read and worship was offered to God. Fathers sought for their children, as for themselves, "first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" (which, somehow, unfortunately for morality, seemed to sanction forms of sin that filled the pocketbook). The religious influence pervaded family, school, society. Yet as early as 1679 a "Reforming Synod" at Boston said, "Family Worship is much neglected" and by 1691 a lament arose over the decay of piety and family religion. This was just one year after the appearance of the New England Primer which was certainly calculated to stem such a tide of evil. Catechism learning was enforced by law. But even in 1716 Mather thought it necessary, in the assembly of ministers, to "propose a motion that no family in the country be without a Bible and a catechism; and that all children of a fitt age, be found able to read."

Theophilus Eaton, first governor of New Haven, was a shining example of the true patriarch.

As in his government of the commonwealth, so in the government of his family, he was prudent, serious, happy to a wonder; and altho he sometimes had a large family, consisting of no less than thirty persons, yet he managed them with such an even temper, that observers have affirmed that they never saw a house ordered with more wisdom. He kept an honorable and hospitable table; but one thing that made the entertainment thereof the better, was the continual presence of his aged mother, by feeding of whom with an exemplary piety till she died, he insured his own prosperity as long as he lived. His children and servants he mightily encouraged in the study of the scriptures, and countenanced their addresses to himself with any of their inquiries; but when he saw any of them sinfully negligent about the concerns either of their general or particular callings, he would admonish them with such a penetrating efficacy, that they could scarce forbear falling down at his feet with tears. A word from him was enough to steer them.

Special laws for the further safeguarding of the family may be mentioned. For years the general court of Massachusetts acted as guardian of widows and orphans. The Body of Liberties decreed that "no man shall be deprived of his wife or children

un

less by virtue of some express law of the country established by the General Court and sufficiently published." But the laws were not solely in the interest of the individuals affected. The Plymouth colony ordered that "no one be allowed to be housekeepers till such time as they be allowed and approved by the governor and councill;" also "no servant coming out of his time or other single person [is] suffered to keep house or be for him or themselves till competently provided of arms and ammunition according to the orders of the colony." In case of certain youthful offenders Massachusetts ordered (1645) that "their parents or masters shall give them due correction and that in the presence of some officer if any magistrat shall so appoint." Again, 1668,

This court taking notice, upon good information and sad complaints, that there are some persons in this jurisdiction, that have families to provide for, who greatly neglect their callings, or misspend what they earn, whereby their families are in much want, and are thereby exposed to suffer, and to need relief from others, This court for remedy of these great and unsufferable evils, do declare that such neglectors of families are comprehended among [such idle persons as are subject to the house of correction]. Such legislation is an interesting rival of maximum wage laws as is also the provision of 1703-1704 that children of parents unable to maintain them are to be bound out.

In spite of legal subordination and occasional actual sacrifice to the public interest the New England family

was not without individuality. One of the causes of the failure of the early communism lies right here.

The yong-men that were most able and fitte for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. And for men's wives to be commanded to do ser

vice for other men, as dressing their meate, washing their cloathes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slaverie; neither could many husbands well brooke it.

After assignments of land were made to each household "Women and children helped plant the family lots, altho they would have considered it a great hardship to work in the common field."

The Puritan censorship of family life was enforced by the arm of the law. But the Quakers, who could not control the civil power, maintained ecclesiastical oversight in behalf of moral training, sectarian solidarity and exclusiveness, parental control over courtship, and general propriety as in the following query: "Do no widows admit proposals of marage too early after the death of their former husbands, or from widowers sooner after the death of a former wife than is consistent with decency?"

The New England aristocracy possessed marked pride of family. Sumptuary laws were designed to maintain the distinction between rich and poor. One law provided that the wearing of gold or silver ornaments, silk ribbons, etc. should cause assessment at one hundred fifty pounds. The law exempted families of magistrates or "such whose quality and estate have been above the ordinary degree tho now decayed."

Ministers' families almost constituted a nobility. John Adams, who was only the son of a small, middleclass farmer, met with opposition from members of the flock of the minister whose daughter he was courting.

The Adams family was thought scarcely fit to match with the minister's daughter, the descendant of so many worthies. It so happened that her father was well disposed to the young man and after the ceremony had occurred saw fit to deliver an "Apology" from the text, "John came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and ye say: 'He hath a devil.""

True to their noble rank the reverend families tended to marry into each other. For a century and a half such marriages were very numerous. It seemed to be according to social propriety for ministers' sons to marry ministers' daughters. Pastors often married into the family of their predecessors - often the daughter, sometimes the widow. Many families may be cited as exhibits of interrelationship among ministers. The "Mather Dynasty" is a conspicuous case in point. Richard Mather's second wife was the widow of John Cotton. Their children, Increase Mather and Mary Cotton, were as brother and sister but were married and became the parents of Cotton Mather. The sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Richard Mather entered the ministry. The girls in the same generations married ministers. Thus the Mather blood fertilized the remote quarters of New England.

Family integrity reached beyond death. Much solicitude was felt by the New England people for the salvation of kindred. In many communities each family had a burying-place on the home-farm. Thus the dust of the dead consecrated the family devotion and the ancestral home of the living. Sewall considered a visit to the family tomb and the sight of the coffins in it an "awful yet pleasing treat" and Joseph Eliot said "that the two days wherein he buried his wife and son were the best he ever had in the world.”

In the rapid expansion of New England families there developed a tendency to the formation of patriarchal clans. Aubury noted the great number of halffinished houses. A man would build and occupy half of the structure; when his son married, the new couple finished and moved into the other half. The families were thus separate, yet united by the common sheltering roof. Often, too, as already suggested, the family circle was expanded into a real "familia." In the household of the prosperous Massachusetts merchant were indentured servants, male and female, generally young, working out their time. Wage employees, even those used in his business, commonly ate at his family table, and lived under his roof. All such were, of course, under the paternal care of the house-father. Besides these, were unattached female relatives, who often lived with their kindred.

Careful as the new Americans were of their own families, and censorious as the aristocracy was of the families of the hard-pressed plebeians, they found themselves unable (or unwilling) to safe-guard the family relations of their slaves. Slavery can scarcely respect the family integrity of the servile class. Aside from the lust of males of the master race, is the economic motive that severs families for business reasons. Sewall, who was sufficiently cool-blooded in his own matrimonial ventures, was distressed at the thought of "how in taking negroes out of Africa and selling of them here, that which God has joined together men do boldly rend asunder; men from their country, husbands from their wives, parents from their children." Nor did the process end with the voyage from Africa. There was really no protection of marriage or sanction of marital or parental rights and duties. Who could be depended