by finding for it a scriptural basis. In the general tendency to test all things by Scripture, it was only natural that the state should be subjected to the same treatment, and that an attempt should be made to find a scriptural model for political institutions.

The system of government adopted by the Puritans was what might perhaps be called theocratic • in character. The most cursory view could not fail to reveal the predominant position of the clergy. From the beginning, the life of New England was largely under the influence of the ministers. In many cases men of marked learning and sagacity, whose Puritan morals and theology did not conflict with shrewd worldly wisdom, they dominated the political as well as the intellectual and religious life of the community. They were consulted upon all matters of public policy, such as Indian affairs or relations with the mother country; they frequently preached political sermons bearing directly on public questions; there was never, perhaps, a body of clergy that exercised greater influence on affairs of state than did these New England leaders. Especially in Massachusetts Bay, they established an ecclesiastico-political régime, recalling in many of its features the Geneva system of John Calvin. In two of the colonies membership in some approved church was essential to full citizenship. Only those who were church members could become "freemen" in Massachusetts Bay

and in New Haven, and it is not likely that other than church members were actually received in Plymouth and Connecticut. As late as 1660 the General Court of Massachusetts Bay resolved that no person could become a "freeman " who was not in full communion with some orthodox church. The exclusive character of the Massachusetts Bay system is shown by the fact that down to 1674 only 2527 were admitted as freemen, one-fifth of the total number of adult males.1 Of the other features in the theocratic régime it is not necessary to speak at length. The Sabbath Laws, taxation for purposes of church support, compulsory attendance on church services, the anti-heresy acts, all were part of the general system in which the civil power was invoked to stimulate the religious sentiment and practice of the community. The same tendency is also shown by the attitude of the Puritans toward adherents of other religions. In the controversy with Roger Williams, with the Antinomians, with the Quakers and the Baptists, a determination was manifested to preserve the Puritan type of religion by force if necessary. Liberal use was made of fines, imprisonment, disfranchisement and banishment as means of grace for the spiritually perverse. The Puritans themselves were dissenters from dissenters, but they did not intend that the process of dissent should be carried farther.

1 G. E. Ellis, Puritan Age, p. 203.

Their theory of the relation between church and state was clearly brought out in the famous controversy between Roger Williams and John Cotton, the spokesman for the Massachusetts theocracy.1 An examination of this controversy may seem somewhat remote from the field of political theory, but only through such an inquiry is it possible to arrive at a satisfactory understanding of the political ideas of the Puritan. The gist of the Williams-Cotton debate is found in three pamphlets occasioned by the banishment of Williams. These were, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (1644), by Williams; The Bloudy Tenent washed, and made white in the Bloud of the Lambe (1647), by Cotton; The Bloudy Tenent yet more Bloudy (1652), by· Williams.2

Two of the most significant topics discussed may be considered here: first, the nature of the church and the state; second, the extent of the civil power in religious affairs. First, then, the theory as to the nature of the church gives the key to the understanding of the entire dispute. Williams's contention was that the state is distinct from, and may

1 See Doyle, Puritan Colonies, Vol. I, Chap. IV, for an account of this affair.

2 See also the Cambridge Platform of 1648, Chap. 16. This was a statement of church doctrine made by a synod representing the four New England colonies. See also Cotton Mather, Magnalia, Vol. II, Book 5.

1

exist without, the church, as, for example, among heathen people. "The church," said Williams, "is like unto a corporation, society, or company of East India or Turkie merchants, or any other societie or companie in London, which may... wholly breake up and dissolve into pieces and nothing, and yet the peace of the citie not be in the least measure impaired or disturbed." This is true, because the "essence" of the church and the state is different, and consequently the religion may be radically changed, while the government of the city or state remains unchanged; or the government may be altered without affecting the character of the religion. Ephesus may cease to worship Diana, and still be Ephesus; or it may happen that there are different religions in the same city, the aim of all these religions being distinct from that of the state.

Cotton, for his part, agreed that the church is a separate society, distinct from the state; but held that the church is the chief society in the state, and that the growth and welfare of the state are dependent on the purity of the church. The church, although not the "essence" of the state, nevertheless "pertains to the integrity of the city"; it is among the " conservant causes of the state, and cannot be broken up without affecting profoundly the welfare of the body politic.2 Cotton conceded

1 The Bloudy Tenent, Chap. VI.

2 Bloudy Tenent washed and made white, Chap. VI.

that there are historical examples of states which have flourished under heathendom; but he declared that after the true church is once introduced, then this true worship must be protected by the state.

The crucial question in the controversy was that concerning the proper extent of the power of the civil magistrate in religious matters. Williams held that the true church is spiritual. in nature, and, as such, has no need of the support of the civil magistrate in order to maintain its proper position. It does not require worldly means of defence, but should use only the spiritual weapons, such as "the breastplate of righteousness," "the helmet of salvation," "the sword of the spirit."1 Civil magistrates had never been made defenders of the faith in the Scriptures, and the omission shows that there had been no intent to confer such authority on them. The civil officers should not proceed to organize churches; they should not inflict punishment on those adjudged heretics, or impose civil penalties or disabilities for any religious reason. Williams contended that if civil magistrates had rightful power in spiritual affairs, then even in a barbarous Indian tribe rightful jurisdiction over the church of Christ would be vested in the Indian civil authorities, and the Christian religion would be entirely at the mercy of rulers 1 The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, Chap. XLV.