Ecclesiologies: Social Contract Vs. Religious Duty

16^th century England, as almost all centuries in England, saw a great deal of turmoil and unrest, much of which could be laid at the feet of religious and theological confusion brought on by the encompassing effects of the English reformation. "Right and wrong, and even the paradigm of virtue itself, was poorly defined because of the reformation confusion."[1] It was specifically during the reign of Elizabeth that much of this religious confusion came to a head, as each respective religion-Puritan, Baptist, Quaker, Anglican, and Catholic-struggled to survive and simultaneously impose their particular beliefs on their religious contemporaries while respectively resisting the impositions of those selfsame religious counterparts.

While the Puritans, Baptists, and Quakers, or Protestant groups, believed in the dogma of 'status by action' (the idea that people should only belong o a church if they feel so inclined to do so), the Anglicans and Catholics were followers of the doctrine of 'status by ascription' (the idea that you are born a member of the currently present church). This essentially meant that as far as the Protestants were concerned one had the right to chose their individual religion and that the idea of a single or supreme church, and subsequently an earthly Supreme Governor of the Church was absurd. In the Protestant arena the idea of providentialism was the accepted cannon, and the only Supreme Governor of the Church was god himself, and it was one's duty to first obey god and secondly, help their neighbors who had strayed. However ironically enough, according to Early Modern England neighborliness many times "could also stifle and hurt. It employed peer pressure and, sometimes, the law to enforce community standards and curb objectionable behavior." [2]

However, 'objectionable behavior', just as everything else, was interpreted in many different ways. For many the practice of Church Ales, a type of benefit that raised money for the church, were seen as objectionable behavior that should be curbed or condemned on the grounds that they impeded one's ability to rationalize and therefore chose one's faith. For Mr. Fuller, as we see in his letters to Elizabeth, the queen's behavior was to be interpreted as objectionable and that she must reform her behavior or God would destroy the nation. [3] For others the question of what was objectionable behavior for the Sabbath, or the question of sabbatarianism, became the foremost concern.

In any case it was precisely for the subjectivity found in all the various interpretations that it became necessary for each individual to sort out for themselves their personal perspective and belief. This consequently led to the popular, and essentially necessary, practice of stating your theological position in your will; two examples of this being found in the wills of Robert Cecil and Francis Hastings; Cecil declaring for more conservative Catholic ideals with his views on the sacrament and his commemoration of benefactors [4] and Hastings for more decidedly protestant ideals with his views on the supremacy of the word of god [5]. For if you made no such statement it would have been impossible, due to the subjectivity of interpretation, to determine what your religious domination would have been.

The times of religious passivity had passed. The times of complicate compliance had waned. The times of blind following had ended. A new generation of thought was born and from it would stem the ideas, dogmas, and principals that would form not only the future of England but also the United States and the larger part of the Western World.

^{[1] Norman Jones, The English Reformation, (Oxford: 2002), 137}

^{[2] Robert Bucholz and Newton Key. Early Modern England (Oxford: 2004), 133-200.}

^{[3] "A Copie of Mr. Fuller's Booke to the Queen," Albert Peel, ed. The Seconde Part of a Register Being a Calendar of Manuscripts under that Title intended for Publication by the Puritans about 1593, and now in Dr. Williams's Library, London (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 49-65.:}

^{[4] Will of Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, HEH, HAP Box 15, folder 4. March 3, 1612/13. Transcribed by Norman Jones}

^{[5] Will of Francis Hastings of Bosworth. HEH, HAP Box 15, folder 2. No date. After 1610?. Transcribed by Norman Jones.}