required of them, and if it were not sufficient to take the oath of allegiance. We have seen that the Separatists had differentiated the church and state. They had advocated the now accepted ideas of the relation between the two. The Barrow and Greenwood prison writings show that they held that no power was given the prince to control, in the slightest degree, the religion of his subject. All the more difficult does it become to explain the following articles which were drawn up while the Pilgrims were negotiating with the Virginia company. They were sent to enable the company to answer any objection to their plans on the part of the Crown or the High Church party.

"(1). To the confession of faith published in the name of the Church of England, and to every article thereof, we do with the reformed churches where we live, and also elsewhere, assent wholly.

"(2). As we do acknowledge the doctrine of faith there taught, so do we the fruits and effects of the same doctrine to the begetting of saving faith in thousands in the land (conformists and reformists as they are called), with whom also, as with our brethren, we do desire to keep spiritual communion in peace, and will practice in our parts all lawful things.

"(3). The King's Majesty we acknowledge for supreme governor in his dominion in all causes and over all persons, and that none may decline or appeal from his authority or judgment in any cause whatsoever, but that in all things obedience is due unto him, either active, if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or passive, if it be, except pardon can be obtained.

"(4). We judge it lawful for His Majesty to appoint bishops, civil overseers or officers in authority under him, in the several provinces, dioceses, congregations or parishes, to oversee the churches and govern them civilly according to the laws of the land, unto whom they are in all things to give account, and by them to be ordered according to godliness.

1

"(5). The authority of the present bishops in the land we do acknowledge, so far forth as the same is indeed derived from His Majesty unto them and as they proceed in his name, whom we will also therein honor in all things and him in them.

"(6). We believe that no synod, class, convocation or assembly of ecclesiastical officers has any power or authority at all, but as the same by the magistrate given unto them.

"(7). Lastly, we desire to give unto all superiors due honor, to preserve the unity of the spirit with all that fear God, to have peace with all men what in us lieth, and wherein we are to be instructed by any."

Doyle commenting on these articles says: "On the surface they look like an unconditional acceptance of what by anticipation one may call Erastianism. They seem to contain a definite acknowledgment that all ecclesiastical authority must proceed from the civil power and be responsible to it. A careful inspection, however, shows that the more important concessions are qualified by distinct, though cautiously expressed, reservations. In the first article the acceptance of the confession of faith published by the Church of England is limited by the introduction of the reformed churches of Holland as partners in that acceptance. So the promise of obedience to the King's authority is modified by the condition that the thing commanded be not against God's word, a condition which might easily be so interpreted as to nullify the general admission. Yet even if we presume the most favorable interpretation of these Articles, the fourth contained an admission of the right of the State to control religion, which seems strangely at variance with the recognized doctrines of the Nonconformist. In truth, we must look on these seven Articles not so much as an exposition of faith but rather as conditions of agreement." 2

1Quoted in Doyle's Puritan Colonies, Vol. I, p. 37. Doyle, Puritan Colonies, Vol. I, Chap. 11, p. 38.

There is no doubt that concessions had to be made, and with a wide expanse of ocean between them and the High Commission Court, the Pilgrims could easily consent to submit their church to the control of the state. Were they, by doing so, surrendering any of their fundamental doctrines? As there were differences of opinion on various matters among the Brownists, the idea suggests itself that not all Separatists were opposed to the state's control over the church; further, they believed in a Congregational but not in a National church. The principle of the complete separation of church and state may have been recognized but as one of their fundamental principles it had not taken hold of the Pilgrims. They thought it well to leave the state to control civilly only, and to permit religious toleration. Should there be, however, any occasion for state interference in ecclesiastical affairs, as for the proper maintenance of ministers, the Pilgrim Fathers themselves would readily consent to it as their history in America will show. The separation of church and state was a new principle, and though asserted by the Separatists under persecution in England, was not held to by them in America. When they established themselves at Plymouth their church had no direct connection with the state. It was free, dependent upon the state for nothing but protection. Further, their experience with the Church of England and their residence in Holland where they saw religious toleration, taught them to pay a proper respect to those not of their creed. A liberal, charitable policy toward those of other beliefs always prevailed at Plymouth. But that they believed that it belonged to the state to decide as to what religions should be tolerated is evident from the resolution offered in the House of Delegates in 1645. A majority was in favor of an act "to allow and maintain full and free toleration to all men that would preserve the civil peace and submit unto the government; and there was no limitation or exception against Turk, Jew, Papist, Arian, Socinian, Nicolaitan, Familist or any other."1

1 Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 214.

Here was an act that would have been lasting honor to Plymouth, but the governor would not put the question and so it failed to become a law. Not long after this, more direct legislation concerning the church was thought to be necessary, and in 1650 it was forbidden to set up any churches or public meetings diverse from those already set up, without the consent and approbation of the government. In 1651 a penalty of ten shillings was imposed for neglect of church attendance.1 At first, ministers were supported by voluntary contributions, but they had a hard time of it. Some of them had to leave. their churches for lack of support. In 1655 a law was passed that no pastor should leave his congregation for this cause without notifying the magistrates. The latter were then to use gentle means to bring about the pastor's support, and if they failed, they should use other means. In 1657 the union of church and state became more intimate; public worship was maintained and taxes were levied for the support of ministers. The following is the law:

2

"Whereas, the General Court taking into their serious consideration the great defect that either is or like to be in the several townships in this jurisdiction for want of an able, godly, teaching ministry and the great prejudice to the souls of many like to ensue; and being desirous according to our duties that such defect should not be for want of due encouragement to such as either are or shall be employed in so good a work of the Lord for his honor and the good of souls: and in consideration that inasmuch as the several townships granted by government was that such a company might be received as should maintain the public worship and service of God there, do therefore judge that the whole, both church and town, are mutually engaged to support the same; and therefore order and agree that in whatsoever township there is or shall be an able godly teaching minister which is approved by the government,

1See Records of Plymouth Colony, Vol. XI, p. 57. 2 Records, Vol. XI, p. 64.

that then, four men be chosen by the inhabitants or, in case of their neglect, chosen by any three or more of the magistrates to make an equal and just proportion upon the estates of the inhabitants, according to their abilities to make up such a convenient maintenance for his comfortable attendance on his work, as shall be agreed upon by the church in each township where any is, with the concurrence of the rest of the inhabitants, if it may be had, or by the magistrates aforesaid, in case of their apparent neglect and that distress according as in other just cases provided, be made upon such as refuse to pay such their proportions which is justice due: but in case there be any other way whereby any township do or shall agree that may effect the end aforesaid, this law not to be binding to them." The records of the Court show that this law was enforced. There are numerous cases of delinquents in ministerial rates, all of whom, unless excused for good reason, were compelled to pay. Their history, therefore, shows that, whatever may have been the views of Robert Brown and his immediate followers as to the relation of church and state, those views had not been sufficiently inculcated to form a part of the Pilgrims' creed. They placed the church under the patronage of the state and so it continued for many years in America.

1

Before the Pilgrims left the Mayflower they organized a "civil body politic." Their form of government was democratic. Every freeman had a voice in the administration of the state. By a majority of the votes the Governor and his assistants were chosen. These constituted the Court. The whole body of freemen was the legislative assembly; but executive and judicial business was also transacted by this body.

The second colony in Massachusetts was settled on Massachusetts Bay in 1629. The Puritans in England began to lose hope of reforming the Church of England. Many became Non-conformists and persecution followed. Their eyes

1Records, Vol. XI, p. 67.