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]