and were such even before they went to Holland. If any of the other original colonists of New England had been thrust out from the Established Church of the mother country, they had not organized themselves on any other principle; and, however opposed to the spirit of its rulers and to some of its ceremonies and usages, their attachment to the Church itself, as well as to many of those whom they had left within its pale, is manifest from the letter of Governor Winthrop and his associates, just after embarking for America.

But on arriving there they immediately proceeded to the founding of an ecclesiastical economy upon the Independent plan, having for its essential principles, "That, according to the Scriptures, every Church ought to be confined within the limits of a single congregation, and that the government should be democratical; that Churches should be constituted by such as desired to be members, making a confession of their faith in the presence of each other, and signing a covenant; that the whole power of admitting and excluding members, with the deciding of all controversies, was in the brotherhood; that church-officers, for preaching the Word and taking care of the poor, were to be chosen by the free suffrages of the brethren; that in Church censures, there should be an entire separation of the ecclesiastical from the civil sword; that Christ is the Head of the Church; that a liturgy is not necessary; and that all ceremonies not prescribed by the Scriptures are to be rejected."

But how are we to account for a change in their views so sudden and so great? Even when Winthrop left England, in 1630, neither the Presbyterian nor the Independent doctrines, as to Church government, had made that progress in public opinion which they had made when the Long Parliament, and Cromwell and his army, began to play their parts. It is quite possible, or, rather, all but certain, that several of the ministers in the Massachusetts Bay colony were low Episcopalians, and friends of Archbishop Usher's scheme; but if all the leading colonists were as much inclined to Presbyterianism as some have thought, it is hard to imagine why they did not establish that form of government. It is difficult to make out, on the other hand, why they diverged so widely, and at once, from the Episcopal economy, as to adopt Independency, which is almost antipodal.

This, it appears to me, may be referred to two or three causes.

of communion with the Established Church, but denounced all who did. The Separatists were exceedingly bitter in their hostility to every thing which bore the name of the Established Church of England. The farewell address of John Robinson to the Pilgrims who left Leyden to plant the colony at Plymouth, breathed a very different spirit.

First, it is natural that, on quitting England, where they had suffered so much from Prelacy, they should renounce an ecclesiastical system that conferred upon any men powers so capable of being abused; nor can it be thought surprising that in such circumstances they should go to the opposite extreme, and prefer an ecclesiastical government of the most democratical sort. Another, and much more powerful reason for their rejecting Episcopacy, would be that they might escape the jurisdiction of the bishops, which would otherwise unquestionably have followed them. And, lastly, there can be no doubt that they were much influenced by what they saw and heard of the Plymouth colony. It will be remembered that the first division of the Massachusetts Bay settlers, under Endicott, reached Salem in 1628, and that the main body, under Winthrop, followed in 1630, and founded Boston. It would seem that the Reverend Mr. Higginson, the distinguished minister in Endicott's colony, led the way in effecting the change, he having, upon his arrival at Salem, or soon afterward, introduced the Independent plan among his people, though not without much difficulty, being opposed by the two Brownes, John and Samuel, who, in consequence of this opposition, had to return to England. Mr. Higginson was disposed to receive very favorably the accounts transmitted from the Plymouth colony on the other side of the Bay. It is true that Edward Winslow, in his "Brief Narrative," as well as Cotton, in his "Way," etc., undertakes to prove that Plymouth did not exert the influence that has been ascribed to it, and which even by Gorton and his accomplices has been charged against it as a crime. But I think it clear that they admit the substance of the charge.*

* Winslow says, "It is true, I confess, that some of the chief of them,” referring to the colony of Massachusetts Bay, "advised with us how they should do to fall upon a right platform of worship, and desired to that end, since God had honored us to lay the foundation of a commonwealth and to settle a Church in it, to show them whereupon our practice was grounded; and if they found, upon due search, it was built upon the Word of God, they would be willing to take up what was from God.” He then goes on to say that they of Plymouth showed them the warrant for their government in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Gospels; and that their friends, the other colonists, were well pleased therewith, and also agreed to walk in the same way, so far as God should reveal His will to them, from time to time, in His Word. As for Cotton, he says, "The dissuader is much mistaken when he saith, 'The congregation of Plymouth did incontinently leaven all the vicinity,' seeing for many years there was no vicinity to be leavened. And Salem itself, that was gathered into church order seven or eight years after them, was above forty miles distant from them. And though it be very likely that some of the first-comers (meaning Endicott and Higginson) might help their theory by hearing and discerning their practice at Plymouth, yet therein is the Scripture fulfilled, 'The Kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till all was leavened.'"

The Church, then, that was established in all the New England colonies, with the exception of Providence and Rhode Island,* was what is termed in the United States, Congregational, and in England, Independent: though there is some difference between the Congregational churches in the former of these countries, and the Independent. in the latter, as I shall show in another part of this work. I speak here of the form of government. As for doctrines, they were essentially those of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England; in other words, Calvinistic.

Let us now see what were the relations between the Church and the State or "Commonwealth," in New England. In every colony there, except the two above mentioned, the object of one of the first acts of civil legislation was to provide for the support of public worship; and other laws followed from time to time to the same effect, as circumstances required. Without going into unnecessary details, suffice it to say, that parishes or "towns" of a convenient size were ordered to be laid out, and the people were directed by the proper authorities of their respective towns to levy taxes for erecting and keeping in due repair a suitable "meeting-house," for the maintenance of a pastor or minister, and for all other necessary expenses connected with public worship. I am not aware that any exemption from this law was allowed for a long time after the colonies were founded. Such was the fundamental union of Church and State in the colonies that now form the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine.

The next law adopted in the Massachusetts Bay colony dates from 1631, the year after the arrival of Winthrop and his company, and, as we shall hereafter see, it was pregnant at once with evil and with good. It ran thus: "To the end that the body of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men, it is ordered and agreed, that for the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same."t In other words, no one was to vote at elections, or could be chosen to any office in the commonwealth, without being a member of one of the churches. This law was long in force in Massachusetts and in Maine, which, until 1820, was a part of that State; but it never prevailed, I believe, in New Hampshire, and was unknown, of course, in Rhode Island. But a like law existed from the first in New Haven, and when that colony was united, in 1662, with

• And it too may be called Congregational, for it was founded by Baptists, whose churches are essentially Independent in form of government.

+ Bancroft's "History of the United States," vol. i., p. 360.

Connecticut, where this had not been the case, it became, I believe, part of the legislation of the united colony.

Thus we find two fundamental laws on this subject prevailing in New England-the one universal, with the exception of Rhode Island; the other confined to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine. In restricting the exercise of political power to men who, as members of the Church, were presumed to be loyal to the grand principle of the colony to which they belonged, namely, the maintenance of purity of doctrine and liberty of worship, as the first consideration, and of free political government as necessary to it, the authors of that law doubtless contemplated rather the protection of their colonists from apprehended dangers than the direct promotion of piety.

The principle, in fact, down to the founding of these colonies, seems to have been adopted substantially by all nations, Popish and Protestant, Mohammedan and Heathen: so much so that Davenport said, "These very Indians, that worship the devil," acted on the same principle; so that, in his judgment, "it seemed to be a principle imprinted in the minds and hearts of all men, the equity of it."* We need hardly remind the reader that this allegiance to the Christian Faith was, until very lately, indispensable to the holding of any office under the crown in England, and that receiving the sacrament in the Established Church was the legal test of a man's possessing it.

In conclusion, I ought to state, that in the New England colonies the ministers of the Gospel had no part, as such, in the civil government. They were confined to their proper office and work. Yet no men had more influence, even in affairs of state. As a body of enlightened patriots, whose opinion it was important to obtain, they were consulted by the political authorities in every hour of difficulty; and although cases might be found in which the leading men among them, at least, did not advise their fellow-citizens wisely, it was much otherwise in the great majority of instances. Such was the state of things throughout the whole colonial age; and to this day, in no other country is the legitimate influence of the clergy in public affairsan influence derived from their intelligence, united with religion, virtue, and public spirit-more manifest, or more salutary, than in New England. If these colonies might be compared, in their earlier periods, to the Hebrew commonwealth, it is certain that, wherever there was a Moses, there was also an Aaron; and the influence of Winthrop, and Haynes, and Bradford, and Eaton, was not greater or happier than that of their compeers and coadjutors, the Rev. Messrs. Cotton, and Hooker, and Brewster, and Davenport.

* “Discourse about Civil Government,” p. 24, as quoted in Dr. Bacon's "Historical Discourses."

CHAPTER XVIII.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE CIVIL POWER IN THE COLONIES.-2. THE SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE PROVINCES.

VIRGINIA, too, like New England, was first colonized by members of the Church of England; but there was a vast difference between the views of the admirers of the English Prelacy of that time, and those of the Puritans. The Established Church was then composed, in fact, of two great divisions, which in spirit, at least, have more or less existed ever since, and were represented in the colonization of America by the High Churchmen and Cavaliers of the South, on the one hand, and the Puritans of the North on the other. While the latter left England in order to escape from the oppression inflicted on them by the Prelacy, abetted by the Crown, the former had no complaint against either, but carried with them a cordial attachment to both.

In the original charter of James I. to Virginia, it was especially enjoined that religion should be established according to the doctrines and rites of the Church of England; every emigrant was bound to allegiance to the king, and to conformity with the royal creed.* Still, it does not appear that any provision was made for the clergy until 1619, that is, twelve years after the commencement of the colony. A Legislative Assembly, elected by the colonists, met that year for the first time, and passed laws for the formation of parishes and the regular maintenance of the clergy; accordingly, the establishment of the Episcopal Church dates formally, if not really, from that year.

Previously to this, however, and during the governorship of Sir Thomas Dale, the London Company sent over to Virginia a set of "laws, divine, moral, and martial," being, apparently, the first-fruits of Sir Thomas Smith's legislation; and from their Draconian character, they give us some idea of the notions entertained in those times of the ways whereby religion might be promoted by the civil power. They were so bad, it is true, as to be little, if at all enforced. In short, they soon fell into complete desuetude, and were disclaimed, at length, by the company, without whose sanction they seem to have been prepared and sent. Yet there is ample evidence to prove that they breathed very much the spirit of the times that produced them, and of the party in the Church of England to which their author belonged-a spirit which, thank God! has long since ceased to exist in any portion of the Church of Christ in that country.

* Bancroft's "History of the United States," vol. i., p. 123.