What is the difference between natural and moral liberty, according to John Winthrop?

John Winthrop was a Puritan minister from England who became the deputy-governor of the Massachusetts Colony. In 1645, while serving as a magistrate, he was accused of overstepping his boundaries when he intervened in the election of a militia officer. Called to account for his behaviour, Winthrop made a famous speech in which he identified and defined two types of liberty. 

The first, according to Winthrop, is natural liberty which he described in the following...

John Winthrop was a Puritan minister from England who became the deputy-governor of the Massachusetts Colony. In 1645, while serving as a magistrate, he was accused of overstepping his boundaries when he intervened in the election of a militia officer. Called to account for his behaviour, Winthrop made a famous speech in which he identified and defined two types of liberty. 

The first, according to Winthrop, is natural liberty which he described in the following way:

The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good.

In other words, natural liberty is inherent in all living creatures. It is the freedom to do as one desires and it is not limited by any type of power or authority, and, as such, results in evil or immoral behaviour. 

In contrast, moral liberty relates to "that only which is good, just, and honest." This type of liberty is enforced by various social institutions, like the government and the Church, and encourages individuals to do good things. Winthrop likens it to the authority between a man and wife: when a woman consents to marriage, she consents to be ruled by her husband. But this does not force her into "bondage," as  Winthrop points out. A man rules over his wife with love and affection, like Christ over his believers. 

As a result, Winthrop believed that moral liberty was far more important than natural liberty. For him, moral liberty ought to be asserted and protected because of its positive effects on people and society. In contrast, natural liberty, which fosters self-interest and corruption, ought to be discouraged and rebuked.