Production Note
Cornell University Library produced this
volume to replace the irreparably
deteriorated original. It was scanned
using Xerox software and equipment at
600 dots per inch resolution and
compressed prior to storage using CCITT
Group 4 compression. The digital data
were used to create Cornell's
replacement volume on paper that meets
the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The
production of this volume was supported
in part by the New York State Program
for the Conservation and Preservation of
Library Research Materials and the Xerox
Corporation. Digital file copyright by
Cornell University Library 1993.VII.
THE SEVEN ARTICLES
FROM THE CHURCH OF LEYDEN',
16.17.
COMMUNICATED, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY LETTER,
BV
GEORGE BANCROFT.LETT E E'.
New York, October 3,1856.
My Dear Mr. Moore :—Agreeably to your request, I enclose a
copy of the “ Seven xA^rtikells which ye Church of Leyden sent to ye
Counseli of England to bee considered of in respeckt of their judgments
occationed about theer going to Virginia” As far as I know, they have
never been published. The account of the principles of the Pilgrims,
to which the author of the New England Chronology refers, is a dif-
ferent paper; and none of the successors of Prince seem to have been
aware of the existence of this document. It escaped the notice of
Bishop Wilberforce, to whom America is deeply indebted for the
discovery of the original manuscript of Bradford’s History of the
Plymouth Colony; and of Mr. Anderson, who more distinctly an-
nounced to the world that the original manuscript of that long lost
work was in the library of the Bishop of London.
We have now from Mr. Charles Deane of Boston, under the
auspices of the Massachusetts Historical Society, an admirable edition
of Bradford’s History, illustrated with equal diligence and fidelity.
On pages 30 and 31 of that volume, you will find a reference to the
Seven Articles, which, however, were not inserted in the History, even
in an abstract. They seem to have slumbered unnoticed for more
than two centuries among the Virginia volumes in the State Paper
Office in Westminster. The copy I send you was made for me by
Mr. Sainsbury, a clerk in that office, in whose accuracy I have entire
confidence.
For the just interpretation of the articles, the purpose of the Pil-
grims must be borne in mind; and also the contemporaneous work
of John Robinson, called “ A just and necessary Apology of certain.
Christians, no less contumeliously they commonly called Brownists or
Barrowists.”296
LETTER.
The Protestant Reformation, in its commencement, sheltered it-
self under the wing of temporal sovereigns, to whose authority it,
for a time at least, appeared to subordinate religion. Luther espe-
cially disclaimed all disposition to resist them ; and, to those, whose
consciences claimed a greater freedom in belief and forms of worship
than the established governments would suffer, he advised emigration,
but at the same time encouraged no resistance to the sovereign at home.
“The Gospel,” said he, “is not tied to place, but moves freely through
the world, lik’e the star which beamed on the wizards, and as they
journeyed from the East, guided them where the Saviour lay. We
have power to change our country and elsewhere pursue truth. Do
not dispute with the sovereign for place, but emigrate in company.
Let the people elect a pastor, and support him at their own charge;
if the magistrate interferes, let the pastor, whom the people have
chosen, take to flight, and let them that will, go with him.”
This is just the conclusion to which the Pilgrims were led. They
desired to make no resistance to the king or to the hierarchy, but to
emigrate to America with a charter, tolerating their worship and con-
ceding powers of government.
The seven articles, which bear no date, but, as appears from the
letter of Sir Edwin Sandys, must have been written in the autumn
of 1617, preparatory to an intended emigration to America in 1618,
express substantially no more than was soon published in Robinson’s
“Just and necessary Apology,” which was given to the press, in
Latin, in 1619. Thus in the first Article, Robinson and Brewster^
giving the Calvinistic interpretation to the XXXIX Articles of the
Church of England, accept them unconditionally. So in the Apology,
Chapter XII., Robinson writes: “We accord, as far as the Belgic
and other reformed churches, with the Church of England in the
articles of Faith and heads of Christian religion, published in the
name of that Church, and to be found in the 4 Harmony of the Con-
fessions of Faith.’ ”
The second Article is a corollary from the first, and Robinson
always admitted in his printed works, that 44 in the Church of England
lively faith and true piety are both begotten and nourished in the
hearts of many by the preaching of the gospel there.”
The third Article is a most ample recognition of the royal author-
ity ; but purposely couched in terms, which might have been used, in
the days of Hero, to express a readiness to render even to a heathenLETTER.
297
magistrate that obedience which was acknowledged to be due to his
office. So in the eleventh. Chapter of the Apology, Robinson is careful
to keep Christianity and the civil power distinct, and evidently holds
ifchat “ no civil or co-active power in things, whether civil or ecclesias-
tical,” can “come to the magistrate by his Christianity.” “We,” he
says, “ believe the very same, touching the civil magistrate, with the
Belgic reformed churches, and willingly subscribe to their confession ;
and the more, because what is by many restrained to the Christian
magistrate, they extend indefinitely and absolutely to the magistrate
whomsoever. And that surely upon good ground: seeing the magis-
tracy is one, and the power the same, whether the person be Christian
or heathen.” “ The prince rules over his subjects as he is a prince,
and they subjects simply; not as faithful or Christian, he or they.”
“ God forbid that the Christian magistrate should take liberty to use,
or rather abuse, his authority for the same; which yet if he do either
the one or the other, whether by commanding what God forbids, or
by forbidding what God commands, seeing it comes by the fault of
the person, not of the office, the subject is not freed from the bond
of allegiance, but is still tied to obedience, as active for the doing of
the thing commanded, if it be lawful; so passive, if unlawful, by suf-
fering patiently the punishment, though unjustly inflicted.”
The fourth and fifth articles are to be construed as a promise not
to question the authority of bishops in so far as that authority is de-
rived from the king. The same doctrine occurs in the Apology,
Chapter XII., where Robinson writes, “ Wherein yet I would not so
be understood, as if we were at any defiance with the persons of the
bishops, much less with the king’s civil authority, whereof they are
possessed, whether in matters civil or ecclesiastical.” “ Now as con-
cerning their civil authority; albeit we do not believe that the same
is at all competent to the true ministers of the gospel, especially in
that eminency, external glory, and pomp of this world, in which they
far exceed many worldly princes, and rather seem to represent the
triumphant, than the militant church; yet forsomuch as they both
obtain the same by the gift of the king, and exercise it in his name,
we do not unwillingly yield honour and obedience unto it, and to his
majesty in it.”
The sixth Article carries still further the application of the same
principle ; and, as a natural consequence, the Pilgrims in the following
year, though with a little reluctance, avowed a willingness to take the
oath of supremacy.—[Deane’s Bradford, 34.]298
LETTER.
Eobinson and Brewster failed in their application for a charter,
and got from the king no more than a verbal and vague promise of
connivance, if they carried themselves peaceably. Who gave the
counsel to refuse their prayer is a question of interest, which I am not
able to solve. It is at least certain that the disinclination to sanction
colonies of dissenters was not confined to the Church. Bacon, who took
a special interest in plantations, adheres on this subject to the policy of
the prelates of his day. In the letter of advice to Sir George Villiers,
onpiis rising to the state of favorite minister, the ambitious philosopher
shows plainly his purpose to extend the Church of England with
every new colony; and he seems to have originated the theory re-
specting colonial Church government, which prevailed in England till
after our American revolution.
“For the discipline of the Church, in those parts,” such are his
words, written almost at the very time of Eobinson and Brewster’s
application, or a little before it, “for the discipline*of the Church in
those parts, it will be necessary, that it agree with that which is settled
in England, else it will make a schism and a rent in Christ’s coat,
which must be seamless ; and, to that purpose, it will be fit, that by
the king’s supreme power in causes ecclesiastical, within all his do-
minions, they be subordinate under some bishop and bishoprick of
this realm.” This is the system which prevailed in the British Colonial
Government for more than a century and a half. And again, as to
dissenters in the foreign plantations, Bacon gives the “ caution,” “To
establish there the same purity of religion, and the same discipline
for Church government, without any mixture of popery or anabaptism,
lest they should be drawn into factions and schisms ; and that place
receive them there bad, and send them back worse.”
The Pilgrims carried with them to the New World the modera-
tion which they had professed in their dealings with the Court. There
is a marked difference in this respect between the Government of the
Old Colony, as that of Plymouth was called, and the Government of
Massachusetts. A long time ago I wrote of the Pilgrims at Plymouth
that “ they were never betrayed into the excesses of religious perse-
cution,” and after the lapse of more than twenty years, the Remark
still approves itself as correct. Mr. Anderson, in his History of the
Church of England in the Colonies, &c., &c., Vol. I., pp. 453, 454, of
his first edition, has seen fit to attempt to refute the remark. But in
this he has only committed a double injustice in consequence of aLETTER.
299
mistake of his own. He, for the moment, confounded the two colo-
nies of the Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth, although he very
well knew that at that period they were distinct, and that their govern-
ments were not the same ; and a pertinacity in his error leads him to
indulge himself in censuring me for inconsistency and the Pilgrims
for intolerance, because the first emigrants to Salem, who were under
the Massachusetts charter and belonged to another Government and
another jurisdiction from that of Plymouth, had forbidden the public
use of the Common Prayer. Should this notice reach the eye of
Mr. Anderson, I hope he will take pains to see for himself the error
of the statements which his misapprehension has led him to make,
and prove his substantial candor by the correction which historic
truth requires.
Excuse the great length of this letter, and believe me,
Very truly yours,
GEORGE BANCROFT.
GeoRGE Henry Moore, Esq., New York.ARTICLES FROM THE CHURCH OE LEYDEN.
1617.
[S. P. O. Ama&W.Ind. Virg.]
Seven Artikes which ye Church of Leyden sent to ye Coun-
sell of England to bee considered of in respeekt of their
judgments occationed about theer going to Yirginia Anno
1618.
1.	To ye confession of fayth published in ye name of ye
Church of England & to every artikell theerof wee do wthye re-
formed churches wheer wee live & also els where assent wholy.
2.	As wee do acknolidg ye docktryne of fayth theer
tawght so do wee y® fruites and effeckts of ye same docktryne
to ye begetting'of saving fayth in thousands in ye land (con-
formistes & reformistes) as ye ar called wth whom also as wth
our bretheren wee do desyer to keepe sperituall communion in
peace and will pracktis in our parts all lawfull thinges.
3.	The King's Majesty wee acknolidg for Supreame
Governer in his Dominion in all causes and over all parsons,
and y none maye decklyne or apeale from his authority or
judgment in any cause whatsoever, but y in all thinges obe-
dience is dewe unto him, ether active, if ye thing command-
ed be not agaynst God's woord, or passive yf itt bee, except
pardon can bee obtayned.
4.	Wee judg itt lawfull for his Majesty to apoynt bish-
ops, civill overseers, or officers in awthoryty onder hime, in
ye severall provinces, dioses, congregations or parrishes to
oversee ye Churches and governe them civilly according to
ye Lawes of ye Land, untto whom ye ar in all thinges to geve
an account & by them to bee ordered according to Godlynes.
5.	The authoryty of y® present bishops in ye Land wee302 SEVEN ARTICLES FROM THE CHURCH OF LEYDEN.
do acknolidg so far forth as ye same is indeed derived from his
Majesty untto them and as ye proseed in his name, whom wee
will also theerein honor in all things and hime in them.
6.	Wee beleeve yfc no sinod, classes, convocation or as-
sembly of Ecclesiasticall Officers hath any power or awthory-
ty att all but as ye same by ye Majestraet geven unto them.
7.	Lastly, wee desyer to geve untto all Superiors dew
honnor to preserve ye unity of ye speritt wffi all y feare
G-od, to have peace wth all men what in us lyeth & wheerein
wee err to bee instructed by any. Subscribed by
JOHN ROBINSON,
and
WILLYAM BEUSTER.