The Mayflower Covenant
Theocrats Begin a Government

Abstract
OF THE ARTICLE THAT WILL SOON APPEAR HERE

Here's what it says:

• The Mayflower Compact was a Christian Theocratic Charter which formed a Civil Government for all the passengers of the ship.
• Not all the passengers were deemed eligible to sign the Compact
• It nevertheless included them under its authority, and they were obligated to obey the laws which flowed from it.
• It was signed only by those who were voting members of the church.

Until you send us this article, readers of this page will have to be content with the following dialogue on American OnLine's "Separation of Church and State" Discussion Board.

1. The Charter was Theocratic

2. The Passengers who signed it were Theocrats, not pluralists.

The Mayflower Compact
Debating with a Secular Humanist

I maintain that the Mayflower Compact was written up by members of a Calvinistic Church in Leyden which emigrated to the New World to escape Anglo-Catholicism. Secular Humanists would like us to believe that Christianity had little or no influence in the settlement of America and the creation of its legal systems.

The fascinating thing about the Mayflower Covenant is that it was signed by only about one-third of those aboard the ship. It was the Theocratic Christian minority that realized the threat to order posed by those who were not Christians -- or at least gave no evidence of that by being affiliated with a church. When Secularist historians point out that only a minority of a society were church members, they are neglecting to tell you that from the time Christians stepped foot on these shores, only a minority have been allowed to become voting members of either church or commonwealth. Those who voted in the State were also those who voted in the church.

This dialogue is from America OnLine's "Separation of Church and State" Bulletin Board. (Jump works only for AOL subscribers.)

Consider how a guide for the public school history text Triumph of the American Nation, published in 1986, omits material from the Mayflower Compact without informing the teacher that the document has been edited. Students, in discussing the document, are left with an incomplete understanding of what motivated these early founders because they do not have all the facts. The Mayflower Compact is depicted solely as a political document with its more striking religious elements censored out. Here is the document as presented by the textbook company. The bold portions are missing from the textbook version:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick. . . .

Those who signed the Mayflower Compact were Christian Theocrats, not Secular Humanists, and would have vigorously opposed the myth of the "separation of church and state."

Subject:	Mayflower Compact
From:	edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date:	19 Apr 1999 02:16:20 EDT

I noted: The compact was the first time in America men set up a government by their own consent. This structure argues for the inclusion of all beliefs, not the exclusion.

Kevin, even with the text in his hands, said: Utter nonsense.
Here is the entire text:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

[That's it -- that's the Compact. It's purpose is clear -- to set up laws for a new settlement. The purpose of the passengers is clear, too -- to colonize the New World. Even today it is eminantly readable.]

I said, earlier: Much of the other language Brewer cites comes from the "oath section" of the documents, not their organic purposes. <<

Kevin said: The "purpose" was to extend the Kingdom of Christ. The oath excluded from public office all who were outside the established religious boundaries.<<

The compact specifically set up a government that included the entrepreneurs AND the religious refugees. They all took part in the government under the Compact, under the terms of the Compact. Later, the Congregationalists outnumbered the non-religious guys. But at this point they didn't, and it was a government by consent of the governed that they set up.

I said: Such a document as a compact would be attested to by seal, if people had seals. In the absence of a seal, then an oath would be acceptable. These oaths should not be expanded to contravene the clear meaning of the document.

Kevin said: The oaths amplify the meaning of the document.<<

Sure, whatever. The meaning of the document is that they would make laws together and obey the laws so made. It's clear from the text. Anyone can read it.

Ed

Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 21 Apr 1999 04:54:37 EDT

Ed seems to think that Christians do nothing but preach, go to church, and engage in religious liturgies, and if he proves that someone farms, engages in commerce, or establishes any kind of civilization, he is not a Christian, but probably a Secular Humanist.

People left Europe for the New World because they wanted to worship freely, without having their religion dictated by the State. These people (wrongly, IMHO) believed that the Bible required them to form civil governments, which they did. The act of forming a civil government was seen by them to be a religious act.

Penn's charter ( http://www.constitution.org/bcp/frampenn.htm ) is a good example of early colonial governments. Governments were established in religious obedience to the commands of God.

In article <19990419021620.22581.00002325@ng146.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>The "purpose" was to extend the Kingdom of Christ. The oath
>excluded from public office all who were outside the established religious
>boundaries.<<
>
>No on both counts. The purpose was to establish a colony.

Why not just live in chaos? Why establish a government? Answer: because the Word of God commands it. The establishment of a colony was the establishment of a religion. The Mayflower Compact created a Theocracy.

Ed says:

>It was hoped that
>by doing so, they would extend the Glory of God -- but their purpose was to
>settle down and farm the New World.

And the reason why they wanted to "settle down and farm the New World" was because they wanted to obey the Word of God, which commands men to settle, live orderly lives, and till the Garden. This is basic Christian theology which goes back to the Garden of Eden. Rapture-oriented Christians in our day are too busy waiting around for Christ to relieve them of all earthly responsibilities to know much about the civilization-building which motivated the Puritans.

Either Ed is ignorant of the motivations of Christian colonists in the 1600's or he is attempting to deceive the readers of this Board.

No one ever responded to a previous post of mine on this subject, so here goes again:

Subject: The Myth of Commercial Pilgrims
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 23 Mar 1999 02:43:23 EST

Some secularists on this Board have suggested that those who came to America in search of religious freedom were more interested in trade than in establishing a Godly Theocracy.

For "New England was a religious plantation, not a plantation for trade. The profession of the purity of doctrine, worship, and discipline was written on her forehead." "We all," says the confederacy in one of the two oldest of American written constitutions, "came into these parts of America to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity and peace." "He that made religion as twelve, and the world as thirteen, had not the spirit of a true New England man." Religion was the object of the emigrants, and it was their consolation. With this the wounds of the outcast were healed, and the tears of exile sweetened.

George Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.1, p.319

But just because a given historical source indicates that a group of early Americans were seeking gold, or seeking trade does not mean they weren't establishing a Theocracy. The Bible requires all good Theocrats to accumulate gold and trade with others (Gen 2:11-12; 13:2; 24:35; Ps 112:1-3; Deut 8:18).

The history of the Mayflower settlers indicates that they left their church in the Netherlands and established a new church. Thus, as highly-respected documentarian Henry Steele Commager notes,

The Compact was not intended as a constitution, but was an extension of the customary church covenant to civil circumstances.
Documents of American History, 3rd ed., p. 15.

The Mayflower Compact sets up what modern Humanists would call a "church-state."

Ed says:

>The compact specifically set up a government that included the entrepreneurs
>AND the religious refugees.

The "religious refugees" were ALSO the "entrepreneurs."
Not all the "refugees" were from a particular church in Leyden, but they all signed the Theocratic charter known as the Mayflower Compact.

>They all took part in the government under the
>Compact, under the terms of the Compact. Later, the Congregationalists
>outnumbered the non-religious guys.

Name ONE "non-religious guy." This is a myth.

>But at this point they didn't, and it
>was a government by consent of the governed that they set up.

It was a government for the Glory of God. We've gone over this before.
Ed has a short memory.
Here it is again:

Subject: Pilgrims, Businessmen, and Mayflower Compact
From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date: 05 Jun 1998 19:56:23 EDT

I noted that two thirds of the signers of the Mayflower Compact were not religious refugees. Kevin said: >>According to Gerald Murphy, who posted the Compact on The Cleveland Free-Net years ago, ninety-percent of those who signed the Compact were puritan separatists. Cite authority to the contrary because I don't believe your ipse dixit.<<

Again, this is a fact that is not hidden in history -- you can read it in any number of places.

Ed then posted the Ravitch quote.

Only those church members who were willing to abide by the laws of the Calvinistic church-state created by the Mayflower Compact signed the compact.

Subject: Re: Mayflower Compact
From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date: 21 Apr 1999 19:20:22 EDT

I noted:  >>>They all took part in the government under the
>Compact, under the terms of the Compact. Later, the Congregationalists
>outnumbered the non-religious guys. <<

Kevin said:  >>Name ONE "non-religious guy." This is a myth.<<

You asked for a source. I cited the best-selling book by Bill Bennett's pal, the Columbia professor in the history of education, Bush's assistant secretary of education for research and improvement, Diane Ravitch. Now you call her a liar. Amazing.

Tell you what, Kevin -- name the 41 signers, and tell us which ones were members of the Congregational church. The 20 or so left over are the non-religious guys.

I expect you to list all 41 names, of course.

I don't have them, but I trust Ravitch's research.

Ed

Subject: Mayflower passengers
From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date: 21 Apr 1999 21:43:03 EDT

My trusty 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica CD says that only 35 of the passengers on the Mayflower were religious separatists. All the others were picked by the financiers who paid for the entire project.

The financiers insisted on sending skilled tradesmen who were not Separatists.    Among them were John Alden, among the most famous of the Mayflower passengers. It is unclear whether Myles Standish was a member of the Separatist group at any point.

Have you come up with that passenger list, Kevin?

Ed

Subject: Re: Mayflower passengers
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 22 Apr 1999 01:32:57 EDT

In article <19990421214303.13200.00000252@ng-fb1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com
(EDarr1776) writes:

>My trusty 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica CD says that only 35 of the passengers
>on the Mayflower were religious separatists. All the others were picked by
>the financiers who paid for the entire project.

That means 6 people signed it who were not "separatists." What is EncyBrit's definition of "separatist?" Members of the church from Leyden? But you already posted evidence that some on the Mayflower were not from this church but were sympathetic to the Pilgrim philosophy. These were the six who signed on with the congregation.

I still maintain that only those who were Theocrats signed the Compact which created the Theocratic civil Body Politick.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/08theocracy.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: Mayflower passengers
From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date: 22 Apr 1999 12:58:51 EDT

I said:  >>My trusty 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica CD says that only 35 of the
passengers on the Mayflower were religious separatists. All the others were
picked by the financiers who paid for the entire project. >>>

Kevin miscalculates: >>That means 6 people signed it who were not
"separatists." <<

No. The Separatists included entire families -- wives and kids. Most of the non-separatists were bachelors, hence the famous story of John Alden and Priscilla Mullen. My trusty 1995 Compton's Encyclopedia on CD says that not only were a minority of the group and signers from the Separatists, but at no time did the Separatists ever have a majority in the colony. Further, one of the reasons the Compact was deemed necessary was the statement by the non-Separatist that they would "go their own way" upon setting foot on land, outside of the territory for which the company's charter was written. You have to remember that they spent 30 days on the ship AFTER they hit America. This was because the legal issues had to be worked out.

It's all in the history books. If you just read the history for what happened, instead of trying to find evidence of what did NOT happen, you can see the story for yourself.

It's a wonderful story, really -- devout Christians and "secularists" working together to establish a profitable enterprise for themselves and everyone else -- and succeeding despite incredible odds, stupendous hardship, and high mortality.

The truth is more wonderful than the fiction, to me.

And the truth is that the religious Separatists couldn't have done it without the backing of a secular bunch of entrepreneurs. The truth is they worked together in great harmony, despite religious differences. The truth is, the seeds of religious freedom are deeper here in the story of the Plymouth colony that most of us remember.

Ed

Subject: Re: Mayflower passengers
From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date: 22 Apr 1999 13:01:23 EDT

Kevin said:  >>I still maintain that only those who were Theocrats signed the Compact which created the Theocratic civil Body Politick.<<

What do you mean "theocrats?"

John Alden was a cooper, a barrel maker sent by the financiers to make the barrels to ship stuff back to England. Is barrel making a religious enterprise?

Do you say that Miles Standish and John Alden did not agree to sign the Compact?

It appears to me that you don't have a list of the signers, either. . .

Ed

Subject: Re: Mayflower passengers
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 22 Apr 1999 14:05:10 EDT

In article <19990422130123.29839.00000104@ng100.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776) writes:

>Kevin said:  >>I still maintain that only those who were Theocrats signed the
>Compact
>which created the Theocratic civil Body Politick.<<
>
>What do you mean "theocrats?"

The word comes from two Greek words, meaning God rules.
A "theocrat" is someone who believes that the nation should be a nation "under God." A Theocrat is someone who believes that a nation has a duty to obey God's Laws.

  http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/theocracy.htm

>John Alden was a cooper, a barrel maker sent by the financiers to make the
>barrels to ship stuff back to England. Is barrel making a religious
>enterprise?

Yes. This was the genius of Calvinism and the "priesthood of all believers." Every vocation is holy, no calling is "secular." Barrel making is every bit as Christian and sanctified as being a clergyman. A fundamental contribution of the Protestant Reformation, a leading cause of the rise of Capitalism, according to Tawney and Weber.
I'm surprised you had to ask.

But then again, I'm not surprised. I've seen this misconception in many of your posts. You think that if you prove that a person is either (a) gainfully employed, or (b) intelligent, you have thereby proven that he was not a Christian. Your impression seems to be that the "separatists" were a group of clergymen, 35 pastors and no flock. But they were in fact a representative segment of a Dutch church, a pastor, yes, but also theocratic butchers, theocratic bakers, and theocratic candlestick makers.

>Do you say that Miles Standish and John Alden did not agree to sign the
>Compact?

No. Why would I say that?

>It appears to me that you don't have a list of the signers, either. . .

I never claimed to have such a list.

I'd like to get my hands on one. Too bad there isn't a book like the one published in 1848, The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/08theocracy.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subject: Re: Mayflower passengers
From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date: 22 Apr 1999 14:21:09 EDT

Turns out I do have a list of the Mayflower Compact signatories, through
Henry Steele Commager's Documents of American History, Vol. 1 (Prentice-Hall,
1988).

If I understand the convention correctly, those designated "Mr." were the religious Separatists; the others were the London "recruits."

Commager notes that "some 70" people from London were recruited to supplement the Separatists. "Some of the London recruits were an 'undesirable lot' and, Bradford tells us, boasted that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Company and 'would use their owne libertie.'"

So we have it from Bradford himself -- a Separatist, so he wouldn't lie -- that these were not all religious refugees.

I count ten heads of Separatist households, leaving 31 non-Separatists. That is, while about 67 percent of the total were non-Separatists, nearly 75 percent of the signers were non-Separatists.

The signers of the Mayflower Compact were:

There's probably a historical society in Plymouth who could shed more light
-- anyone living close to there?

Ed

Subject: Re: Mayflower passengers
From: edarr1776@aol.com (EDarr1776)
Date: 22 Apr 1999 14:34:56 EDT

>Kevin said:  >>I still maintain that only those who were Theocrats signed
the Compact which created the Theocratic civil Body Politick.<<

I said:  >>What do you mean "theocrats?"  <<

Kevin gets technical, telling us little:  >>The word comes from two Greek
words, meaning God rules. A "theocrat" is someone who believes that the
nation should be a nation "under God." A Theocrat is someone who believes
that a nation has a duty to obey God's Laws.

  http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/theocracy.htm    <<

By that definition, probably none aboard the Mayflower qualify. Remember, their big protest was that the nation was going astray in its interpretation of God's Laws. They were fleeing because they disagreed that England should prevent them from worshipping in heretical ways. So it would be fair to say that this group was anti-theocrat.

I pointed out that there were entrepreneurs and tradesmen sent to help make profits:   >>John Alden was a cooper, a barrel maker sent by the financiers to make the barrels to ship stuff back to England. Is barrel making a religious enterprise?   <<<

Amazingly, Kevin said: 

>>  Yes. This was the genius of Calvinism and the "priesthood of all believers." Every vocation is holy, no calling is "secular." Barrel making is every bit as Christian and sanctified as being a clergyman. A fundamental contribution of the Protestant Reformation, a leading cause of the rise of Capitalism, according to Tawney and Weber.
I'm surprised you had to ask.

But then again, I'm not surprised. I've seen this misconception in many of your posts. You think that if you prove that a person is either (a) gainfully employed, or (b) intelligent, you have thereby proven that he was not a Christian. Your impression seems to be that the "separatists" were a group of clergymen, 35 pastors and no flock. But they were in fact a representative segment of a Dutch church, a pastor, yes, but also theocratic butchers, theocratic bakers, and theocratic candlestick makers. <<

If I ever make that mistake, it's no worse than your constant error that anyone who crossed the Atlantic for America was a raging fundamentalist bent on denying religious freedom to everyone but Calvinists. 

My view -- not "impression" -- is that of the 100+ people aboard the Mayflower, 35 were religious refugees seeking a safe place to practice their beliefs. Most of the passengers were entrepreneurs, selected by the finance guys to make sure the colony made a profit.

That's what the history books show. Because most of the passengers were not members of the church that sent the religious group, and because they were not prone to religious exercise, and because the ship landed well north of its chartered territory, it was necessary for the group to arrive at an agreement about how to govern the colony. In front of God, with God's blessing and God acting as a witness, they set up a civil government that had authority from the consent of those governed. They covenanted between themselves to make good laws and obey them.

I asked:  >>Do you say that Miles Standish and John Alden did not agree to sign the Compact?<<<

Kevin said:  >>No. Why would I say that?<<

Because you said only theocrats signed, and Alden and Standish were not that.

But since then I've found the list, and posted it. Most of the signers were not theocrats.

Ed

Subject: Re: Mayflower passengers
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 22 Apr 1999 15:35:37 EDT

Ed is COMPLETELY OUT TO LUNCH on his understanding of the Mayflower Compact and its signers. He is completely out to lunch on his belief that the only people who are Christians are unskilled religious nuts or power-hungry tyrants.

The Christians who came to America to establish a Christian nation came here for their own religious liberty, not the liberty of those who were oppressing them. If they are "intolerant" for not tolerating government intolerance, fine.

In article <19990422143456.19040.00000126@ng-cf1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com
(EDarr1776) writes:

>>Kevin said:  >>I still maintain that only those who were Theocrats signed
>the Compact which created the Theocratic civil Body Politick.<<
>
>I said:  >>What do you mean "theocrats?"  <<
>
>Kevin gets technical, telling us little:  >>The word comes from two Greek
>words, meaning God rules. A "theocrat" is someone who believes that the
>nation should be a nation "under God." A Theocrat is someone who believes
>that a nation has a duty to obey God's Laws.
>
>  http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/theocracy.htm   <<
>
>By that definition, probably none aboard the Mayflower qualify. 

This is absolutely laughable. I've never heard anything quite so ridiculous.

>Remember,
>their big protest was that the nation was going astray in its interpretation
>of God's Laws.

Yes, the wanted to "purify" the church and state.

>They were fleeing because they disagreed that England should
>prevent them from worshipping in heretical ways. So it would be fair to say
>that this group was anti-theocrat.

Utter, total, complete non-sequitur. You can have two opposing groups of theocrats, you know. The church which settled in America was Theocratic, even though they opposed the Theocrats in Europe.

Their views were "heretical" only in the eyes of the Anglican church. In the eyes of those leaving for America, of course, their faith was a more pure Theocracy than that of the queen's.

Fine, Ed. They were "anti-theocrats," and probably all homosexual democrats as well. Call them anything you want. Just remember their words:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick,

Only 41 of 102 passengers signed this Compact. I call them Theocrats. Ed says they were something else. A rose by any other name would deny the "separation of church and state"
just as strenuously.

>I pointed out that there were entrepreneurs and tradesmen sent to help make
>profits:  >>John Alden was a cooper, a barrel maker sent by the financiers to
>make the barrels to ship stuff back to England. Is barrel making a religious
>enterprise?  <<<

[Remember Ed's question when we get to the information about Standish, below. Ed basically does not come to grips with a central feature of world history: the Protestant Reformation and the rise of capitalism.]

>I asked:  >>Do you say that Miles Standish and John Alden did not agree to
>sign the Compact?<<<
>
>Kevin said:  >>No. Why would I say that?<<
>
>Because you said only theocrats signed, and Alden and Standish were not that.

I'd like to see some proof of that. Once again, this is Ed's WISHFUL THINKING. Ed simply doesn't understand the mind of the people who settled the New World, and who wrote its founding charters. Ed simply doesn't understand how Christians of the past have integrated Christ and Culture, and have worked for a Christian Civilization. Ed's concept of "Christian" is an air-headed, escapist neo-platonist, or someone bent on accumulating power and ruling in an arbitrary, selfish, and dictatorial fashion.

>But since then I've found the list, and posted it. Most of the signers were
>not theocrats.
>
>Ed

This is not what the history books say; this is what Ed says.
If we examine the evidence we will see that the Mayflower Compact was a THEOCRATIC CHARTER signed by Theocrats.
There is no support for the "separation of church and state" anywhere to be found.

Let's look at a few on the list, including Standish.

In article <19990422142109.19040.00000121@ng-cf1.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com
(EDarr1776) writes:

>The signers of the Mayflower Compact were:
>
>Mr. John Carver
>Mr. William Bradford
>Mr. Stephne Hopkins
>Digery Priest
>Mr. Edward Winslow
>Mr. William Brewster
>Isaac Allerton
>Miles Standish

According to Jackman, William J., Patton, Jacob H., and Johnson, Rossiter, et al. in History of the American Nation (1911) 9 Vols. Vol.1, p.146:

They purchased one ship, the Speedwell, and hired another, the Mayflower, a ship of one hundred and eighty tons. As these vessels could carry only a part of the congregation, they determined to send the younger and more vigorous, while the pastor, Robinson, and the aged and infirm, were to remain at Leyden. Their ruling Elder, William Brewster, who had suffered much in the cause, and was respected and loved for his integrity, was to conduct the emigrants. Before they left, they observed a day of fasting and prayer. They "sought of God a right way for themselves and their little ones."

The parting address of the venerable [Pastor] Robinson gives us a glimpse of the principles in which, from year to year, he had instructed them. As he addressed them for the last time, he said: "I charge you before God and his holy angels, that you follow me no farther than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ. If God reveal anything to you, be ready to receive it; for I am verily persuaded the Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of his Holy Word. I beseech you to remember it is an article of your church covenant, that you be ready to receive whatever truth shall be made known to you from the written Word of God. Take heed what you receive as truth; examine it, consider it, and compare it with other scriptures of truth before you receive it; the Christian world has not yet come to the perfection of knowledge."

A number of their brethren came from Leyden to Delft-Haven, where they were to embark. The night before their departure was passed in religious intercourse and prayer: as the morning dawned, they prepared to go on board the ship. On the shore they all knelt, and the venerable Robinson led them in prayer—they heard his voice for the last time. They sailed first to Southampton; in a fortnight they left that place for their distant home. It was soon discovered that the Speedwell needed repairs, and they must return. After the lapse of eight days of precious time, they again make the attempt, and still again the captain of the Speedwell asserts that his ship cannot cross the Atlantic. They put back to Plymouth: they there leave the Speedwell, and those whose courage failed them, and to the number of one hundred one once more they commit themselves to the winds and waves, trusting to the good providence of God.

Let us glance for a moment at the circumstances and characteristics of this company. They were bound together by the strong bonds of religious sympathy—united in interest and purpose, they expected to endure, to suffer, to rejoice together for many years, even to the end of life.

Prominent among them was William Brewster, the ruling elder and lay preacher, already mentioned, who was to supply the place of the pastor, Robinson. He was a man of education, of refined associations, and above all of a lovely and Christian spirit. "He laid his hand to the daily tasks of life, as well as spent his soul in trying to benefit his fellows—so bringing himself as near as possible to the early Christian practices; he was worthy of being the first minister of New England." There was also the dignified and benevolent John Carver, the worthy governor of this band of Christian exiles, who in the cause laid down his fortune, and at length his life—for he soon sank beneath the hardships to which he was unused. These two were comparatively old men, but most of the "Pilgrim Fathers" were in the bloom and vigor of life.

William Bradford was but thirty-two, earnest, sagacious, true and steady in purpose, "a man of nerve and public spirit;" self-educated, and so ardent in the pursuit of knowledge, that amidst all his trials and labors, he accumulated books, and found time to read and even to study them. As a farmer's boy in England, as a dyer in Holland, as the governor of a small nation in the wilds of America, he acted well his part.

Edward Winslow was "a gentleman born," with a mind cultivated by travel and books; gentle in manner as in spirit, his soul melted at the sorrows of others. Miles Standish was a soldier, fearless, but not rash; impetuous, but not vindictive: though not a member of the church, he was strongly attached to its institutions and to its most rigorous advocates. Winslow was twenty-six, and Standish thirty-six years of age.

----------==========**********O**********==========---------

I think I could get to like this guy Standish.
Even though, according to Ed, none of these guys were "theocrats."


Forget the "christians" you see on TV and radio.
The Christians who came to the New World were rugged, Godly Theocrats. These are the kind of people who have been stripped from public school history texts, and replaced by multicultural pagans and lesbians. The Puritans' vision of an evangelized world under God's Law, "with liberty and justice for all" has been replaced with the dark, nihilistic world of "DOOM" and "Duke Nukem."

No wonder kids are being shot in schools.


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/08theocracy.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

| | E-Mail | | Home | | V&FT