12 1982): 599–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSee also Shalhope, and Cress, , “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms: An Exchange,” Journal of American History 71 (12 1984): 587–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Somerset Record Office MSS DD/SFR 10/4, fol. 3r.

49. Kloppenberg, James T. cogently argues that the religious, republican, and liberal traditions all played a major role in influencing the Framers.Google Scholar “The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism, and Ethics in Early American Political Discourse,” Journal of American History 74 (1987): 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The interdependence of the liberal and republican traditions is demonstrated in Houston, Alan Craig, Algernon Szdney and the Republican Heritage in England and America (Princeton, N.J., 1991).Google Scholar

50. Such non-Calvinists as Methodists, Quakers, and northern Anglicans tended disproportionately to be neutral or loyalist. Bloch, , “Religion and Ideological Change,” p. 46.Google ScholarMadison, himself was probably influenced by Calvinist principles as a young man.Google ScholarKetcham, Ralph L., “James Madison and Religion—A New Hypothesis,” Journal of the Presbyterian Hzslorzcal Soczety 38 (1960): 65–90.Google Scholar

51. See Wilson, John, “Religion, Government, and Power in the New American Nation,” in Religion and American Politics, ed. Noll, , pp. 77–91Google Scholar. John M. Murrin suggests that seventeenth-century sectaries advocated the separation of church and state to prevent the latter from corrupting the former, whereas Madison and Jefferson favored separation to stop the church from adversely affecting civil polity. “Religion and Politics in America from the First Settlement to the Civil War,” in ibid., p. 33.

52. See McLoughlin, William G., “The Role of Religion in the Revolution: Liberty of Conscience and Cultural Cohesion in the New Nation,” in Essays on the American Revolution, ed. Kurtz, Stephen G. and Hutson, James H. (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1973), pp. 211–228Google Scholar; Botein, Stephen, “Religious Dimensions of the Early American State,” in Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity, ed. Richard, Beeman, Stephen, Botein, and Carter, Edward C. (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1987), pp. 312–325.Google Scholar

53. Church and State in American History: The Burdens of Religious Pluralism, ed. Wilson, John F. and Drakeman, Donald L., 2nd ed. (Boston, 1987), pp. 68–82.Google Scholar

54. Curry, Thomas J. has cogently demonstrated that the Framers embraced this principle, although in their Protestant cultural matrix they made only a beginning at implementing it. Curry, The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment (New York, 1986), esp. ch. 8.Google Scholar

55. Concurring with the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote: “The concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights.… [Judges] must look to the ‘traditions and conscience of our people’ to determine whether a principle is ‘so rooted [there as] to be ranked as fundamental.’”Google Scholar