：• • • • • • • •• • • • . . .، ، ، ،* * * * ſ;Ľ• • • • • • • •© & »Eae ſººſ º ，，，，，，，ºººººººººººººººººººº|×××××ð，●• • • • • •∞，∞ √∞ √∞ √° √∞',w’，Cae'， '，
-، ، ، ،----·o • .·
： -· ·· -• ！
* * , ，-* . . . . . . . . . .º ：
º.º: ºſ ***.**.**::：:：:：::：:：:：：:：：： ~~
----- -ſºººººſº;¿±1
«“


f
|
:
:
TIIIſ...I.V., fºr: UNITUTITUTIII
[[[III]IIIſºſ
º * v-w & N.
tnIVERSITYºuſſiºn
* . . .
- i) ſº
;
§
i
w-
|-
º!
L
.-
-º
§
S
-
2.
ºr º
• . *
~~
s—sº
&
tº- . . S -- •. - - 5.
SNN\Sºlº - - - , , ; - Yºº--a .
ºğNSºlºv ºr ºt C. U M S tº * -- " -- - -
º - ºf 3 “ . . . . . - Tº cº- . . . . . 2’ A. :-
* ... Y * Sºi - - - - - - >”21'º,
- * * *W.A . sº. " " ...<--> *-
H
––– “N
sº -
TITF
- III]
•º assº ºvº º 'º - a ºr a
| | || |
T º
E











































Tº K
7.2, 10
. N. H. .
S 32.
ſº
!).
º e
§§§
|*
;
§*
S
ſº
º * -
º §. §.
º
s
º
s
SS:
*
f
Tºº § , - I |||| | ||||

HISTORY
OF THE

FREE CHURCHMEN
CAL LED
THE BROWNISTS, PILGRIM FATHERS
AND BAPTISTS IN THE
DUTCH REPUBLIC
N 1581–1701
JS & |
t º, BY THE LATE > , '' ')
J. DE HOOP SCHEFFER, D.D.
Professor of Church History in the Mennonite College and
in the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
9, ',
With a Memoir, translated from the Dutch
EY
J. D.E. Hoop SCHEFFER
WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS, A.M., D.D., L.H.D., Editor
AUTHOR O lº
“The Pilgrims in Their Three Homes,” “Young People's
History of the Pilgrims,” “Brave Little Holland,”
“The Americans in Holland,” Motley's
Dutch Nation,” etc.
Honorary Member of the I.iterary and Scientific
Societies of Middelburg, Leyden and Leeuwarden
ANDRUS & CHURCH
*
ITHA CA, N. Y.
ERRATA
Io, #6; iſanbury, read printing.
. 21, for Tenant, read Tenent.
. 3 I, for Anapaptists, read Anabaptists.
. 49, for Liberty, read liberty.
. 69, for Isreal, read Israel. -
. 158, for Schwenchfelders, read Schwenkfelders.
. I67, for alice, read Alice.
184, for principle to, read of, and add after Lutherans, quotation
marks.
For all other misprints here unnoted, the editor begs the indulgence
of readers. - - -
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
HOROUGHNESS, exactness, and precision are indis-
pensable qualities in a historian.
Professor Dr. J. G. de Hoop Scheffer, did not lack these
qualities, as is clearly shown by his principal work, the
History of the Reformation in the Netherlands, from its
origin till 1531. (German translation by Dr. P. Gerlach,
entitled : Geschichte der Reformation in den Niederlanden
von ihren Beginn bis zum Jahre I 53I).
Reviewers highly praise this book, stating unanimously,
that not one martyr of the period was overlooked. No
wonder All over the country, keepers of archives and
searchers were most anxious to be of service to him.
Among his papers, bundles of transcripts of legal sentences,
private correspondance, annotations, inscriptions in family-
bibles, etc., etc., were found after his death. Hoping that
new material might still turn up, the author postponed
repeatedly the publication of his book. When at last it
was produced, the subject was altogether exhausted.
Yet this method has its drawbacks. It caused the failure
of our author’s purpose in life : to write a complete history
of Menno Simons and the Mennonites. True, new sources
of information were opened, unpublished documents con-
sulted, a considerable quantity of materials amassed,—but
the book itself was left unwritten. In vain his friends
pressing him to give the results of his labours and researches,
declared themselves satisfied with a concise history, if he
would but write such a work. Dr. Scheffer held to the
principle, that the more extended and elaborate work should
precede a smaller history.
Though living to the age of seventy-four, the time proved
to be too short for this seeker after truth.
Jacob Gysbert de Hoop Scheffer was born on the 28th of
407507
jv BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
September, 1819, at the Hague, Holland. [He died at
Amsterdam December 31, 1873.] -
From 1837-1843, he was educated at the Mennonite Col-
lege in Amsterdam and at the University of Utrecht,” in
which he was given the degree of B.D. In 1870 in recog-
nition of his merits as a historian created D.D., honoris
causa, by the Leyden.” University. In 1872 he was elected
a member of the Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences. In
addition he held the diplomas of several literary and scien-
tific societies. Among others that of the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, Pa. After having minis-
tered in the Mennonite Church, as preacher, he was in
1859 appointed professor at the Mennonite College in
Amsterdam. From 1877, he held also the same office in
the Municipal University of Amsterdam, being the last pro-
fessor of that faculty who entered upon his office with an
inaugural address in Latin. This was entitled : ‘‘De
providentia divina Teleiobaptistas Neerlandicos ab exitio
vindicante.’’
During this period Dr. Scheffer displayed his prefer-
ence for the study of the history of religious sects and
societies. In 1862, the emeritus professor of the said
* ACADEMIAM, RHENO-TRAIECTUM
Matrem . Almae . Matris . Nostrae . Salutatamus
The . Trustees . Faculty . Alumni . and friends . of
RUTGERS : COLLEGE
AT - NEW BRUNswick . NEw JERSEY . U. S. A.
whose early , development . was . greatly . aided through
REv. JoEIN H. LIVINGSTON D.D.
A. Student. in . Utrecht. University. 1768-1770
Rear . this . Tablet. in . Grateful . Appreciation
A.D . I909
** At Leyden University, as Peacock’s Index shows, when the ter-
centenary was celebrated in 1875, nearly five thousand British and
American students had been educated, while the English Universities
were closed to the Free Churchmen.—ED. º
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE V
Mennonite College, Dr. Muller, sought his assistance in
furnishing to Mr. B. Evans, for his “Early English Bap-
tists '' the desired information on some Baptists, who
joined the Waterland Mennonites in 1615. Dr. Muller
(Evans, Early Baptists, I. p. 22O) says: assisted by one of
the two professors of our Seminary,” which refers to
Dr. Scheffer. -
This essay appeared in 1880, but the researches for Evans'
book had already turned Dr. Scheffer's attention to the
history of the Brownists. [Free Churchmen or Congrega-
tionalists—the Pilgrim Fathers being so called]. He had
the good fortune to discover a Dutch translation of John
Smyth's confession of faith, (see appendix H). The Eng-
lish original of this had in 1738, been lost : but was re-
covered in 1871, by Dr. H. M. Dexter in the library of
York Minster.
Meanwhile, Dr. Scheffer contributed historical studies to
various periodicals, especially to the ‘‘Doopsgezinde Bijdra-
gen.” (“Mennonite * Contributions.’’)—an annual which
he edited from 1870 until his death. These publications
attracted attention and his methods of investigation were
appreciated. Perhaps, too, his critical eye and trenchent
pen—continually at war against false quantities and inac-
curacies—were somewhat feared. Be this as it may, many
an author thought it desirable to have his work revised by
Dr. Scheffer, before publication.
In England Robert Barclay expressed his obligations to
the Amsterdam professor for his revision of the Chapter on
Menno Simons in his book “The Inner Life of the Religious
Societies of the Commonwealth, London, 1876.’’
Judge [the late Governor], Samuel W. Pennypacker of
Philadelphia, Pa., wrote to me, February 8, 1894 : “I
* The best and latest historical accounts of the Mennonites in
America, their recent literature, etc., etc., are to be found in the
Encyclopedia Americana, of 1919.-E.D.
vi BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
learned with the greatest regret of the death of your father,
with whom I had the pleasure of corresponding for many
years and also the pleasure of meeting when I was in
Amsterdam in 1890. His extensive literary acquirements
and his thorough research will cause his loss to be felt in
America, as well as in Europe. I presented your letter to
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania of which he was a
valued and honored member.’’
W. H. Whitsitt, professor at the Baptist College of
Louisville, Ky., Dr. Nippold, the learned professor of
Church history, first at Bern, next at Jena and others in
their labors regularly consulted Dr. Scheffer.
Several unrevised articles in the encyclopedias showed
the need of Scheffer's researches. Yet he was not only the
referee of authors and scholars, but not a few wealthy
Americans of Netherlandish descent applied to him for the
missing links in their family-chain. In such cases this most
scrupulous scholar, whom nothing would have induced to
write against his convictions, or to testify anything without
clear proofs, delivered only sterling golden links. When-
ever an American tells you that, according to Dr. Scheffer's
statement, he is of Dutch descent, you may be quite sure
that the statement is true, even if his name in the course of
time has been ever so much changed, translated or corrupted
by foreign tongues—even though you find the name among
the Mayflower’s list of passengers.”
No advertising was required to keep that curious corre-
spondence between Americans and the Amsterdam historian
alive. Even after his decease Dr. Scheffer's family received
* No fewer than eight nationalities were represented in the Leyden
Church and the Plymouth colony and when in the Republic several
of the Free Churchmen, late in 1797 called first “Pilgrim Fathers,”
wrote their names in Dutch form and spelling. See the “Young
People's History of the Pilgrims,” Boston, 1920, and in J. D. Sawyer's
“History of the Pilgrims and Puritans; their Ancestry and Decend-
ants,” New York, 1922.—ED.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE vii
both letters and visits of these planters of genealogical
trees. His death took place on the 31st of December, 1893.
The seeker after further biographical particulars concern-
ing J. G. de Hoop Scheffer may be referred to the Ency-
clopedia of Living Divines, edited by Philip Schaff, D.D.,
and Samuel Macauley Jackson, M.A., New York 1887;
in which he is one of the fifteen Dutch theological professors
mentioned in the work.-J. DE HOOP SCHEFFER.
Amsterdam, I 92 I.
HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
IN HOLLAND
INTRODUCTION
WO sections of the Christian Church, whose numbers,
in the countries in which the English language is
spoken are now reckoned by millions, originated in the
Netherlands over three centuries and a half ago. The
refugees found freedom in the Dutch Republic ; the Inde-
pendents or Congregationalists at Leyden, the Baptists at
Amsterdam.
Few periods of American history have the attraction for
students like that one in the decade from 1620 to 1630. In
this period the Independents, or Pilgrim Fathers, settled at
Plymouth. After the precedent of success given by these
pioneers, came the Puritans.
To investigate Pilgrim origins, to learn the life, character
and purposes of the founders of Plymouth colony, to trace
out the motives and causes of their leaving Europe, have
been during the last seventy years tasks in which the ablest
American historians have spared neither time nor toil.
Every vestige in writing in England the Netherlands has
been sought out and the Dutch and English archives ran-
sacked. Books so scarce as to be almost unobtainable, have
been reprinted and for others searches were begun long ago,
which have continued to this day. Enthusiastic scholars
crossed the ocean many times in order to glean in this field
of history and to collect information in reference to their
all CeStorS. -
These untiring efforts excited attention in England and
prompted the scholars, Hanbury, Fletcher, Marsden,
Hunter, Waddington and others to issue monographs
throwing light on ecclesiastical affairs in the reign of Eliza-
beth and James the First, and thus in the movements of
INTRODUCTION ix
colonists to America. Not less creditable in this depart-
ment are the labors of George Weber of Heidelberg and
Hermann Weingarten. The former in the second volume
of his Church History of England (1845), dealing with the
Puritans; the latter, in 1868, on the first forty pages of his
excellent work “Die Revolutionskirche Englands'' (The
revolutionary churches of England).
Was it to be wondered that at first, little aid came from
Holland, especially since the Republic during ten, twenty
or more years had sheltered numbers of these colonists, be-
fore they started thence to New England 2 Many of their
writings, too, were published at Middelburg, Leyden and
Amsterdam. Surely in Holland if anywhere inquirers
should look for authentic data concerning their fortunes,
adventures, their religious and social life, and the causes of
their departure to the Western Hemisphere.
Dr. N. C. Kist, (1803-1859) professor of Church History
at Leyden, was the first and for awhile the only one among
the Hollanders devoting himself to this subject. To the
“Nederlandsch Archief voor Kerkelijke Geschiedenis''
(Netherland Archives for Church History) vol. VIII, 1848,
a periodical he edited with his Utrecht colleague, H. J.
Royaards, from 1841 to 1849, he contributed a paper on the
Father of the Independents, the celebrated John Robinson.
To some extent, Dr. Kist followed the lines laid down by
his predecessors Georgius Hominus in his book “De Statu
ecclesiae Britanniae hodierno,” I 647, and Johannes Hoorn-
beck in his “Summa controversiarum religionis” (Lib. X,
De Brownistis, page 738-833) and in his ‘‘Epistole de inde-
pendentisme,’’ 1658 and 1660. Dr. E. B. Swalue, a disci-
ple of professor Kist, enlarged, in 1859, his Dutch transla-
tion of R. Baird, “Religion in America ’’ and of W. H.
Bartlett, ‘‘the Pilgrim Fathers,” with a few particulars on
the Brownists of Holland, which, however, are far from
being correct in details.
X INTRODUCTION
One should have expected that the affixing, in 1864,
under the auspices of Rev. Henry Martin Dexter of Boston
and Professor G. E. Day then of Cincinnati, of a commem-
orative tablet in stone on the front of the house, on the site
of Robinson's dwelling in Leyden, and the exertions of
Some Americans to mark by an appropriate memorial the
place of embarcation at Delfshaven would have served as
impulses to fresh researches. Not so
Still less attention than to the Brownists or Independents
of Leyden was paid to the history of their fellow-believers
of Amsterdam. This was hardly with good reason. In com-
parison with the Amsterdam Brownists, Robinson's congre-
gation came but slightly in contact with the Dutch.
In the beginning at least, the Pilgrims exerted little in-
fluence in Europe. The Amsterdam Brownists, on the con-
trary, maintained regular relations with England, and an
influential part of their number returned thither, among
them was developed a form of Christianity, which is still
increasing and has powerfully affected the world’s history.
The Baptists founded Rhode Island and have shown them-
selves a mighty power among all English-speaking peoples
and on the foreign missionary field.
Robert Barclay, a worthy descendant of an illustrious
namesake conclusively demonstrated in his work “The
inner Life of the religious Societies of the Commonwealth,”
that whoever wishes to be well acquainted with the innum-
erable religious sects in England in the time of the pro-
tectorship ; whoever wishes to understand historically the
action of George Fox and his “friends,’’ should first of all
direct his attention towards what happened in the Nether-
lands, whether among the natives or among the English
exiles at Amsterdam, in the beginning of the seventeenth
century.’’
The agitations, differences and separations of that period
exercised an immense influence over the ecclesiastical and .
INTRODUCTION xi
religious life of England. Moreover, without an exact
knowledge of these conflicts, many phenomena of Protestant
christianity in Holland, also, cannot be understood. Most
of the Separatist movements in the Netherlands, to which
a few pamphlets refer and in particular the multitude in or
about 161 I, and the reprinted mystical writings of the
Reformation were lost sight of in the great controversy
between the forces of Dutch Calvanism and Arminianism
led by Franciscus Gomarus and Jacobus Arminius.
Many, however, “pressed on,” showing the love of
separations, of innovating conventicles, of opposition to
hierarchy, to ecclesiastical doctrines, often indulging in
morbid enjoyments of pietism and mysticism. These highly
important facts have been for the most part overlooked by
historians.
Beyond all doubt continued research would have made it
clear that the intercourse of Dutch people with the for-
eigners settled temporarily in Holland, more particularly
with the English exiles, had a notable influence on the
development of Christianity on the Continent. -
The history of those exiles may not therefore be neither
unacceptable or uninteresting.
The pamphlets from or relating to the Amsterdam
Brownists are to be found mainly in the British museum,
the Lambeth Library at London, the Bodleian Library at
Oxford, and the Libraries of Christ College and Emannel
College at Cambridge. -
To W. H. Whitsitt, professor at the Baptist Seminary of
Louisville, Ky., for the loan of transcripts and copies of
these documents and to B. Hanbury's “Historical Memo-
rials relating to the Independents,” I am much indebted.
From the Amsterdam Municipal Archives, the Archives of
the Dutch Reformed, the Walloon Reformed churches, and,
more important than either, from those of the Amsterdam
Mennonite Church, I have drawn much pertinent informa-
xii INTRODUCTION
tion hitherto unknown, which throws new light on the stay
of the Brownists in the Dutch Republic from about 1580 to
I6 I5.
The first portions of these lectures were delivered prior to
the publication of H. M. Dexter, “The Congregationalism
of the last Three Hundred Years as seen in its Literature,”
so that I could, for the second part only, and in the appen-
dices avail myself of that admirable work, dealing with the
Brownists (pp. 255 to 356). It is gratifying to see that
both of us, independently of each other, often arrived at
the same conclusion. Dr. Dexter had at his disposal a
multitude of pamphlets*—245 of which covered the period
now under review—while I enjoyed the advantage over him
of a greater familiarity with local circumstances, and of
being enabled to investigate archives, unknown or un-
searched, by that eminent scholar.
J. G. DE H. S.
* The entire and extremely valuable collection made by Dr. H. M.
Dexter is now in one of the alcoves of the Yale University Library.
In the Congregational Library in Boston and at Cornell University,
Ithaca, N. Y., are also collections of Pilgrim Father's literature.—ED.
EDITOR'S PREFACE
HE story of the origins of American freedom and of de-
mocracy must ever be a subject of interested inquiry.
It may be that, heretofore, students have paid a dispropor-
tionate attention to what was phenomenal and on a vast
Scale, and that not enough scrutiny has been bestowed upon
the intangible but potent forces. -
Truth is truth under all forms, whatever be its garb or
environment. One of the subtle proofs of this is seen in
the Master’s teaching. He gave not one but two parables.
He showed both the visible and the invisible working of
truth for the coming of the Kingdom.
The correlation and mutual witness of ancient scripture
and modern science are especially illustrated in the realm of
chemistry. He who did both reveal and live the truth told
us of the great tree, visible and vocal, but he also called
our attention to the potency of the leaven, unseen but
transforming. In the one instance, the multitude take
notice, in the other the thoughtful are more interested.
So also even in the full blaze of modern discovery, the
Once ‘‘ rare metals '' and unknown elements disturbed the
calculations of experts in the laboratory and confused the
reactions expected and wrought under the fingers and eyes
of the most skilful. Yet, in our own day, we know that
these potencies, now in measure revealed, affect the uni-
verse. Men have begun to split the atom and new forces
are in process of revelation and release. Our fathers were
accustomed to limit both time and space, but now, to these,
who dare fix boundaries 2 Yet God bids us seek and
inquire—“concerning the work of my hands, command ye
me.’’
In history, fewer than five of the uncounted centuries of
this world’s development have passed, since Christians, in
xiv EDITOR'S PREFACE
the great Reformation, broke the yoke of ecclesiastical
feudalism. Scholars have perhaps paid too much attention
to popes, cardinals, emperors, kings, state church bishops,
and other politicians, or holders of the power, on which
they put the labels of “spiritual '' and “temporal.” Or,
the mighty leaders of thought and organization, Zwingli,
Luther, Calvin, Knox have been too much in the mind’s
eye and in popular feelings, while the humble and obscure
have been ignored. - -
Nevertheless a study of the more inconspicuous, but
none the less potent forces, in the form of spiritual democ-
racy, may be worth while. After great triumphs, we
inquire into hidden causes. For the true understanding of
human progress such scrutiny yields results analogous to
researches into the material structure of the universe.
Radium is not abundant, nor, until recently, was even its
existence suspected.
We have all heard the story of the British Separatists, or
Free Churchmen, in England, Holland and America. The
tercentenary of these Pilgrim Fathers—nameless as such
until 1797—has been celebrated in Holland and by all the
English-speaking nations. Their story and their part in
the making of the United States of America has been told
in art, eloquence, pageant and 11terature.
Yet the Anabaptists, so long the pariahs of history, the
Mennonites, the Walloons—-first home-makers of Distinctive
America, that is, the Middle States Region—and the
Quakers were none the less Pilgrim Fathers. They, like
Bradford, in his History of Plymouth Plantation, described
themselves in the language of Hebrews XI: 13 as “pilgrims
and strangers on the earth.” Yet, we repeat, it was not
until 1797 that the term “Pilgrim Fathers’’ was heard.
Now, it has become a battle cry, a watchword for religious
orthodoxy and even for political propaganda, Almost
dramatic were the contrasts in the celebrations of 1920. In
EDITOR'S PREFACE XV
Holland, the note was religious and historical. In England,
two-thirds of the true Pilgrim history was in shadow, but
contemporary politics were in the lime light.
So the prophecy is here ventured that the names of the
so-called “obscure sects'' –the refugees who, being pil-
grims and strangers in a world of belated thought governed
by force, become a ‘‘noble army of martyrs’’ — will yet
come to greater honor, fame and glory. Even their blood
cries out from the earth which it once reddened.
A life time's experience has taught this to the editor of
Dr. Scheffer's manuscript; for, in his own land, he has
beheld freedom and uplift for the retarded races, black and
red. In the world of politics and diplomacy, he has seen
the once hermit nations of the Far East become World
Powers, basing their political hopes on freedom of con-
science and general education in the public schools—ideas
and institutions of which the Dutch Republic which shel-
tered ‘‘the sects'' was the original home. -
So the day will come when, from underneath the mass of
malignity, ignorance, misrepresentation and caricature, the
followers of leaders like Hubmaier, Robert Browne, Menno
Simons, William the Silent, Roger Williams and William
Penn, will win the world's honor. The church politicians
and dogma makers have had their own way long enough.
It will be discerned more clearly that “where the spirit of
the Lord is, there is liberty.” Men have been too long
misled by dazzling appeals to the senses, by the false claims
of hierarchy and by the endless definitions of doctrine, all
of which have been made into engines of spiritual oppres-
Sion. -
The experiment of democracy in the United States of
America and of the growth of the Free Churchmen—among
these being Baptists, now the largest of the denominations
of Reformed Christianity—confirm the word of the Master
as to the power of ordered freedom in the gospel. Yet the
xvi EDITOR’s PREFACE
work of plowing up ecclesiastical imperialism must go on
for a grander harvest that shall bless all nations.
It was the glory of the Pilgrim Fathers that in England
they broke the yoke of Norman feudalism, under which a
bishop was the “King's man '' and the political sovereign
recognized as the very image of God on earth. In doing
this, they helped powerfully, also, to bring in this freer and
more enlightened Mother Land of today, with her brood of
stalwart, self-governed nations. We all know the Pilgrim’s
story and rejoice in it. We shall yet know the Walloon's
part in the making of America.
But what of those left behind in the Dutch Republic,
after the Speedwell sailed P
To this question, well worth the asking, Dr. Scheffer
gives full answer, from the original records and after win-
nowing much chaff of later fancies.
Is it too much to believe that there are those who, after
perusing his narrative, will hold the conviction that these
‘‘Brownists,” in their evolution, were Europe’s van leaders
in true spiritual progress 2 º
Though the pitiful limitations of their human nature
were manifested and are here unsparingly exposed, in their
different forms—those of pinching poverty, heart sickening
exile, lack of unity, and lowliness of environment, instead
of wealth in palaces and power in courts and on thrones,
they entered upon the shining path of spiritual freedom,
ever looking forward. They pointed the further way.
They prepared a rich heritage of truth for posterity. To-
day their offspring, in numbers as the sand of the sea, or
the stars of Heaven, lead the host of Reformed Christendom.
Even apart from what, under God, was the supreme
result now manifest to all men, the students of American
history, of democracy in its beginnings, and even of gene-
alogy will find Dr. Scheffer's narrative of greater interest,
of richer elements of fascinating interest, and of more last-
EDITOR'S PREFACE xvii
ing value than hundreds of the ephemeral and popular
literary productions of this year of grace, 1922. This is
a story of roots, the fruits from which all of us, even
when revilers and detractors, now enjoy.
Those humble folk came into contact with mighty men
of world fame, such as Arminius, Plancius, Hoofdt, Robin-
Son, Junius and others. In their own body were men of
whose scholarship even the learned world today takes note.
The grand army of the world-encompasing Methodists
think of Arminius one of their spiritual ancestors, whose
name is usually associated, though in contrast or rivalry,
with that of Calvin.
Plancius was the learned man abreast of science and the
geographer, who handed Hendry Hudson of the Half Moon
his commission. The English pilot was sent to find the
North East passage to the Indies; but crossing the
Atlantic, in hope of finding a route to China, he discovered
Distinctive America, wherein lie the Empire and Keystone
StateS.
With the Consistory of those Walloon churches, number-
ing nearly a septuagint in the tolerant republic, there being
even more elsewhere, in Protestant lands, these Brownists
corresponded in Latin. Out of these churches went forth,
in 1623, the first home-making pioneers, with women and
children, to settle our Middle States. They were as God-
fearing and man-loving as the Pilgrim Fathers, their very
name Walloon meaning pilgrim, stranger, exile.
As in most lands, in which Church and State are united,
the civil magistrate being usually more tolerant, and shall
we say truly more Christian, than the clerics (?), the
Burgomaster Hoofdt of Amsterdam, whose history our
Motley loved so to read and that so often as to know nearly
every one of its pages by heart, favored the Free Church-
111621).
xviii EDITOR'S PREFACE
The Dutch Mennonites, from whom sprang Cornelis
Plockhoy,” the Delaware pioneer, “ father of modern social-
ism ‘’—of the sort now in modern life as generally accepted
and valued as a b c, or the multiplication table—settler,
social reformer and beginner of the literature of the Dela-
ware valley, the Brownists were as brethren beloved.
Of Robinson, and Junius, and others of more than local
fame, who lived in the Republic—which, and not England,
gave us all our federal precedents in the political history of
the United States of America, flag, constitution, seat of
government, freedom of religion and public schools—most of
us, especially those who read more than popular historio-
graphy, know well. Any one who peruses critically the
writings of the American fathers, Bradford, Williams, Penn,
Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and others,
know how freely they confessed themselves and our country
indebted to the Republic which sheltered Jews and Christians
of every name. One national debt to the Dutch is shown
in the red and white stripes of the flag, which signify the
equality of the states great or small ; while on their part the
Brownists taught the fact, fundamental in our democracy,
of the equality of the individual and the rule of the people
applied to church government.
In this day of woman’s enfranchisement and acceptance
of the logic of democracy an inside view of the life of those
who three centuries ago grappled with the great social pro-
*ONE : IN : CHRIST
To . the glory . of . God . and . in . lion or . of
PIETER : CORNELIS : PLOCKHOY : of : ZIERIKZEE
A pioneer . of . Christian . Civilization . in . America
Founder . of , the . Dutch . Colony at
Swaanendael . Delaware . U. S. A.
The . Netherlands. Society . of . Philadelphia
Read , this . memorial
September . I913
EDITOR'S PREFACE xix
blems, still in process of solution, will be welcome. Despite
the many books written on this theme, the study of social
and political biology is still in the primary stage.
It would be almost an insult to the bibliographers and
ambitious librarians to praise Dr. Scheffer's Work. A glance
through these pages shows the value to the book hunter
and lover of rare editions.
The results of few episodes in American history afford
such a fertile and satisfying field of genealogical research as
does that one of the sojourn, in the Dutch Republic, of the
people called the Pilgrim Fathers. The credit of this fact
is largely due to the Netherlands archives. No fewer than
eight nationalities were represented in this Leyden group,
usually supposed to be wholly English in their composition.
It was Robinson's church company, which sailed in the
Speedwell (and not the Mayflower party, “shuffled in ’’ as
Bradford tells us) which proved to be the soul and the most
influential, effective and finally victorious element in the
initial founding of our six Eastern states. In this Leyden
organism, we discern, not only a true type of our composite
American ancestry, but also of our federal republic of forty-
eight states, of which a possible hundred stars on the flag
may yet be the symbol. If our English brethren could but
understand that our national and federal political forms are
derived, with improvements, from the Dutch Republic and
not from that British monarchy, it would greatly clarify
their views and opinions concerning us, and the American
procedure of our government.
In the commingling of many nationalties in one political
brotherhood, the four Middle States surpassed every other
section, having on its soil the representatives of no fewer
than seventeen strains among the pioneers of Distinctive
America. These ultimately formed a compact unity amid
diversity, a true e pluribus unum, infused with the spirit of
toleration and compromise, which reacted upon the country
XX EDITOR'S PREFACE
at large. In the initial settling and cultural impact upon
the West, in centripetal power in binding the states in
federal union, the Middle Region excelled, and the reason
is patent. It was largely peopled by both natives of the
Netherlands and the pilgrims and strangers who had breathed
their first breath of freedom in the federal republic, in
which the moderate man and genuine Christian, William
the Silent was called the Father of his Country. The city
of Rotterdam became the chief gateway of continental
Europeans, English Separatists, Dutch, German, Swiss,
Walloons and French Huguenots to America, to enrich our
country with their gifts and graces.
It was the work of England, during the first century of
the Reformation, to win independence from Rome, to con-
solidate the nation, and to centralize all power of Church
and State in the throne. In this same period, Holland was
a laboratory for the trial and experiment of the greatest of
the problems which were to effect and create the modern
world. These were, defiance of both political and ecclesi-
astical despotism, freedom of consciene, the toleration of all
creeds, the possibilities of federal government, the solving
of problems and the settlement of principles that now lie at
the foundations of civilization. The Republic of the United
States of the Netherlands was then the van leader of
Europe. In such a school of experience, all our first
colonial military men and most of our founders of states
were trained, and the people of the Middle Colonies went
forth to make Distinctive America.
The editor, who met Dr. J. G. de Hoop Scheffer, in 1892,
at his home in Amsterdam, gladly pays tribute to the filial
devotion of the author’s son, the translator. He is glad to
present this contribution to what is essentially a part of
English and American history. The scattered children of
the Mother Land, during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, dwelling for the most part in the Swiss and Dutch
EDITOR’s PREF AcE xxi
republics, had perhaps as much to do with the making of
two of the most powerful nations of the world, relatively,
at least, as have now the mighty commonwealths, on five
continents, which are bound by the same ties of language,
culture, inheritances and free Christianity—let us hope—for
the world’s good.
NISI DOMINUS FRUSTRA.
W. E. G.
Pulaski, N. Y.
July 3, 1922
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . e e º 'º g tº tº º i
Biographical Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1ii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viii
Editor's Preface . . . . . . s & © tº $ tº $ tº º & © tº e º tº e xiii
CHAPTERS
I. The Rise of the Free Churches in England . . e I
II. The Brownists Flee to Holland . . . . . . . . . . . IO
III. The English Exiles in the Dutch Republic . . . I 7
IV. The Amsterdam Brownists Decline to join the Reformed 2
V. Henry Ainsworth's Confession of Faith . . . . . . . 32
VI. Principles and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
VII. Francis Johnson. His Life and Work . . . . . . . . 44
VIII. The Reformed, Dutch and the Walloons, or French-
speaking Belgialus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
IX. Grievances of the Brownists against the Dutch Reformed 56
X. Quarrels about how a Woman should dress . . . . . . 64
XI. Oppositions from Without. The Magistrate vs. The
Domine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
XII. John Smyth, who Baptized Himself . . . . . . . . . S8
XIII. The Two Free English Congregations in Amsterdam . 96
XIV. Flight of the Scrooby Independents to Holland . Io'7
XV. John Smyth Separates from the Brownists . . . . . . I IO
XVI. The Congregation of Francis Johnson and Henry
Ainsworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I IG
XVII. The Followers of Johnson and Ainsworth . . . . I 28
XVIII. The Settlement of the Free Churchmen in Amsterdam . 143
XIX. John Smyth's Change of Views to the Mennonites . . . I46
XX. John Smyth's Parting Words . . . . . . . . . . I 59
XXI. Fusion of Smyth's Followers with the Mennonites . . 163
XXII. Thomas Helwys and his Nine Adherents . . . . . . . I 59
XXIII. The End of the Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
APPENDICES
A. List of Marriages of English People living in Amsterdam,
from I597 to 1617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTs xxiii
G
. John Smyth's Earliest Confession of Faith . tº gº e is
. Letter of Thomas Helwys and His Church to the Consistory
. John Smyth. The Differences of the Churches. A Reprint .
List of Passengers on the “Mayflower”
#
of the United Mennonite Church in Amsterdam .
. Confession of Faith of the “True English Church'', under
Thomas Helwys in Amsterdam in Nineteen Articles .
. A Short Confession of Faith, in Thirty-eight Articles Termed
the Confession of Lubbert Gerritt and Hans de Ries
. Confession of Faith of John Smyth and His People, in One
Hundred and Two Articles .
I97
2O8
2 II
2I4
2I5
2I 9
INDEX
A PAGE
Ainsworth, Henry, ë e º º 17-24, 2, 36, 37, 53, 78, So, 81, 97,
99, IO5, IO6, Io9, II2, II8, II9, 12 I, I24, I27, 137, I43, I59
Ainsworthians . . . . . . . . . . e tº * * * . I 28, I39, I40
Ambassador, English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 85, 86
America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº gº tº te e º 'º e º & © tº I 3, 5 I
Ames (Amesius) . . . . . . tº e º 'º e º ſº e º 'º º e & . . IIQ, I4O
Amsterdam . . . . . . . . tº º & e º & e s a tº e º is a e º e
City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 94, III, I4I, I42, I43
Consistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº ſº tº tº gº tº . I 57
Mennonite Church . . . . . . . gº tº e º 'º a IOO, I64-I66, 179
Pilgrims, in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOO-I 4 I
Records . . . . . . . tº dº º º º e º 'º e º ſº * * * * * * * * 86
Scotch (English) Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 83, IOO
Anabaptists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 175, 176
Antwerp . . . . . . . . e º G & e & e º tº dº ſº tº e º & . . . . . 6
Apocrypha . . . . . e e º e g º º ſº º ſº e º 'º & e º tº º . . . IO4
Apostles' Creed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I
Apostolical Succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 13, 146
Argoll, Captain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 34
Arminianism . . . . . . . . e & e º e º e º 'º e e º ºs e & a e 97
Arminius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 27, 32, 55, 96, 18 I
Arnhem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº e º e º 'º e e s tº e º tº IO4
Austerfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Austin Friars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 87
Authority, Seat of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº ſº gº tº e º tº e & 38
B.
Babworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 29
Bakehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I43-I45, 166, 167, 169
Bancroft, Archbishop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Baptism . . . . . . . . . 5, 3I, III, II.3, II4, 123, 133, I49, I57, 18O
Baptists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, II4, 143, I50, 168
Baptists in the Netherlands tº e º 'º e º e º e . I 80
Barrows, Isaac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5, 47, 48, 49, 86
Barrowists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4, 20
Begyn Hof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, IOO, I42
Belgic Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Belguini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bentivoglio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
INDEX XXV
Bernard, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 90, 93, 94, IoS, Io9, II5
Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4C, 4 I, IO4
Bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4, I6, 77, 86, 90
Blackwell, Elder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32, I 34, I 35
Book Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . 47
Bradford, William . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 96, 98, IOO, IO2, I2O, 185
Brewster, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 86, 90, 85, I I7
Browne, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-I3, 46
Brownisten Gang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4 I, I42
Brownists . . . . . 7-9, I3, I4, 30, 31, 37, 62, 84, 86, 90, II6, I2O, I22,
I23, 127, 176, 181
Broughton, Hugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 78-80, 82
Burgess, W. N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4O
Burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I
Busher, L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176, 177
C.
Calvin, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, I23
Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 4, 6, 7, 94, IOI
Cambridge University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 76, 88, 89
Campen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, IQ
Canne, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4O, I4 I
Canterbury, Archbishop of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Caon, Noel Sir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Capital Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O
Carleton, Sir Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 86
Cartwright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, Io, II, 44
Catholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See Acoman Catholics
Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, IOO
Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 37, 98, II 2
Christmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O, I27
Christology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5 I, I52, I70
Church and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I, 9, 13, 35, 44, 49, ISI
Edifices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99, I 32
Theory . . . . . . . . . . . I, 6, 8, 13, 58-60, IOS, I2 I, I23, 13 I
Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, I31. See Discipline
Under the Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 2
Church of England . . . . . . . . . 74, 75, 77, 78, 89, I3 I, I 40, 172
Clapham, H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Classis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Clotlies, Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63-72
Clyfton, Richard . . . . . . . . . 90, 9 I, IO7, I IO, I I I, II2, II 5, I 32
XXV1 - INDEX
Colonies in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3, 5 I, I 34
Confession, Gallica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Confessions of Faith . . . . 32, 33, 52, 54, 75, IOO, I2O, I48, 150, I5I
Conformists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Congregationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Congregationalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9, 12, 93, 94
Congregations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Consistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I8, 55, 60, 61, IO5, IO6, I IO
Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See Gibbs
Coornhert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 184
Cranmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2
Cushman, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32, I35
D.
Deaconesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 98
Delfshaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II7
Delft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I IO
De Ruyter . . . . . . . . . . . ... e. e. e. e º s e º is e = e e º e . 45
Dexter, H. M. . . . . . . . . . . I3, 26, 33, 75, 96, 97, I27, I44, I48
Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 38, 58, 73, 80, IO5, I2 I, I49, I70
- See Church Gozerml?ſtem/
Dress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 See George Johnson
Dutch in England . . . . . . . . . e s e e o e s = • * 7, Io, I 9, 86
Dutch Reformed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
East India Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I43, I 44
Editor’s Notes . . . . . 7, 8, 15, 18, 19, 2I, 22, 24, 26, 33, 39, 40, 50,
77, 86, 99, IOO, II 7, 139, I40, I4I, 158, , 184
Edward the Sixth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Elders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5
s E
Ecluse, Jean de l' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I25, I26, I37, 140
Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2 I
Elizabeth, Queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7, I.3, I76
Emden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, I32, I 33
England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
English Churches in Holland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S2
English Exiles, Betrothals and Marriages . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Ecluse, Jean de 1' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-30
Established Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4
Excommunication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 80, I2O
Exiles . . . . . . . . . . 2, 30, 42, 52, 53, 75, 76, 78, 85, 87, 97, I 72
INDEX xxvii
F.
Familists . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * tº e º sº º is . . . I76
Festival Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O
Feudalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Flemish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46, I5 I
Fletcher's History of Independency . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33, 48
Franeher . . I4O
Free Churchmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Freedom of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, Ioo, I81
Freedom of the Press . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
French Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Frisians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I46, I5 I, I56
G.
Gainsborough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 93, 96
Genealogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº s
Geneva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 59
George III . . . . . & e º 'º º tº ge . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOO
Gifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5
Gomarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Greenwood, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4, 47, 49, 86
Gunpowder Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
H.
Hague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I7, 47
Hall, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, IJO-[2O
Hallam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Hampton Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Harderwijk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 50
Harrison, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, IO, I2, 46
Hebrew and Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO4
Helwys, Thomas . . . . . . IOS, II4, I48-I54, I69-I74, 177, I78, 183
Henry VIII
tº a º ſº gº tº e º sº e º e º ºs e º ſº e º 'º º ºs º º ... I
Hessians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOO
Holidays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O
Houses of Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I8, 99
Hudson River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I36
I.
Independents . . . . . . . . . . . IO4. See Pilgrim Fathers
Infant Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I, II9, 18O
Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I, I.33
Islington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 52
xxviii INDEX
J.
Jacob, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 74, 184
James, King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 76, 85
Jews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * e I 28, I39
Johnson, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 64, 72, 78, 79, 80
Johnson, Francis . . . . I6, 17, 32, 26, 42, 44-48, 64-72, 79, 86, 87, 88,
I 18, I22, 124, I.33, 181
Johnson, Mrs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64-72
Junius, Francis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 53, 62, 63
K.
Knox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
L.
Lambeth Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 97
Latimer, Hugh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Lawne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 28
1’Ecluse, see Ecluse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leyden . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I, 85, 96, II6-II8, 125, I26, 13 I, I39
Liberty of Conscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 26, 17, 99, ISI-184
Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 89
Liturgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4, 5
London, Dutch Church in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 86
Longfellow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Lord's Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 80, 90
Lord's Supper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 4 I, I52, 18O
M.
Marriages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, I6, 4 I, 82, 84, 185
Martyrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, I72, I75
Mary Tudor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
Masson, Prof. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Mayſlower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 7
Meeting Houses . . . . . . . I 28, 132, 137, I4I-I42 See Bakehouse
Memorial Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOO
Mennonites . . . . 8, 26, 30, 3 I, II2, II4, I46, I53, I54, 175, I76, 18O
Menno Simons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5 I
Middelburg . . . . . . . . . . 6, IO-I2, 18, 26, 44, 45, 46, 73, 74, 86
Morton, Nathanael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Munter, Jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I43-I46
Murton, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . * - - - - - - - - - 178
Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO3
N.
Naarden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. 7, 20
Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I48, 168
INDEX xxix
Napoleon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e tº ſº e º e º º ſº tº e s tº 5O
New Netherland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
New York . . . . . . . . . tº e g g g tº e º e º e º e º & © & 7
Nightingale, Rev. B. . . . . . e g º e º e º ſe e º e º ºs e º ºs I42
O.
Oaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I80
Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8, 33, 35
Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O, IO4
Organs . . . . . . . • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5
Original Scriptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO4, IO5, IO6
Overseers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO5
Oxford University . . . . . . . . . . tº e º tº º $ tº $ tº $ tº 76, 78
P.
Paget, John . . . . . . . . . . . tº $ tº e º sº º ſº tº 23, 25, IOO, I28
Pastors . . . . . . . . . e e º 'º tº tº $ tº º º ºs e º º º & & º IO5
Pennypacker, S. W. . . . . . . . . . . tº e º tº e º e º s º º
Perry, Jollll . . . . . * * * * * * e s e º e º & p * * * * I4-16, 5 I
Persecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 72
Perth Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Piggott . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº e º e º º sº e º & e & 7, IOI
Pilgrim Fathers . . . . . . . tº e s tº e º e º ºs e is e e I5, 24, S6
Plancius . . . . . . . e tº e º e º e º e º a s e º is tº e 60, 78, 98
Plymouth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Pratt, Waldo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Prayer Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 77
Priesthood of Believers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2 I
Presbyterians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 3, 99, IOO, I 39
Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, Io, 47, 63, 74, 85, 86, IO6, I37
Prisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I4, 49, 64
Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Pulpit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & © tº º ºs e e º te tº € $ . 39
Punishment, Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O
Puritans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 77, 94
R.
Raad van State . . . . . . e gº tº g tº e º 'º º ſº e º ſº tº ſº $ tº º S6
Raines Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 5 I, 56, 66
Raleigh, Sir Walter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3
Reformed Church . . . . . . . . . s & e s e º e . . . . . . 40, 6 I
Rembrandt . . . . . . . . . e s e e º 'º º e s tº e e º 'º e 2 I, I 39
Robinson, John . . . . . . . 38, 94, 95, IO7, IoS, IIo, I31, 135, I40,
I64, I74, I77, 182
XXX INDEX
Roman Catholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, II2
Rome, Church of . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * g e e s s is a I38
Rotterdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOO
- S.
Sabbath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O, I 7O
Servants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Schwenkfelders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I58
Scotch Brigade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOO
Scotch Church in Amsterdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10O, I39, I 45
Scotch Church in Rotterdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I45
Scrooby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9o, 94, 95, 97, too, roy, I to
Separatists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sillions, Menno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Singing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO3, IO4
Slade, Matthew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 56-58, 81, 82, 83
Smyth, John . . . . . . . 88-IO4 IO8, II5, 143-154, I59-162, 164, 182
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Speedwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II 7
.Sterns' History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Synagogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 28
T. -
Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2, 24, IOO, I42
Taffinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 32, 33, 55
Teliobaptists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II.3, 176
Texts Quoted . . . . . . . . . . . . 64–70, 73, IO4, II3, I22-I24, I42
Thorpe, Gillius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Toleration . . . . . . e e s e º e e s e º 'º e º 'º e º e 35, 99
Translations . . . . . . . 39, IO4, IoS, IIo See Original Scriptures
Tulp, Doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I39
|U.
Ursinus . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 99
Utrecht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Van Hout, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II6
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I34, I36
Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2 I
Voyages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5O, I 34
Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Walker, Williston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Walloons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 27-30, 33, 49, 8 I, 82, 83, I25
Welshmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I5
White, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 84
Widows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
William, of Orange (the Silent) . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 26, 181
Williams, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I, 26
Wincob, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I39
Wives and Daughters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Women Mentioned . . . . . I5, 16, 37, 59, 60, 63-72, 86, 97, 98, II4,
I23, 130, 148, I55, I76
Worksop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, IOS
Wybrands, R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I58, 165
CHAPTER I
THE RISE OF THE BROWNIST's
To inquiry as to the causes of the great stream of
English exiles into Holland during the reign of
Elizabeth and James I the answer is clear.
About I 57O ecclesiastical affairs in England were in a
most deplorable state. In utmost opposition of principles
parties stood to each other. The power of the State, so
far from promoting the unity of the Church acknowledged
by law to be the true one, roused to extreme vigor the
opposition of thousands, provoking more and more the
angry passions in human nature. The State enforced its
own will without regard to the feelings of possibly half of
the population.
It is known that, by act of parliament of the 3rd Novem-
ber, 1534, the Church of England was “established,”
which recognized Henry the Eighth, as well as his heirs
and successors to the throne as its only supreme head,
before long bowing down to him as to God’s deputy, and as
to the face of God (Dei vicem genero Deïque habens
imaginem).
In the bosom of that very church two factions were soon
contending for supremacy. The one was headed by the
Duke of Suffolk and Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. The
other was guided and seconded by Thomas Cranmer, Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Cromwell, the King's
vicar-general or vicegerent.
No sooner were the projected innovations carried into
execution, than Gardiner was in a temper to stand still, as
he thought the government organization and doctrine of the
Church as satisfactory as possible. Thomas Cromwell, on
the other hand, was desirous of gradual, but more radical
changes. The former and his adherents, indeed, saw their
influence steadily grow, and in 1540, caused Thomas Crom-
2 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
well's fall, and exercised absolute authority during the
last seven years of Henry’s reign.
Their triumph ended at the King's decease, January
28th, 1547. In the name of Edward the Sixth, then nine
years of age, the government of the realm was intrusted to
a regency which was exclusively under the power of the
opponent party. Its leader was Thomas Cranmer. In
I 552, the forty-two Articles of Religion, concurring in the
main with the tenets of the German and Swiss reformers,
were promulgated. The liturgy had still preserved many a
practise of the ancient Church, to both the abolition and
renovation of which the government was inclined.
The whole face of things, however, changed all at once,
for the young King died July 6th, 1553. Then the rigid
Roman Catholic, Mary, ascended to the throne, who, one
year after, was espoused to Philip II, later King of Spain,
a man of like spirit with herself. .
Her aversion to all innovations, introduced under
Edward's reign, was to be expected. She desired to restore
at once the order of things as Henry the Eighth had left
it. With the aid of Gardiner she ejected all priests, who
had given up the practice of celibacy. Shortly after she
began those severe persecutions, to which Cranmer fell a
victim by fire and in which all five thousand martyrs gave
up their lives.
Another thousand fled to Wesel, Frankfort, Geneva,
where they were heartily welcomed by fellow-believers.
These members of secret Reformed Churches under the
Cross dispensed with and later made it an article of faith to
abolish symbols. While seeking reality, they advocated the
most rigid republican principles with regard to the Church.
The refugees, particularly those established at Frankfort, ,
submitted willingly to the conditions under which they
were allowed to meet in a Church edifice, viz.: they should
not quarrel about outward forms or ceremonies and had to
sign the Confessio Gallica.
THE RISE OF THE BROWNISTs 3
It is true that they still made use of the Prayer Book of
Edward the Sixth, ordered from Geneva, 1554, through the
influence of John Knox; but they omitted the liturgy, re-
sponsories and some ceremonies. These people afterwards
took the name of Presbyterians. Other English exiles,
residing at Strasburg, Grindall, Chambers, Cox, protested
against these proceedings and strictly adherred to Edward's
liturgy, and so became the spiritual fathers of the Angli-
cans. Yet before they returned to their home land, the
two factions here came to an open rupture. -
The return of these exiles dates from about November
17th, 1558, or following Queen Mary’s death. Her suc-
cessor, Elizabeth, was greatly influenced by her former
confessor, Matthew Parker, who, December 17th, 1559, was
appointed to the See of Canterbury. In February, 1559,
she took upon herself the supreme direction of ecclesiastical
affairs. Four months later, she restored the liturgy of
Edward the Sixth.
Clinging close to the showy forms and ceremonies of the
Roman faith, she moulded as far as possible according to
her own notions, and in such a way as to win many Romish
subjects. Causes giving offence to the Popish laity were
expunged. Crucifixes and images might not be removed
from churches. Priestly vestments could, as hitherto, be
worn, and sacred hymns be chanted. Because of these
concessions conformed to the establishment, especially the
foremost leaders of the Anglicans, who next were elevated
to dignified positions.
The opposition to this arbitrariness was furious. The
heads of the contending factions during this period of great
scarcity of preachers, and while out of nine thousand par-
ishes only three thousand would be served regularly, pos-
sessed themselves of the pulpit and so commanded the
public mind and won respect. -
These earnest workers refused to comply with the re-
4 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
modeled liturgy. Though Elizabeth succeeded in bringing
about unity of doctrine by issuing Edward the Sixth's
forty-two articles, somewhat modified and reduced to
thirty-nine, the public worship gradually differed from the
prescribed uniformity.
This excited the Queen's indignation and she resolved on
putting an end to it by requiring the bishops to step in and
make use of the civil authority by Archbishop Parker, these
prelates published an advertisement, threatening to depose
every clergyman who did not at once conform himself to
the “established ” mode of worship.
Once again the majority submitted. Only a feeble minor-
ity persisted in its opposition. Parker gave these the con-
temptuous epithet of “Precisians.” The people ironically
called them ‘‘ Puritans.’’
Some of the leaders of these opponents: Sampson, Hum-
phrey, Whittingham, even the violent Withers, were shortly
afterwards tempted by considerable offices into clothing
themselves in the distinctive uniform of the clergy. Their
opposition was broken. They, however, were for the most
part replaced by far less flexible men, for the greater part
educated at the University of Cambridge.
Furthermore, the Church now having the power of law,
deposed a great many opponents in April 1566. The gov-
ernment on June 29, 1566, put restraints upon printing.
Those dragged from the conventicles were thrown into
prison June 19, 1567. Nevertheless, the claims of the Puri-
tans became stronger and stronger. Every day the numbers
refusing the authority of the political church was multiplied.
This progress continued during the four subsequent years.
Pope Pius V tried to force England to submit to his author-
ity. The conspiracy of Anne of Norfolk, the insurrection
in the North, fomented by creatures of the papacy, the
correspondence with Mary Stuart, the bull issued against.
Elizabeth continued to drive the English people into total
THE RISE OF THE BROWNISTS 5
opposition to papal authority. The aversion to what Savored
of Rome became intense.
So far, the continuation of various practices in the medi-
val forms of worship had been regarded with slight concern.
Hitherto the scruples of the Puritans were popularly deemed
absurd. Now, what was Roman in origin began to irritate.
Any compliance, most worshipers thought, was seconding
the Roman Catholics and raising their hopes of an early
triumph.
An increasing multitude began to think that the influence
of Rome could not forever be stamped out unless the
boundary line was drawn more clearly. Church order and
usage, or, in a word : discipline—a principle which gave
the name of Disciplinarists to the denomination—needed, it
was thought, a total reformation. The distinction between
bishops (overseers) and Presbyters (elders) was denied,
since in the New Testament all Christians were alike.
Nor did the reformers acknowledge the right of bishops
to have seats in parliament, or to take part in any other
government. The Scriptures know no archdeacons or
deacons as officers with authority; no spiritual courts using
secular power. The congregations should themselves
choose their own ministers. It was a scandal to appoint
dumb-ministers, pluralists and non-residents. A more strict
discipline should expel unworthy and impenitent persons
from the Lord's supper.
A liturgy with set forms—by preference that of Geneva–
was not objectionable, but an excessive use of the Lord’s
Prayer, continual responses by the laity, the officiating in
Popish apparel, the playing of the organ, should be disap-
proved. No holy days, no fasts, no kneeling at the Sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper, no bowing at the name of Jesus,
no sign of the cross, no godfathers at baptism when the
parents were still alive. The bans of marriage should be
proclaimed publicly in the church. Children of the age of
6 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
nine or ten should no longer be received as members of the
church. Sunday trading should be rigidly prohibited by
law.
These claims were set up by the Disciplinarist, Thomas
Cartwright, the friend of the eminent reformer, Theodore
Beza, and since 1569 professor at Cambridge, who was their
leader. He recruited numerous adherents chiefly from the
young clergy. His success sharpened his colleagues.
Chatterton and Whitgift's jealousy, who came to hate his
person. Contrary to the university’s wishes, but counte-
nanced by higher order, these colleagues succeeding at first
in suspending, and next in dismissing Cartwright. After
continued annoyances they even, in 1574, compelled him to
take shelter in foreign parts. He went to Antwerp, the
usual asylum of the Puritans, and afterwards joined the
English merchants residing at Middelburg. At both places
he served as pastor ; at Middelburg until 1585, when he
returned to England for the sake of his health.
Meanwhile, a new brotherhood arose in England. The
Puritans as well as the Disciplinarists were ever hoping by
their example and influence to reform the church from
within. They had never thought of leaving it. Cartwright
and his followers looked for religious reform and awaited
it at the hands of the civil government. When this had
been achieved they proposcq to leave the church substan-
tially under civil control.
In fact their theory of the church was as unsuited to any
genuine and thorough reform, as it was unscriptural in
essence, because it included the entire baptized population ;
trusting to church discipline to raise the general life up to
the Gospel level. In this was the same mistake as that
made by the papal system, which, with no difference in this.
vital respect, other than one of name, it was seeking to
Supplant.
A few thinking men lost patience altogether. They
thought the church with its gross abuses so corrupt that
THE RISE OF THE BROWNIST's 7
they openly preached separation from it as the only remedy.
In 158o Robert Browne, with his friend Robert Harrison,
put himself at the head of this party. Robert Browne,
born 1549, chaplain to the duke of Norfolk, when at Cam-
bridge, became imbued with Puritan principles, on account
of which as early as I 57 I, he had already been summoned
for trial. The first complaints against him as a Brownist,
were lodged with Lord Burghley by the Bishop of Norwich,
April 19 and August 2, 1581.
Robert Harrison, in the Queen's proclammation of 1583
(erroneously called “Richard Harrison), because a student
at the University of Cambridge in 1564, took his degree of
bachelor in 1567, graduated in 1572. and in 1573 was ap-
pointed master of the grammar school at Aylsham in Nor-
folk. Shortly after he was dismissed for having desired a
change in the mode of baptism, when he was standing as
godfather. Returning to Cambridge, he met Browne again,
who, since I 57o, had been a student there.
The two men agreed most harmoniously. The tie of their
attachment was further strengthened, when Browne, who
had recently scrupled to be made pastor by the bishop, in
the usual manner, was in Norfolk in the very circle within
which Harrison had grown up and both were “verie for-
ward ” in the reformation of the church.
Browne considered it a duty, that, as ‘‘ open and abomi-
nable wickedness” was in the parishes in Cambridge under
the anti-Christian control of the bishops, “everie true
Christian was to leave such parishes and to seek the Church
of God wheresoever.” No sooner was Harrison appointed
teacher at a hospital in Norwich than Browne left for that
place to reside with him.
In 1571 no fewer than 2925 Dutch and Walloon * or Bel-
* This word, Walloon, means pilgrim, stranger, exile or foreigner—
the same root being in the word walnut, Wales, Wallachia (and by
euphonic change) Galatians. The Walloons furnished the first set-
tlers who were home makers in New York and the Middle States.
See “Story of New Netherland,” pp. 22–27 and “Belgium, the Land
of Art.”—(ED.)
8 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
gian Protestant people were established at Norwich.
Among the Dutch Mennonites, who had fled thither from
the persecutions in their own country, a new mode of think-
ing respecting the spirit and organization of the Christian
Church or congregation was brought home to Browne. As
his new views were perfectly similar to that of these for-
eigners, it is evident that he acquired them from these
Mennonites.
Browne, however, did not think it advisable to own to
full facts in that case when he published his “True and
short declaration, 1584,” lest he might, in addition to ever
so many gibes, be reproached with the appellation of
“Anabaptist.” +
It was then, indeed, that Browne heard, for the first time
what the Mennonites had proclaimed more than half a cen-
tury earlier. In substance the Mennonite belief is this :
Every true believer has not only the right but is even
sacredly bound to form a church wheresoever he has found
none to join. Such churches should be utterly free and in-
dependent associations, subject to no power whatever, but
to that of Jesus Christ alone. They were authorized in the
New Testament to elect their own pastors, elders and dea-
cons without anybody's interposition. All faithful people
were equal in rank, and every hierarchical distinction came
of evil. In a word, Browne found among these people the
complete practice of what afterwards was termed in England
“Congregationalism.” They were Free Churchmen. Be-
sides, he got to know their views on God’s Kingdom, as
being one with the visible church ; the purity of manners
they exacted from the faithful; and the discipline with the
* This seems to be a sufficient explanation and proof of my belief
expressed as early as 1891, of the fact that Browne learned from the
Dutch in Norwich ; otherwise attempted to be explained by Dr. H.
M. Dexter in his “Congregationalism '' but apparently accepted by
the late Professor Williston Walker, with whom I talked on this
question.—ED.
THE RISE OF THE BROWNISTS 9
non-intercourse and excommunication resulting from this
view.
It is not surprising that just as the first Baptists stood
towards Rome, so Browne very soon stood towards the
Church of England. In his eyes it was a Babylon, a king-
dom of Satan, and communion with it was an abomination
to him.
This was the origin of the Separatists or separated Puri-
tans ; or, as called after him, of that of the ‘‘Brownists,”
or as later called Congregationalists, or Free Churchmen.
CHAPTER II
THE BROWNIST's FLEE INTO THE DUTCH REPUBLIC
HE Brownists had at first but one congregation. It was
at Norwich. According to George Johnson, Hunter
was its pastor, at the beginning of the seventeenth century.
But even this single church was objectionable to the State
Churchmen. They did not rest till Browne and his follow-
ers were hunted out of the country. Except the few, of
necessity compelled to stay, the rest, some fifty or sixty,
fled with Browne and Harrison to Middelburg, in the au-
tumn of 1581 (and not in 1585, as Price says in his “His-
tory of Nonconformity,” nor in 1584, as stated in Han-
bury’s Memorials). & ty
At Middleburg they found their former teacher Cart-
wright at the head of the congregation of the English mer-
chants. No durable union with these could be expected.
This is clear from the number of writings which they
published in the Republic in which Hanbury was free and
which were as well hostile to their persecutors as to Cart-
wright's partisans. The publisher was Richard Schilders,
or as placed on the title-page Richard Paynter, which is the
English translation of the Dutch name.
These writings are : “A treatise for reformation, without
tarying for anie, and for the wickednesse of those Preachers
which will not reforme till the Magistrate commande or
compell them ’’ (18 pages); —“A Booke which sheweth
the life and manners of all true Christians, and how unlike
they are unto Turks and Papistes and Heathen folke ’’
(I I I pages); –“A treatise upon the 23 of Matthewe,
both for an order of studying and handling the scriptures,
and also avoyding the Popishe disorders and ungodly com-
THE BROWNISTs FLEE INTO THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 11
munion of all false Christians, and especiallie of wicked
Preachers and hirelings ‘’ (44 pages;–all three in quarto
and published at Middleburg and written by Robert Rrowne.
Further; “A little Treatise uppom the firste verse of the
I 2.2 Psalm. Stirring up unto carefull desiring and dutifull
labouring for true Church Government'' (VI and 24 page
16°);–and “A letter intercepted from R. H. one of
Browne's faction discovering in part his great disliking of
the Browne's schismatical practises,” in 8°,-both dated
1583 and written by Robert Harrison.
To this last letter Cartwright answered with : “An
answere unto a letter of Master Harrisons '' (see Brook,
Cartwright page 3O4), to which Browne replied : “An an-
swere to Master Cartwright his letter, for joinying with the
English Churches.”
Collier, Brook and Hanbury represent that the Brownists
at first joined Cartwright’s church, but separated from it
afterwards. In Cartwright’s letter of 1583 we read :
‘‘Your first page had raysed me unto some hope for the
reuniting * of your selfe with the rest of your Company
unto us.”
The new congregation at Middelburg was not hindered
by the magistrates in the exercise of its religious worship,
though the members were not allowed to do so publicly, or
to propagate their doctrines. This was not ever granted to
the Puritans, according to the records of the consistory of
the Reformed Church at Middelburg, March 2 I and 28 and
* Now mark : not uniting but reuniting. All the same, Dexter
(Congregationalism, p. 75 note 71) denies it. However this may be,
I shall not decide between them. I shall only say that they joined
Cartwright's church, but for a short time. The great prejudices they
had against Cartwright, growing out of his not withdrawing from a
Church so very corrupt and so totally destitute of discipline as the
English one, had not died away. -
12 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
May 2, 1592. These strangers must worship in private
houses.*
From another side, the existence of the Brownists was
endangered. Internal dissensions arose. The rigid prac-
tice of strict discipline, or rather Browne's violent temper
and arrogance, were the cause. Provoked by the opposi-
tion he met, and at the instigation of his wife, thrice,
within two years, he threw up his ministry, each time yield-
ing to the entreaties of his partisans to fill it again.
Harrison, teacher of the church of which Cartwright had
said : “I shall willingly hearken unto any, much more
unto you, upon whom the Lord in mercy hath bestowed
good graces, showing better things,’’ was, in Browne's
eyes, too moderate.
Harrison had the largest number of adherents. Only
four or five families joined Browne, when, about December
1583, he left for Scotland where he remained fully two
years (and not simply three months, as Stillingfleet, in his
“ Unreasonableness of Separation,” misstates.)
Thenceforward Browne travelled up and down Scotland
and England, preaching where he could obtain hearers.
On these journeys, he underwent imprisonment no fewer
than thirty-two times. *
At length his influential family and friends, whose inter-
cessions from time to time procured his release, despaired of
* The following is the text of the Memorial bronze tablet in the
English Church edifice in Middelburg.
I582 I9 I3
ONE IN CEIIRIST
To the glory . of , the . Triune . God
In honor of . William . of Nassau and ...the hospitable city .
of . Middelburg and to the founders . of
Modern . Congregational . Order
Browne . Cartwright . Harrison
The . Congregational . Sunday . Schools . of . the . United
States , of . America . gratefully rear this . Memorial
September 1913
THE BROWNISTS FLEE INTO THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 13
protecting him any longer. Excommunication followed in
I 586.
It was about that same time, or somewhat later, that he
all at once changed his side.*
The fruitlessness of his efforts, perhaps still more than
the alluring proposals of his considerable family, actuated
him to abandon suddenly the cause which he had so strenu-
ously defended, and to recant all his opinions.
The loss of the perfidious apostate * was no heavy blow
to his adherents in England. More than ever they now
avoided the name of Brownists, while in the meantime more
learned and more serious persons joined them. Soon after
this their number increased to twenty thousand, as Sir
Walter Raleigh stated in Parliament, February 1592. Even
Shakespeare ‘‘played to the galleries’’ in mention of them
disparagingly.
On the other hand, the fury of opposition increased too.
To the demand of many members of Parliament to inquire
into the lawfulness of the persecutions against the Puritans,
Elizabeth responded by ordering, I 592, a bill of coercion to
be brought in. &
It was enacted, that any person above the age of sixteen,
who refused to attend public worship during the space of a
month, or who induced others to doubt of the supremacy of
the Queen in ecclesiastical affairs, or who dissuaded any one
to frequent the church, or to partake at the communion
table, and who himself attended religious assemblies others
than those of the Episcopal Church, should be committed
to prison. The delinquent should, within three months,
solemnly recant his sentiments, confess his errors, and sub-
{ {
* Dexter, (Congregationalism p. 81) says, that he was already made
master of Saint Olave's grammar school, November 21, 1586, but
Waddington (Cougregational History, p. 23) assigns February 2,
I589, as the date.
* Dexter's judgment on Browne is more favorable, rather too
favorable, I think.
14 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
mit himself implicitly, or otherwise adjure the realm, and
if he returned, he should suffer death.
This statute was a forceful weapon in the hands of the
ecclesiastical commissioners. Numerous imprisonments
were shortly followed by trials for treason and leze majesty,
of which the Brownists were accused, because of their non-
conformity with the Episcopal Church.
The prisons were soon full of Brownists confined for two,
and some even for four or five years. A few died there of
exhaustion and want. On one single day, April 5, 1593,
above fifty-six were thrown into prison, among whom was
their pastor, Francis Johnson, their teacher, John Green-
wood and their elder Daniel Studley.
A petition for an open disputation, to defend their views,
was contemptously refused. Nor was this even granted to
Henry Barrowe, one of the prominent and most learned
among the Brownists. A supplication to be admitted to
bail, according to their right of citizenship, in order to
meet the needs of wives and children, was also ineffective.
At length, as the poor prisoners persisted in their con-
victions, and as temptations and menaces were equally
powerless, the commissioners resolved on making an exam-
ple. The bishops were more inclined to do so, as they were
very desirous of displaying their power, and authority be-
fore the members of parliament, many of whom still doubted
the legality of the commissioners' rights. -
On April 6, Barrowe and Greenwood, and on May 29, 1593,
John Penry were put to death, accused of high treason.
Poor men . They never meddled with politics and never
asked anything of the State. On the contrary, they always.
displayed a most disinterested zeal for the welfare of their
country. They were ready, as they said, to shed their
blood in defence against the Pope and the King of Spain.
John Penry, expecting that, after his death, his followers
would be either scattered or perhaps banished, wrote a
THE BROWNIST's FLEE INTO THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 15
parting letter in the following terms : “And my good
brethren, seeing banishment with loss of goods is likely to
betide you all, prepare yourselves for this hard entreaty,
and rejoice that you are made worthy for Christ’s cause to
suffer and bear all these things. And I beseech you, in the
bowels of Jesus Christ, that none of you in this case look
upon his particular estate, but regard the general state of
the Church of God, that the same may go and be kept to-
gether, whithersoever it shall please God to send you.”
‘‘Let not those of you, that either have stocks in your
hands, or some likely trades to live by, dispose of yourselves
where it may be most commodious for your outward estate,
and in the meantime suffer the poor ones, that have no such
means, either to bear the whole work upon their weak
shoulders, or to end their days in sorrow and mourning for
want of outward and inward comforts in the land of
strangers. But consult with the whole church. Yea, with
the brethren of our places how the church may be kept to-
gether, and built, whethersoever they go. Let not the poor
and the friendless be forced to stay behind here. and to
break a good conscience for want of your support and kind-
ness unto them, that they may go with you.
“And there I humbly beseech you—not in any outward
regard, as I shall answer before my God—that you would
take my poor and desolate widow, and my liness of father-
less and friendless orphans with you into exile, whither-
soever you go ; and you shall find, I doubt not, that the
blessed promises of my God, made unto me and mine, will
accompany them, and even the whole church for their
sakes.’’
* The first “Pilgrim Father ” was the martyr, John Penry, the
Welshman. In his letter we have the first intinuation of the emigra-
tion of the Free Churchman, who became the “Pilgrim Fathers,” a
term first used in the year 1797.-E.D.
16 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
To his wife he wrote :
- ‘‘ 6th of the 4th Month of April, 1593
‘‘I am ready, pray for me, and desire the church to pray
for me, much and earnestly. The Lord comfort thee; be
not dismayed, I know not how thou dost for outward
things, but my God will provide. My love be with thee,
now and ever, in Jesus Christ. I besought the church to
take my poor or desolate widow, and my mess of fatherless
and friendless orphans with you into exile, withersoever you
go or commanded them to Him who will hear their cry, for
He is merciful.’’
His daughter, Deliverance, indeed, resided some time
with Francis Johnson. She married May 14, 161 I, at
Amsterdam.
Occasion soon appeared for these persecuted people tC)
take John Penry's wise advice. True, after the execution
of the three martyrs a great many prisoners regained their
liberty. But the severity, with which the Johnson's and
others were treated in prison clearly showed the bishops
to be quite serious, when threatening to remand all liberated
persons, who neglected to attend the State Church or
continued their conventicles.
CHAPTER III
THE EXILED BROWNISTS IN THE DUTCH REPUBLIC
ENRY A.INSWORTH, a young man of only twenty-
two years, who by his own statement was born at
Swanton—probably Swanton near Norwich—put himself at
the head of the fugitive Free Churchmen. Fletcher
(“History of Independence,” vol. II, page 209) misstates
that Francis Johnson was the leader, and that in the course
of a short time after Johnson’s settlement in Holland,
Henry Ainsworth joined him. The fact is, that Johnson
was then still in prison, and that he was not at Amsterdam
till I 597, four years after Ainsworth’s arrival there.
Despite his early age, Ainsworth proved to be, by his
foresight, by his excellent care for the brethren and by
strength of purpose, fully qualified for his difficult task.
He fixed on Amsterdam as place of settlement.
Fletcher again falls into a mistake when informing us
(vol. II, page 209) that Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the
Hague, Leyden and Utrecht were the principal cities of
refuge for the persecuted exiles. Now in 1593, Amster-
dam was the only one ; Leyden not till 1608. Of the other
places named no record is extant. Of Campen and Naarden
111 Olſe a 11 O1].
Why was Amsterdam chosen 2 Were they still in fresh
memory of the difficulties met by Browne at Middelburg P
In all probability, they were informed of the forbearance of
burgomaster Cornelis Pieterszoon Hooft and of the other
Almsterdam magistrates, who promised them more liberties
than they enjoyed in Zealand, at least afterwards. Joseph
Hall (“A common apology of the Church of England,”
page 124) says:– “hearing, both at Middleburgh and here,
that certain companies from the parts of Nottingham and
Leicester, whose harbingers had been newly in Zealand
before me, meant to retire themselves to Amsterdam for
their full liberty.”
18 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
It may also be, that it had come to their ears, that Am-
sterdam, envious of the benefits which the Middelburg
trade was reaping, an account of the English merchants or
adventurers dwelling there, was desirous of bringing in an
industrious population of Englishmen. Moreover the recent
extension of the town in 1593, enabled Amsterdam to
accommodate all the newcomers.
Of the attempts to draw these English exiles into Amster-
dam we read in Bentivoglio's Relazione di Fiandra :-‘‘sono
quasi tutti d’ Puritani d' Inghelterra, che per occasion di
commercio frequentan l’ Ollanda e le altre Provincie unite.
I Puritani Inglesi sono in Amsterdam quasi tutti per
l’istesso rispetto, e se ne trattengono alcuni medesimamente
per occasione di mercantia nella città di Middelburgo in
Zelanda.’’
Yet the right of residence in Amsterdam was something
to be asked for beforehand. The Reformed ministers took
the lead in reminding them thereof :—“non ex ullo pravo
adversus illos affectu,” as these ministers maintain in the
‘‘Epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae,’’ and surely, not
in a very friendly way. No sooner, indeed, had the Brown-
ists became intimate with one Israel Janszoon of Amster-
dam, and made arrangments for the regular exercise of
their public worship in his house, than the Reformed min-
ister Jacob Arminius on July 8, 1593, gave notice to the
Consistory. º
Being considered a matter of high importance, which
should not be connived at, Arminius was ordered to repri-
mand and keep a strict hand over Israel Janszoon, so as to
stop all further assemblies. (See Protocol of the said Con-
sistory,” II, 1589–1597, folio I I4 and I I 5.) ge
* Consistory is the name and title of the governing board of “min-
ister, elders and deacons” of a Reformed Dutch Church ; which was
adopted very early in the history, even in the days of persecution, of
these “churches in the Netherlands sitting under the cross.”
William the Silent thought it too ambitious, and too much like the
papal court of the same name. It is still the highest unit of authority
in the local church. The Great Consistory includes all living office
holders, present or past.—ED.
THE EXILED BROWNISTS IN THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 19
The Consistory even gave information of this matter to
the magistrate :-‘‘Nos enim cum eos huc appulisse et con-
ventus agere intellexissemus, officii nostri fuisse existima-
vimus et illos monere, ne quid abscue Magistratus venia
hic tentarent et simul Magistratui indicium de illorum con-
ventibus facere.” (Epistolae eccl. et theol. page 79 B).
Moreover, questions about the principles of religion were
propounded to the exiles, and to their persecutors in Eng-
land while to the Dutch Church in London” application
was made for information. More than this. The vigilance
of the Amsterdam Consistory was, indeed not yet laid to
sleep.
Very interesting was a placard from the rival city of
Campen, which was posted in several places in Amsterdam
and which read :
‘‘In the year 1592, on the fifth of December, it has
pleased the burgomasters, aldermen, council and jury, that
all persons of what nation soever, who, from this time forth,
between this day and May of the year ninety four, take
their abode and settle down in this city of Campen, to exer-
cise and practice their handicraft, trade and traffic, shall
enjoy, without and within the jurisdiction of this City, at
sea and on land, the same rights of citizenship and privileges
as are now enjoyed by all other citizens, without paying
any compensation for it,” etc. Book of Resolutions (Rec-
ords) of that City, I 587-1612 folio 16).
To cause this publication to be known widely, seven hun-
dred copies of it were printed, as entered in the municipal.
aCCOUltitS.
According to John Payne, some Brownists availed them-
selves of this invitation. It was bruited abroad and again
the Amsterdam Consistory interfered and wrote an admoni-
* Still in active existence at Austin Friars, off Bishopgate Street,
to whom the editor owes thanks for a copy to their printed records,
sent him in 192 ſ.-E.D.
20 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
tion to the Reformed at Campen. In aforesaid protocol
(folio 1 18, September 2, 1593) we read : “Whereas it was
learned that some Englishmen have settled down in Cam-
pen, and were received by the magistrate of Campen, with
civility and kindness, and whereas it was learned that they
are in England Schismatics, called Baroister (Barrowists),
who also sometimes repair to foreign parts, it has been
agreed to inform thereof the consistory, without any delay,
and to order Arminius to do so.”
No choice was left to the English exiles in Amsterdam.
They could only petition for the right of residence, and
leave Amsterdam at once, till a favourable answer had come
in. The petition referred to the “consensus in doctrine,”
certainly not as to the order of their church, etc., but ‘‘in
doctrina'' with the Reformed in Holland. (Epistolae eccl.
et theol. II, page 79 P.)
The exiles set forth for Naarden. In said “Epistolae''
we read, that the Church was at Naarden before it came to
Amsterdam. Hence they are called in the records of the
Holland Reformed congregation, October 12, 1595, and of
the Walloon church, February 12, 1596 : ‘‘the English of
Naarden ; ’’ ‘‘les Anglais de Naarden.” This, too, ac-
counts for the gifts the magistrate of Naarden sent for the
benefit of the Amsterdam Brownists, in 1595.
It is not surprising that the Reformed ministers were
consulted about the matter. These furnished the informa-
tion they had from England, including the highly unfa-
vorable and partial one of the Church of England.
The Reformed ministers of Amsterdam finding the burgo-
masters averse to any persecutions, thought proper to as-
sume an expectant attitude. This was done so that they
might afterwards be able when the English were allowed to
settle down in Amsterdam to say that it was not granted
‘‘invitis ministris,’’ and that they had never had the intent
to make opposition to it. All the same, Ainsworth and his
THE EXILED BROWNISTS IN THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 21
partisans maintained, and that rightly, that they owed the
grant exclusively to the magistrate.
At length, they had found a safe place of refuge. They
established themselves by preference in the new part of
Amsterdam, extend along the Inner-Amstel (Binnen-Am-
stel) from the old Reguliers Gate (Munt (mint) tower) to
the Blue Bridge and the adjacent low land neighbourhood
near the city-walls, now called Rembrandt Plain (Square”)
and Amstel Street.
After having made from England all preparations and ar-
rangements for the departure of these exiles, Ainsworth
joined the Brownists in Ireland, remaining only for a short
time. He came out of Ireland, with other poor, to unite
himself permanently with his fellow-believers at Amsterdam.
Soon after beginning his services as teacher of the congre-
gation, Ainsworth’s eminent talents displayed themselves.
He was a man of extensive knowledge, though he seems not
to have been educated in a university. Roger Williams, in
his book, “The Bloudy Tenant of Persecution for cause of
Conscience Discussed '' says of him : ‘‘ that most despised
(while living) and now much honored Mr. Ainsworth, had
Scarce his peere amongst a thousand Academians for the
Scripture Originalls, and yet he scarce set foot within a
Colledge walls.” His profound knowledge of the Hebrew
language is exhibited in his exposition of the Pentateuch
(1616- 1619), of the Psalms, (1612, reprinted 1617). and of
the song of Solomon,” which appeared in 1623 and after
his death. g
Ainsworth’s works were collected in a folio edition in
I627 and reprinted in 1639. According to John Robinson, a
* Where in 1906, at the Tecentenary of the great artist of Puritanism,
who was a neighbor of the Pilgrim Fathers in Leyden, the wreaths
of artists from all over the world were laid on his statue, the author
being present.—ED.
* Ainsworth's scholarly writings were frequently consulted by the
Imakers of the Revised version of 1870-'84.—ED.
22 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
commentary on Hosea, notes on the Gospel according to St.
Matthew, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which Ains-
worth left at his death, in manuscript, were not published
owing to disagreement about remuneration.
Nor were Ainsworth's abilities less appreciated by Some
in the University of Leyden, who were eminent in the
knowledge of ancient tongues. They said, they thought
he had not his superior in the Hebrew language in the uni-
versity, nor scarce in Europe.
Even in France justice was done to his acquirements. In
Moréri, Grand Dictionnaire historique Ainswoith is called :
‘‘célébre commentateur de l'Ecriture sainte.’” William
Bradford, a man of like spirit with Ainsworth, states : “He
had an excellent gift of teaching and opening the Script-
ures; and things did flow from him with that facility, plain-
ness and sweetness, as did much affect the hearers. He
was powerful and profound in doctrine and had his excel-
lency above many, that he was most ready and pregnant in
the Scriptures, as if the book of God had been written in
his heart ; being as ready in his quotations, without tossing
and turning his book, as if they had laid open before his
eyes, and seldom missing a word in the citing of any place,
teaching not only the word and doctrine of God, but in the
words of God, and for the most part in a continued phrase
and words of Scripture. He used great dexterity and was
ready in comparing Scripture with Scripture, one with
another.’’
For his character, Bradford further bestows on him still
more praise : “He was a man very modest, amiable and
sociable in his ordinary course and carriage, of an innocent
and unblamable life and conversation, of a meek spirit, and
a calm temper, and not easily provoked. And yet he would
* Another French author splits Ainsworth’s personality in two the
awful heretic and the mighty scholar, though there was but one
Ainsworth Free Churchman and learned Christian.—ED.
THE ExILED BROWNISTS IN THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 23
be something Smart in his style to the opposer in his public
writings ; at which we that have seen his constant carriage,
both in public disputes and the managing of all church
affairs and such like occurrances, have sometimes marvelled.
In a word, a man of thousand.’’
Let those who take this for an exaggerated eulogy, on
the part of a most faithful friend, compare it with the judg-
ment of men of a quite different disposition. One of his
bitterest foes, who spares no words to charge him with
ignorance and unfitness, owns that numerous Christians in
England, living in his former place of abode, highly hon-
ored him for his unblamable life and still prayed to God
for his return to the church. - -
Another testimony from a former friend of his is this :
“As to his (Ainsworth) life, I have myself seen, when
living with him some time at Amsterdam, how very modest
and amiable he was ; he lived and died unblamable, and I
am thoroughly persuaded that his soul rests with his
Saviour.’’
It is not surprising that a man of such a character did
not scruple to attend, twice or three times, before his
departure to Holland, the divine service in the Church of
England, to hear some celebrated and pious men preach.
This was, however, highly disapproved of by his most rigid
fellow-believers. In 1618, John Paget reproaches him with :
“being separated, you did againe in London, being in the
hands of authoritie, yield to joyne with the worship and
ministry of the Church of England.”
Nor is it surprising that a man of his modesty should
conceal his wants from his fellow-refugees. He had to go
through great hardships in the beginning of his settlement
at Amsterdam. With no knoweldge of the Dutch language,
and not bred to a trade, he had not the where withal to live.
He was, accordingly, glad to become a porter to a book-
seller at nine pence a week. He could now regale himself
24 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
with a plain hodge-podge.* At last members of his church
found out what cares he had. From that moment better
days came. The bookseller, too, before long, valued and
higher appreciated his extraordinary abilities.
Yet Ainsworth was not the only one among these Eng-
lish exiles, who was in distress for money and the necessa-
ries of life. Their property in England had been distrained
or reduced to what was next to nothing by their repeated
imprisonments and persecutions. The ministers of the
church wrote in 1599, to Francis Junius : “misereat te
oramus ecclesiae nostrae hic exulantis, probris ubique
affectae, profunda inopia ſere exesae, pene ab omnibus
spretae et afflictae.”
Twenty, and still more years after, some had to apply for
relief. It seems that these charities were distributed in the
~!, \
[English] Presbyterian Church on the Begynhof.” On ac-
* Dutch hutspot—usually a stew of left overs from previous meals,
most often of meat and vegetables, but usually of such ingredients
unknown, it may be, to the eater (like a Cornwall pie) that the Dutch
have proverbs relating to its miscellaneous composition.—ED.
*Where in 1909, a Tablet was placed, and in 1920 a memorial window
was unveiled in honor of the Pilgrim Fathers. The text of the tablet
reads:
O O O
O N E | N C H R IST
16O 9—FR O M . SC ROO EY . TO . AM STER DAM– 19 O 9
Aſ NSW OR T H . JOHNSON . R O B | NS ON . BREWSTER . B R AD FOR D
BY . A , J O |NT ... CONSENT . T H EY . RESOLVED . TO
GO . INTO . THE . LOW . COUNTR ES
WHERE . THEY . HEARD . WAS . FREEDOM . OF . RELIGION . FOR . ALL , MEN
AND LIVED AT AM STER DAM
GOVERNOR . WILLIAM . ERAD FORD .
HISTORY . OF . PLY MOUTH . FLANTATION
|N . GRATEFUL . REMEMB RANCE . AND . IN . CHRISTIAN . BROTHER HOOD
THE . CHICAGO congregaTIoMAL. c LUB
REAR . THIS . M. E MOR I.A.L.
A. D. 19 O 9
O O O
THE EXILED BROWNISTS IN THE DUTCH REPUBLIC 25
count of which John Paget in his “An arrow against the
separation of the Brownists, 1618,” with which he re-
proaches—‘‘the members of your church receive the alms
of the Dutch, which is a sacrifice (Philippines IV, 18) and
this is the same place which you condemn as an idol-
temple.”
Fletcher, consequently, misstates that—‘‘the civil author-
ities tolerated them (viz. the Brownists) but, shewed no
regard to their welfare.’’
The Englishmen, who, according to Pontanus (Rerum et
urbis Amstelodamensium Historia, 16 II, page 95) were
granted out-relief, were, no doubt, Brownists. sº
It would indeed, have gone hard, especially for the aged,
to procure the means of their subsistence. Employers and
manufacturers alike were reluctant to employ these for-
eigners ignorant of the Holland language. The younger
ones became, for the greater part bombazine weavers,
tailors, glovers or button makers—the very professions
which were advancing the fortunes of the Dutch and Flern-
ish fugitives residing at London, Norwich and elsewhere.
At the comparatively new invention of buttons (buds) these
Walloons in the eastern counties of England were making
money.
The place of worship for the Brownists in Amsterdam
was very humble, being merely a spacious shed, somewhere
in a slum, or alley, or blind lane. As their opposer, Bishop
J. Hall says it was most likely near the Inner-Amstel,
the neighborhood in which most of them were living.
Meetings for this purpose were at first kept up at private
houses ; at Israel Janszoon's or Jean de l'Escluse's.
In the aforesaid protocol of the Reformed Consistory at
Amsterdam (I I folio 197) we read that they had learnt,
June 13, that at the house of Jean de l'Escluse, the gospel
had been preached to the Brownists. This was again im-
mediately brought to the notice of the burgomasters of
26 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Amsterdam. These dismissed the plaintiffs with the reply,
that “it will be communicated to those who have to decide
in the matter and that it will be settled to the entire satis-
faction of the Church.” In a word, they intimated that it
was not a part of the Reformed Consistory, [to interfere or
move in the matter, but of others—the magistrates who
were determined to follow in spirit and act on the mandate
given to the rulers of Middelburg, which in substance
was] “no interference with conscience.”
Henceforth in 1577 the Brownists were no more hindered
in their religious meetings. It was not, however, until very
much later, that the Brownists had a place of worship on the
Groeneburgwal,” as Wagenaar in his history of Amsterdam,
Vol. II page 174, tells us.**
* Dexter seems puzzled by this statement. See “Congregationalism”
page 284, note I29.
and Secretary of the Zeeuwisch Genoostetchap der Wetenschappen
(Zealand Society of Sciences) of which the editor is an honorary
member, gives the orginal text of the full declarations of liberty of .
conscience from the heart and pen of William the Silent of January
28 and August 1, 1578. This was nearly a generation before Roger
Williams was born. On January I, 1557, the Prince being at Middel-
burg had given commandinent to admit the Anabaptists to citizenship
and privileges on their word (instead of their oaths). Later come the
proverb “as true as the word of a Mennonite. The editor in 1895 vis-
ited the site of Menno Simons' first church edifice in Friesland.—ED.
CHAPTER IV
THE AMSTERDAM BROWNIST's DECLINE TO Join THE
REFORMED
LTHOUGH its external circumstances may have been
extremely humble, yet the congregation, presided
over by such a man as Ainsworth, was not in danger of
being absorbed or broken up.
The Dutch Reformed, as well as the Walloon ministers
of Amsterdam, especially Arminius and Taffinus, tried to
come to an agreement with the Brownists. They were not
even disinclined to admit these into their church congrega-
tions, although in the main, they held the same doctrines.
The English exiles, however, probably still suspicious of
the Amsterdam ministers, after the hindrance in their
religious worship and after the information given against
them addressed to the magistrate, adherred tenaciously to
the abolition of all set forms of prayers; to their own mode
of baptism, and especially to their practice of church disci-
pline.
Accordingly, the negotiations were broken off. Four or
five years after in February, 1599, the Brownists still said
of this discourse : ‘‘cum ministris harum ecclasiarum (viris
quidem eruditis et fratribus dilectis) amice egimus,” while
the Reformed themselves declared : “Dolenter quidem
tulimus istam illorum a nostris ecclesiis Sejunctionem, quod
et illis coram cum fraterna doloris testificatione significa-
vimus.’’
At that period then, no hope was left of coming “favente
Deo piisque viris adjuvantibus '' to an agreement. The
relations became more and more strained.
In the autumn of I 594 a member of the Walloon-Reformed
Church, the aforesaid Jean de l'Escluse native of Rouen,
printer by profession, sought to join Ainsworth and his
28 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
companions. He was married to Catherine de l' Epine,
widow of Anger, who by her first marriage had a daughter,
Catherine.
This Catherine, when joined in wedlock, in I 595, had not
celebrated her marriage in the Reformed Church. On that
occasion her Brownist views came out clearly. Her step-
father's identical feelings had already been discussed at the
meeting of the Walloon consistory, October IO, I 594. In
the Actes du consistoire, February 12, I 596, we read : Apres
que les deputer ministers et anciens des deux eglises, Flam-
engue et Wallone, ont eu conferé par plusiers jours avec
Jan de l'Escluse et sa belle fille de tous les poinets et opin-
ions qu'ils tiennent, contraires à la doctrine chrestienne
enseignée es eglises reformées, et quils ont eu suffissament
reffutê les dites opinions par lescriture saincte, et par argu-
ments et raisons tirees dicelle, iceux demeurants fermes en
leurs erreurs, ont este admonestez de bien penser aux choses
qui leur avoyent esté alleguées et de prier Dieu quil leur
fist la grace de bien entendre sa verité, et d' y acquiesser
ensemble, d' adverter messieurs les commissaires des causes
matrimonielles du marrage de ladite fille qui avoit esté faict
domestiquement entee les amis, contre les loys et ordonn-
ances des Estats et de la ville : afin dy remedier selon ladvis
et ordonnance desdits commissaires, ceque Jan de Lescluse
avoit promis de faire, requerrant la compagnie de rien parler
poinct audits commissaires devant eux. Ledit Jan de Les-
cluse et sa belle fille aiants esté depuis appelez par trois
diverses fois au consistoire, est finallement comparu seul le
12 de ferirer I 596 et luy ont este leus tous les articles des-
quels on avoit duparavant traicté avec luy : afin qu'il
declara sans autres disputes en quoy il discordoit d'avec
nous. Lesquels articles furent notez en sa presence et luy
fut demandé sil avait adverti les commissaires du mariage
de sa fille. Il respondit que non, mais quil estoit prest de
le faire. Il lui fut demandé, si nonobstant le sentiment qu,
BROWNIST'S DECLINE TO JOIN THE REFORMED 29
il se disoit avoir contre la forme de prieres, du catechisme
et de la discipline en usage à nostre Eglise il vouloit estre
recognu pour membre d'icelle, ou s'il vouloit se joindre du
tout avec l'Eglise des Anglois de Nerden, il respondit que
sa conscience ne luy permettroit point, de demeurer en
nostre Eglise, comme membre dicelle, aussi longuement que
nous continurious de prescher en un temple qui a esté con-
Sacré aux idoles, et que nous retiendrious l'usage de prier
par formulaireo leus ou recitez et denseigner le catechisme,
ven qu'il nous en avoit suffiissament adverti maintenant.”
In addition it was again matter for deliberation at the
meetings of the said Consistory, February 13, April 3 and
I7, August 28, September 18, October 16 and 23, 1595, and
further January 15 and 22, February 5 and 26, March I I,
May 6, June 8, 1596, April 19 and 26, May Io, I 599, and
November 19, December 3, 1607.
Indeed, the Walloon Consistory was most anxious to keep
this man a member of their church and apparently in
April, I 595 and in 1599, there was every probability of this
being done.
On August 7, 1604, however, 1’Ecluse married a Brownist
wife. Then it was agreed that “Si Jean de l'Escluse est
dispose et desireus de communiquer a la cene lancien luy
pourra donner mereau, comme aussi a sa femme.” On
December 3, 1607, it was, however, shown “que Jean de
1’Escluse ne s'est trouvé dispos pour recevoir mereau.
The Dutch Reformed consistory also interferred in the
matter, June 6 and 13, 1596. See Protocol II folio I 97.
As l'Escluse had formerly been a member of the Walloon
church in London, the Amsterdam ministers wrote to that
city for information regarding him. At the same time they
sent inquiries at Flushing concerning the Brownists. (See
actes du consistoire, October 24, I 594).
As before, they applied to the Brownists' most bitter
foes, who did not relish it that these poor Christians having
30 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
found a “locus quietis et respirationis a magistratibus '' in
Holland. The replies were very unfavourable. (Epistolae
eccl. pages 69* and 74°) for the exiles. They are called
‘‘chartulae famosae, articuli mendaciis referti.” To this
Ainsworth plaintively replied : “imo et aliqui (quos min-
ime omnium decuit) afflictionum nostratrum pond us etiam
in his regionibus aggravare tentarunt iddue tum secreto
tum aperte moliti sunt ; calumniis et quidem gravissimis a
nostratibus domi lacessiti fuimus sarumque rumor in has
etian regiones nos insectatus est, unde apud multos immer-
ito male audimus. “(Epistol, eccl. et theol. Pages 65°
and 69°).
These severe accusations against the Brownists, the Dutch
Reformed Consistory kept not for themselves, but commun-
icated them also to the Walloons at Amsterdam. (Actes
du consistoire January 22, 1596), and even to their fellow
believers at Dordrecht. When the Consistory reminded the
English exiles that they should be thankful for the magis-
trate's protection, this action called forth the true, but tart
answer : “Quid P Si articulos plenos mendaciis et calumiis,
sparsos vero contra nos, acceperint ministri isti, et nobis
tamen eorum exemplar in hunc usquie diem non impartiver-
int, ne rogati quidem P’’ (Epist. eccl. et theol. pages 69°
and 74°.).
The Reformed ministers did not deny it, but tried to jus-
tify their conduct by pointing out that Ainsworth and
others had first attacked them, in the preface of the Con-
fession of faith and next refused to let them, on application,
read these articles.
Surely, all this was not exactly the right way to promote
concord.
In fact, the Brownists had much more sympathy with
the Mennonites, than with the Reformed. They found they
were one in sentiment. The views of both on the origin
and organization of the Christian Church ; its absolute au-
tomony ; its order and government ; the general suffrage of
BROWNISTS DECLINE TO JoſN THE REFORMED 31
its members, but above all, its discipline were in substance
identical. They had the same almost idolatrous exaltation
of scriptures, the same aversion to symbolical books, the
same institution of unpaid teachers and pastors, the same
tendency to distinguish themselves from other children of
the world by simplicity of dress and purity of morals. No
one need wonder at this. It was at Norwich that Browne
was indoctrinated with these principles.
Between the Mennonites and other Protestant Christian
Sects, there is one essential point of difference. The Men-
nonites baptize only adult persons, who have made a profes-
sion of their own faith. This was at first an obstacle which
prevented many a Brownist from joining them. But as
Ainsworth and his companions held the practice of bap-
tism in the Church of England to be invalid, they could
still very well claim baptism under stipulation that it should
not be administered to them as infants of believers, but on
their own profession of faith.
Indeed, no sooner had the impediment of the foreign lan-
guage been removed, than several Brownists came over to
the Mennonites. It took place at an early date of their set-
tlement, as is shown by John Payne's warnings against the
Mennonnites (Royall exchange, ,” Haarlem, Gillis Roman,
I 597, 4th, 48 pages ; and by Francis Johnson’s “Inquiry
and Answer, 1606, page 64, where he says: “that it came
to pass while he was still imprisoned at London and before
the schism in Ainsworth's church.” Undoubtedly, Enoch
Clapham refers to it in his ‘‘ Error on the right hand,”
when saying: “Certain English people of us (Anabaptists)
that came out from the Brownists.”
Clapham's book was published before June 1608, or
several months before John Smyth joined the Anapaptists,
So that this statement cannot allude to him.
Ainsworth and his adherents disapproved of that change
of religion. They excommunicated the faithless and clung
to each other more closely than ever.
CHAPTER V
HENRY AINsworth's CoNFESSION OF FAITH
INSWORTH now felt it a duty, most solemnly binding
upon him to defend the congregation against the
aspersions cast on it. He would free it of all blame and by
means of a confession of faith, plead and justify its separ-
ation from the Church of England and legitimate its per-
manent existence.
Ainsworth and no one else, prepared this confession
written in the English language. It was issused in the
year 1596 and consisted of forty-five articles, with a preface.
At the same time, he published a Dutch edition. Not a
single copy of this latter, I think, is left, but that it was
actually published, I infer from the words of Taffinus and
Arminius, (Epistol. eccl. et theol., page 8o"), which must
allude to 1596, when they speak of : “calumnia quam
adversus nos publicis typis at Belgico sermone disseminarunt
in brevi praefatiuncula, quam confessioni suae in eum dem
Aelgicum sermonem adeo male, et etiam haeresi occasionem
dare posset, translatae praefixerant.”
At the time of the publication of Ainsworth's confession
of faith, Francis Johnson was still in prison, so that he can
not have had a hand in it, as is generally misstated. For
instance, in Fletcher, History of Independency, (II, page
215) we find ; “It appears that in 1596 Johnson had pub-
lished the confession of faith of certain Anglish people living
77, the Zozº, Countries exiled. In 1598 this document was
republished and afterwards in 1602 it was issued again as
the joint production of Johnson and Ainsworth. The latter
translated it into the Latin for the benefit of the learned in
all countries, and set it forth in his own name.
Quite right too ! He only was entitled to attach his
name to it. It was his own work and that of no one else.
HENRY AINSWORTH'S CONFESSION OF FAITH 33
The reprint of 1598 led to the misstatement that Francis
Johnson had assisted him.*
This inaccuracy must perhaps be imputed to the fact that
a church was not regarded to be truly constituted, when
still destitute of a pastor, and that Francis Johnson came to
them in 1597. The editions of this confession of faith of a
later date, e. g., the Dutch one of 1680, mention on the
title-page, that the Congregational old English Congregation
and Church of Christ at Amsterdam was gathered in the
year 1597. As we have seen, it existed then already four
years.
The first eighteen articles of Ainsworth’s confession of
faith do not differ from the doctrine of the Confessio Bel-
gica.” Subsequently, there was confessed in it the doctrine
of the trinity, of predestination, of man’s fall into sin, of
original sin, of universal wickedness, of the divine Word as
the only standard of faith, of the person of Christ and his
triple office (munus Christi triplex), of the Christian
church.
Article nineteen and following treat at great length of
the five kinds of church-officers : shepherds, teachers,
elders, deacons and helps, no more and no fewer, who must
be appointed for life and exclusively by the church in
which they fill their office ; which church has the exclusive
right to depose and even to excommunicate them, and to
which they should give implicit obedience.
Though there is a lack of definiteness on this point in the
* Dexter (Congregationalism, page 270) is disposed to think that
the confession of faith was sent, for revision and correction to John-
son, in prison ; in which case the honor of authorship would also
partly be due to him ; but the correspondence between London and
Amsterdam (see Dexter, page 269, note 64) refers, in my opinion,
Inore, if not exclusively, to the choice of elders and to excommunica-
tion.
f The Belgic confession is probably the oldest of the Reformed or
Protestant confessions brought to and studied in North America—by
the Walloons in 1623. —. ED
34 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
confession, yet it is known from other sources, that the
Brownists objected to any temporary appointment to such
offices.
Article twenty-eight shows that the Anti-Christian has
corrupted and hindered the fundamental articles of the
Christian faith, together with the holy ordinances and ser-
vices of the Church, placing in their stead, a new and
adorned religion and “regiment’’, so that they at last be-
came so confused and perplexed that they have fallen into
the Babylonian confusion and bondage. The hierarchy
resulting from it in the Church of England is in fact an
‘‘anti-christian ministerium,’’ as well for the numerous
dignities, as for the power assumed by the so-called high
clergy.
Further are enumerated the “rest of the popish corrup-
tions '' : private baptism, examination of infants who are
brought to be baptised, linen surplice of the priests, prayer
for the death at the grave, and kneeling at the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper (article thirty). These abuses bind
the true believer to renounce all communion with the cor-
rupted church, to assist it in no respect whatever, and to
separate from it.
New churches should be founded, of which its members,
each in particular, are desired to prophesy, i. e., expound
God’s Word, and to choose men sufficiently endowed with
gifts and learning for such offices and functions, as Christ
has instituted for worship and discipline. These may
administer baptism and the Lord's Supper. Only the
children of believers are to receive baptism at least by one
of the parents being in the faith.
In the Lord's Supper, the two elements are to be made
use of there being no question either of transubtantiation
or consubstantiation—this is the seal of God's everlasting
covenant and belongs to all adult members, viz., to those
who have been admitted into the church on confession of
HENRY AINSWORTH'S CONFESSION OF FAITH 35
faith and at their own desire, and who have promised to
walk in the belief and obedience of Christ (Art. 35 and 37).
No member may withdraw on account of corruptions of
the church, but should help to reform them (Art. 36).
The various churches are wholly independent of each
other, each one as a “well-ordered city,” but bound, if
need be, to assist one another in word and deed. They
have the right to admit, on satisfactory testimonials, mem-
bers of some other church (Art. 37 and 38).
Articles 39 and 43 enumerate the reciprocal duties of
magistrates and subjects. Magistrates are to protect the
true believers, to enforce by their laws the pure religion
and its strict exercise, to punish offenders, and to extirpate
the false-worship, especially by sequestration of all ecclesi-
astical properties.
(Afterwards most of them altered this opinion and advo-
cated ardently the complete separation of Church and State
and a full religious toleration.)
Citizens and subjects, even when the magistrates fail in
their duties, or persecute them, are bound, so long as it is
not contrary to the commandments of God, to respect and
pray for their rulers and above all, in case the magistrates
protect and patronize them, to acknowledge it gratefully
and to obey them implicitly.
The last article but one, Art. 44, professes the belief in
passing from death into a life eternal or into damnation.
Finally, the last Article, 45, refutes the slanderous accu-
sation made against them of denying and despising the
Lord’s prayer. - -
“We believe it to be the most perfect and best form of
prayer, which even could not be improved by angels, so
much the less by men, and was prescribed by our Lord
Jesus Christ, not ''-showing again their aversion to use it
as a set form, for example, at the end of every prayer—“not
that we are tied to the exact number of words, but that,
36 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
according to its form and spirit, we should be taught to
regulate our prayers and thanksgivings, as being the most
perfect form of praying.”
These are the main points of the Confession of Faith
drawn up by Ainsworth, in defense of his company. Yet
to exhibit a true image of that company, to secure a greater
exactness concerning the structure of their Church, to
trace the consequences of their characteristic opinions, still
other stores of informations must be explored.
CHAPTER VI
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THE BROWNISTS
ESIDES from their own treatises most of the following
information respecting Brownists has been derived
from the writing of Honorii Reggii, alias Georgii Hornii,
professor first at Harderwijk and afterwards at Leyden.
These are ‘‘De Statu ecclesiac Britannicae hodierno liber
commentarius,” 1647, and from the ‘‘Historie der Beroerten
van Engelandt’’ (History of the troubles of England.)
The 2nd edition, of 1649, was published anonymously and
written by Jacobus Lydius, once pastor of the embassy ex-
traordinary from the Republic of the United Netherlands
to England.
In conformity with the Brownists’ views on the organi-
zation of the church, the right of voting in the choice of a
pastor, and that of excommunication, belonged to all mem-
bers. Some congregations included also the sisters. This
latter opinion or custom, however, was never universal
among them. Ainsworth in his “Animadversion to Clif-
ton’s advertisement,’’ 1613, says : “it was never our judg-
ment or practice, that in elections women or children should
give their voices, the apostle and nature itself requiring
women to be silent in the church '' (I Cor. XIV 34).
No Synod, no classes, nor any ecclesiastical establish-
ment whatever ; we hear the Brownists repeatedly say, has
power over them. The Lord Jesus Christ alone is the
Head. Each district church is automonous. It stands in-
dependently, irresponsible to all external authority.
In the petition presented to King James the First in
1606, they pleaded the right of spiritual administration and
government in itself and over itself, by the common and
free consent of the people, independently and immediately
under Christ. More than this, John Robinson in his “Jus-
38 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
tification of Separation,” 16Io, when speaking of the seat
of authority, says:—“ the Papists plant it in the pope, the
protestants in the bishops, the Puritans, as you term the
Reformed Churches and those of their mind, in the Presby-
tery ; we, whom you name : “Brownists’’ put it in the
body of the congregation, the multitude called : ‘‘the
church.”
It is the most solemnly binding duty of all brotherhood
to institute a strict and unpartial discipline, if need be, ex-
communication for all the unworthy, viz., not only for those
who are guilty of gross sins, but also for those whose mode
of living or dress is wanting in the most rigid simplicity—
so betraying a worldly temper.
Should the congregation omit this discipline, it is itself
guilty of the sin of the unpunished delinquent, it loses its
Christian character, and binds the most faithful among its
members to separate. To avoid this omission, each partic-
ular congregation ought not to be of a greater number than
may ordinarily meet together conveniently in one place,
under the audience of one and the same preacher.
In the case of huge and vast flocks the governors cannot
take knowledge of the manners of the people, private or
public ; no, not so much as of their presence at or absence
from the church assembles, whereby what damage comes to
true piety, any man may easily conjecture ; and miserable
experience makes also too manifest in the Reformed
churches. Should, therefore, the number of members ex-
ceed a few hundred, it will be desirable to split it up into
two or more congregations. Still the more so, as when
two or three faithful people do arise, separating themselves
from the world into the fellowship of the Gospel, they al-
ready are a church truly gathered, though never so weak.
No consent of any civil government is thereby needed.
Otherwise it would be bringing in Christ by the arm of
flesh.
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THE BROWNISTS 39
The public worship did not require any particular insti-
tution impeding the establishment of a new Church. For
the support of a minister or elder, there should not be a
fixed stipend, nay, it was not even allowed. They were to
be maintained by voluntary contributions of the members.
The teachers had to provide for themselves.
A plain, single room, even a barn, was deemed sufficient
for their gatherings. In fact, they felt great horror about
meeting in one of the former churches of the Roman Catho-
lics. These were but temples of antichrist.
Because of their love of perfect equality, they prohibited
their clergymen to wear an official dress, nor could they
bear with a pulpit, which they called a privileged tub.
The custom, with the Reformed, to preach by the hour-
glass, which, being run out, the sermon must also be at an
end, they regarded as binding in the spirit. Indeed, they
maintained the liberty to lengthen the divine service in
every respect. After the rather long sermon, the Lord's
supper was celebrated every Sunday. Long winded extem-
pore praying was substituted for set forms of prayer. The
practice was never to read the Bible without expounding it,
as being otherwise idle work. Their agreement was to
chant the Psalms, only according to the Bible translation *
i.e., not versified unchanged and unabridged. These forms
and methods took up much time.
Moreover, at the end of what we should call the ordinary
religious service two, three or four members might, at their
request, speak and, in turn, pronounce a free discourse, or
as it was called ‘‘prophesy.” Discourses and sermon alike
were next discussed by any one wishing to do so.
In conclusion, they brought in the laborious and long
work of their discipline, for which the whole flock must
* Ainsworth afterwards changed his mind on this point and gave a
metrical translation for the use in church, [which came into use by
the Pilgrim Fathers in Leyden and Plymouth. This is referred to by
Longfellow in his Courtship of Miles Standish and has been in part
republished by Professor Waldo Pratt of Hartford. Coun.]—ED.
40 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
stay, till they had heard debated and discussed every cause
that concerned either the officers or any of the people,
either in doctrine or manners. No wonder, that this be-
came the occasion of endless debate and of many conten-
tions !
As to the duration of the whole service, we read in a
letter of Hugh and Anne Bromhead, published by Hunter
in his “Collections concerning the founders of New Ply-
mouth,’’ page 179 :—“this morning exercise begins at
eight of the clock and continueth unto twelve of the clock.
The like course and exercise is observed in the afternoon
from two of the clock unto five or six of the clock.’’
Their exaltation of the Bible, including the Old Testa-
ment, led them to require, agreeably to the Mosaic law,
capital punishment for adultery, blasphemy, sabbath-break-
ing and idolatry ; but they held it unlawful to inflict that
punishment in the case of simple theft. A few among them
afterwards, almost three centuries in advance of their age,
got to understand that capital punishment was not at all
justifiable.*
The Sabbath or Sunday, they observed with the utmost
rigor. In direct opposition, they rejected any observance
of Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, or Ascension-day, on
the ground that celebrations of these are enjoined on no
higher authority than that of men.
Upon this point, they accordingly conformed to the Dor-
drecht Provincial Synod of 1574. This Synod, too,
desired that Sunday alone should be set apart, and that all
other holy-days should be abolished. And yet within
twenty years, the Reformed Church yielded to the force of
custom and never rejected festivals or holy-days.
Some of the Separatists so exaggerated their appreciation
of the Scriptures as to consider the Bible as the only book
* Capital punishment was abolished in the Netherlands two genera-
tions ago—followed by improvement in public morals.—ED. .
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THE BROWNISTS 41
requisite for the study of theology. Nevertheless the writ-
ings of the Brownists show conclusively that most of them
had also profited greatly by perusing the works of secular
authors. No other book, they said, can approach the Bible,
nor may claim similar authority. Hence they repudiated
not only the use of the catechism but even held that the
twelve Articles of Religion (the Apostles' creed) to be an
old patchwork of a bad stuff, of which particularly the
article of the going down of Christ into Hell was blas-
phemous.
To their horror of all heathen remnants, is attributable
their replacing the names of days and months by numerical
terms, as : the first month, the second day, etc.
Their anti-hierarchal spirit led them to reject all academ-
ical degrees and titles; while their opposition to the Romish
church-customs exhibited itself in their aversion to bell-
tolling : a human and popish innovation of pope Sabinianus;
to the precept—though never practised at Amsterdam–
to wear the hat when partaking at the Lord's Supper ; and
perhaps too, in their opinion, on marriage and funerals.
Concerning the last two points other reasons are given.
Marriage, they maintained is simply a civil affair, within
the prerogative of the magistrate. Before the whole con-
gregation, God's blessing may and should be implored on
the couple, but the marriage was not to be solemnized nor
confirmed in the Church. However, in the eighth article
of Francis Johnson, against the Reformed Church we
read :- “Is it not better to be married in the congregation
with prayers and God's blessing pronounced upon them by
the minister, than to be contracted privately and entered
unto a booke, as men do horses in Smithfield P’’
Finally, neither churches nor churchyards, that is the
grounds adjoining the church, were to be used for burying
the dead. Corpses should be interred outside in the open
fields, lest there might be injury to the public health.
42 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
So far the statement of their principles and practices to
the world outside Inside, in the meantime a deplorable
schism endangered the small congregation. This took place
about 1596, or somewhat earlier. According to Francis
Johnson it happened during his imprisonment in London,
consequently before April, 1597, and after several of the
Separatists had joined the Mennonites. It may, therefore,
already have been in 1595. Page 64 of his “Inquiry and
Answer '' states :—“ Then a while after that again, many
others, some older, some younger, even too many, though
not the half, as I understood, fell into a schism from the
rest, and so many of them as continued therein were cast
out, divers others of them repenting and returning before
excommunication and divers of them after.’’
The real causes of this division and what the dispute
turned upon are not apparent, but may easily be guessed.
Now again, as is generally the case, the sad consequences
of incessant persecution for religious principles operated
even on those sufferers who finally escaped from it. The
relative quiet of their asylum did not satisfy them. They
were still always in a morbid state of excitement, brought
by former anxieties and sufferings. The nervous system in
a great many instances was upset by imprisonment in filthy
dungeons. For years accustomed to defend their convic-
tion, the spirit of opposition had not yet spent itself.
For want of external opposition in such cases internal
discord arises. It seems as if no good could come of tran-
quil internal piety, which, according to their morbid ideas
eats out the growth, if not the life of religion, By forcing
various voluntary stipulations—the more rigid the better—
they find another martyrdom. Intolerance stimulates their
feverish zeal.
Such was the case with many a member of Ainsworth’s
congregation. It is, therefore, not strange that differences
arose between the older and the younger members. Nearly
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THE BROWNISTS 43
a moiety of them was hostile to Ainsworth and his faithful
adherents.
It is owing to his tact that peace was restored. He con-
ducted discipline and by adopting that course actually
recalled several to themselves. On the other hand, he won
a very few by showing lenity to penitent persons. He
even facilitated the return of repentant offenders, even
when they had been excommunicated.
CHAPTER VII
FRANCIS JOHNSON A BROWNIST
HE wound was healed and the past sufferings had been
almost forgotten, when, in the autumn of I 597, the
revived and again flourishing congregation was surprised to
see some persons arrive, who had been formerly known in-
timately in England. Several of them, indeed, had been
members of the congregation at Islington, the London Su-
burb, which had in 1593 been scattered by persecution.
As we have already seen, John Greenwood, who died April
6, the death of a martyr, had been the minister, Daniel
Studley its elder, and Francis Johnson the pastor or shep-
berd of this congregation.
Francis Johnson, son of John º' Johnson of Richmond,
Yorkshire, born 1561, studied with his younger brother
George at Christ's College, Cambridge. There, under in-
fluence of Cartwright, the Puritan principles had taken a
deep hold on his mind. On January 6, 1588, he preached
from I Peter V 1-4, a sermon on the eldership. In this he
spoke most strongly in defiance of the Queen's ecclesiastical
authority.
At this the whole University was agitated and alarmed.
In spite of the patronage of Chancellor Lord Burghley, he
was, on October 30, 1589, expelled from the University ;
and, when appealing to this sentence, he was committed to
strict custody. Before giving up this appeal, the chancellor
released him, perhaps under condition of his leaving Eng-
land, for awhile. at least.
Johnson repaired to Carrwright's old congregation, that
of the English merchants at Middelburg, and became its
* Contrary to Brook, Puritans II, 99, Fletcher, Independency, II,
2 Io and J. Hunter, Founders of Plymouth, page 47; Dexter, Congre-
gationalism, page 264 calls the father Jacob.
FRANCIS JOHNSON A BROWNIST 45
pastor at the, for that time, rather high stipend of twenty-
four hundred guilders (4,200) a year.
In his “History of the Scottish Church at Rotterdam ”
W. Stevens appears to have been ignorant of this fact. The
list of pastors presents us, page 315, with the name of Cart-
wright and of Hugh Broughton, but omits that of Francis
Johnson, and erroneously enters Henry Jacob among the
Brownists. The succession was ; Cartwright till 1585,
Dudley Fenner, Francis Johnson in 1590 and 1591, Henry
Jacob perhaps from 1597 or 1598. The latter was probably
succeeded by Thomas Pott, who in the records of the Mid-
delburg congregation, I 624, is called “anciently pastor of
the merchants here,” and to whom perhaps refers the
gravamen of the classis of Walcheren, July I I, 1602 :—
“whitherit were not advisable and needful to the uniformity
of doctrine that English servants, who receive a call to their
congregations in Holland, should deliver a statement of
their faith and life from the place they left to the classics
within which their new congregation comes.”
• Pott was still pastor at Middelburg January 18, 1607.
when the Amsterdam Consistory (see Protocol III, folio
156) resolved to apply to him for information as to whether
he knew something about the dismissal of Mr. Paget. He
next became pastor to the garrison at Flushing and after-
wards to the Presbyterians in Amsterdam. His son mar-
ried the daughter of the famous Dutch admiral DeRuyter.
Thomas Pott was perhaps succeeded by Hugh Broughton,
who returned to England in 161 I, where he died in 1612.
According to Stevens, Broughton was succeeded by John
Forbes, who removed with the ‘‘merchant adventurres’’ to
Delft in 1621. A couple of years afterwards the Presbyte-
rians formed their congregation at Middelburg,
Francis Johnson's former zeal, which excited the respect
of the congregation, did not slumber. He used great exer-
tions to obtain full liberty of religious worship ; but in vain.
46 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN.
The Consistory’s records of the Reformed congregation at
Middelburg having, to all appearance, reference to what
happened a couple of years earlier, report thereof as fol-
lows: “at the request of the elders of the English Church
within Middelburg, we, the undersigned, declared never to
have communicated, moved thereto by reasons, with Fran-
cisco Johnson, minister of the English Church, so much less
prohibited him to preach. The fact was this : Whereas
the elders of the church, among other communications, in-
formed the committee of the Consistory of this place of their
intention, founded on strong reasons, to insist with the
magistrate on their being allowed to preach publicly, it is
therefore that they were prayed, not commanded, to keep
silent, hoping all will be settled ere long. Now as mention
is made of keeping silent, the deputies thought they had to
refrain from preaching altogether. Meanwhile they held
that also mention was made of the secret preaching, with a
view to extend the order of March 21, 1592.’’
Indeed, on that day four members of the Consistory were
sent to confer with the English Consistory upon their
secretly preaching. -
Nor was Johnson’s warm complexion cooled. It is shown
by the dissents which very soon divided his congregation
into two parties. Reference to this, is found in the Con-
sistory's records of the Reformed Congregation at Middel-
burg, March 28, 1592 –“ it will be attempted to persuade
both parties of the English Church to submit their matter
of dispute to the judgment of the classis of Walcheren.”
Francis Johnson, I think, harboured a great antipathy
to the separatists, who a couple of years back gathered a .
church under Robert Browne. After his departure, in
1583, it was entrusted to the care of Robert Harrison. Cer-
tain it is, that the latter died before 1608, the precise date
being, however, unknown. In Ainsworth’s “Counterpoy-
son,” 1608, we find –“ Mr. Harrison returned not into
FRANCIS JOHNSON A BROWNIST 47
your Church of England, but died at Middelburg in this
faith, that we professe.” *
Was Hendrick Janss. Harrison, the editor of the works
of Menno Simons in 1681, or perhaps one of his de-
scendants 2
Probably seeing his attempts to bring them back, in a
friendly way, to the bosom of the Puritan Church fail,
Johnson now resolved to use stronger measures. He
watched with a rigid care over them.
In 1591 he found out that Barrowe and Greenwood, then
chiefs of the Brownists, were secretly preparing to have
printed on a Middelburg press a polemical writing against
the Church of England, of which the following is the full
title —“A plain refutation of Mr. Giffard's book, entitled :
A short treatise against the Donatists of England ; wherein
is discovered the forgery of the whole ministry, the con-
fusion, false worship, and antichristian disorder of the
parish assemblies, called the Church of England. Here
also is prefixed a sum of the causes of separation and of our
purposes in practice.”
Johnson hurried to give information of this to the English
Ambassador at the Hague, who empowered him, to his
great satisfaction, to do what he thought proper. He slyly
concealed his discovery till the last sheet was printed. He
then suddenly surprised the printer, by requiring him to
deliver all copies, and he compelled the magistrate, who
dared not oppose the ambassador's authority, to order the
books to be publicly burnt. In his presence the whole im-
pression, except two copies, were committed to the flames.
One of the two reserved copies he kept for himself, the
other one he bestowed upon a learned friend of his.
Wondering what a tissue of errors this work might be,
Johnson sat down in his study to peruse the book super-
ficially. He was, however, so interested that he read and
re-read it, becoming more and more interested. At last he
48 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
could not help thinking it contained only the truth. From
his copy he had a new, edition printed in 1606.
His resolution was at once formed. Not as Fletcher
(Independency II, page 21 1) erroneously writes:—“his
sentiments from this time underwent a gradual change.”
He resolved to resign his office and join those whom he
had formerly supposed to be fanatics—the despised Brown-
ists. He visited Barrowe and Greenwood, the noble con-
fessors of truth, in their London prison, and to be inspired
by their religious zeal, before, as might perhaps be speedily
the case they should suffer the death of martyrs.
CHAPTER VIII
THE BROWNISTS AND THE DUTCH REFORMED AND
WALLOON CHURCHES
H.E. troubles and difficulties of Francis Johnson now
began. He succeeded in establishing a church,
which both his father John Johnson and his brother George
joined. Yet he was repeatedly persecuted by the State
churchmen. He was imprisoned, set at Liberty, and im-
prisoned again. When in April and May 1593 Barrowe
and Greenwood were executed on that scaffold, Francis
Johnson could only expect to meet the same fate, but then
half a year had elapsed ; he seemed to have been forgotten.
The churchmen announced triumphantly : ‘‘the sect has
actually been stamped out.” -
November 6, 1593, Francis Johnson made application for
his release to his former patron Lord Burghley. He begged
that if not liberated, he might at least be admitted to bail
during four or five months, to restore his broken health.
It was no wonder that his constitution had been weak-
ened. From his brother and fellow-prisoner George, we
learn, again, that seven months later, July I, I 594, they
were lodged in the darkest and most miserable dungeons,
having only straw to lie upon. Sometimes they were with-
out food during twenty-four hours. Clean linen was al-
lowed them only once every twenty days. Neither friends
nor relatives were permitted to visit them.
In 1596, their Amsterdam fellow-believers wrote page 3o
of the preface to their confession of faith : ‘‘the wickedness
and supremacy of these papistics, alias Anglicans, are such
as to persecute to death all persons who contradict them,
throwing them into dirty prisons, which these prisoners
seldom or never quit, except when carried out upon a bier,
unless they do violence to their conscience ; nor did the
Anglicans provide for those they kept, but detained them,
%
50 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHUREIMEN
without food or money for their subsistence, however poor
they were. If of means of their own, they were made to
pay for their board ; if not, the prelates let them live upon
air. And in order that they might the sooner perish of
hunger, or renounce their allegiance to truth, they are put
in dark cells, entirely secluded from the world ; all their
friends, nay, even their wives and children being forbidden
to come and see them.” (Epistolae ecclesiasticae et theol.
I 704, pages 68 and 69).
Francis Johnson's application for release had no success.
It was four years afterwards, that the persecutors gave their
sentence on him. Experience had then taught it was very
far better to remove secretly men to Johnson's world, than
to favor them with the crown of martyrdom.
Now Charles Leigh, a London merchant, and of the so-
called “merchant-strangers”—the brothers Abraham and
Steven of Harwick (an elleptic form of Harderwijk k or
Harderwick) a Dutch town, not to be confounded with the
English sea-port, Harwich. These men fitted out two
ships, with the purpose of forming a settlement for cod-
fishery and trade in the bay of Canada, on Rainea, an island
close to Newfoundland. Simultaneously they made ‘‘hum-
ble suit to her majesty, to transport out of their realm divers
artificers and others, persons that are noted to be sectaries,
whose minds are continually in an ecclesiastical ferment,
whereof four shall at this present sail thither in those ships
that go this present voyage.” (See Register of the Privy
Council).
These four men were Brownists and had to stay be-
yond seas until they changed their minds and conformed
to the rules of the Church of England. They were the
brothers Johnson, their elder Daniel Studley, and John
Clerk, formerly Major of St. Albans, but since June, 1594,
* Formerly the seat of a university suppressed by Napoleon and in
later years the seat of recruiting and supply for the army in Insulaude
(Island India) or the Dutch East Indes.—ED.
THE BROWNISTS AND THE CHURCHES 51
stigmatized as a rebel, for letting the Brownists meet for
religious worship in his house. Besides, he had harbored
Penry, and, a little before the latter was imprisoned, and
had promised to pray for him.
Both the ships, the Hopewell, Captain Crofton and the
Chancewell, Captain Steven of Harwich, which left Grave-
send, April 8, 1597, and had on board the four exiles, had
a disastrous voyage. The former, indeed, reached the
island of Rainea, but before the crew could land, they fell
foul of French ships, and a tumult arose aboard. The
other ship was wrecked June 23 and plundered by the
French.
A quite unexpected meeting with the Hopewell only
saved the crew from starvation. The captains intended to
make good their loss by privateering, but had to give up
their plan, owing to the poor condition of the ships and
from want of provisions. They again shaped their course
to England arriving at the beginning of September.
Yet the exiles dared not land, but fled to Amsterdam,
assured as they were to be kindly received there by Ains-
worth and his companions.
In this expectation they were not disappointed. Full of
compassion for their distresses, the congregation welcomed
and admitted them. It is probable that John Clark, like
the other brothers, Johnson and Studley, settled down in
Amsterdam, as, according to No. IO4 of annexed list of
marriages (Appendix A) his widow Ursula Triev wery
(Truery 2) married again, June 7, 1614, in Amsterdam, to
Studley.
Francis Johnson was re-instated in his former office as a
pastor or teaching elder, that is, he was competent to over-
see the members, to preach, to administer the sacraments,
and to govern the flock. And as the work took all his
time, the congregation bound itself to provide for his sup-
port. -
52 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Ainsworth remained as ordinary minister. Daniel Stud-
ley, together with George Kniveton, formerly chemist at
Leyden and elder of the congregation, when it still met at
Islington, Stanshall Mercer, and the late elder of Naarden,
Matthew Slade, were now ruling elders, who had to assist
Francis Johnson in overseeing and governing. Yet only if
need be, or in default of the pastor and minister, they had
to preach. Already since 1593 Christopher Bowman was
its deacon. Francis Johnson includes the year Bowman
had been deacon at Islington, when writing in his “Inquiry
and Answer,” 1606, page 15 :-‘‘ to which he hath with
good approbation ministered in that office now about 14
years.” Between 1599 and 1602 Thomas Bishop and David
Bresto became deacons.
Francis Johnson’s Puritan feelings were still too sensi-
tive for him to approve of his congregation’s isolation.
Because of its corruptions, he had separated from the
Church of England. This reason did not deter him from
communion with the Reformed Church in Holland. He
earnestly endeavored to keep up a close connection with the
Reformed and later with the Presbyterians.
Ainsworth had met only with opposition and contempt,
Johnson hoped to receive more Christian courtesy.
In 1598, a full year after his arrival, he published with a
preface an English reprint of the 1596 edition of Ains-
worth’s Confession of Faith, to which he could agree in
every respect. Its title runs :—“The confession of faith of
certain English people living in the Low Countries exiled.”
This edition was enlarged by a Latin translation, entitled :
“Confessio fidèi Anglorum quorumdam in Belgia exulan-
tium, una cum praefatione ad lectorem.”
Copies were sent to the Consistories of the Dutch and
Walloon Reformed Churches. --
In the records of the Consistory of the Walloon Church,
we find, Jaue 8, a reference to it :– “Mr. de la Vigne et
THE BROWNISTS AND THE CHURCHES 53
%
Iaffin sont nommer pour avec Mr. Plancius et Arminius
traicter touchant le faict des Anglois sentans et enseignans
autrement que nous.” -
No mention of it, however, is made in the Consistory’s
records of the Dutch Reformed Church.
To both editions was prefixed an “Epistola illustrissimis
et doctissimis viris, sacrarum literarum studiosis, in cele-
berrimis Lugduni Batavorum, Sanctandreae in Scotia,
Heidelbergae, Genevae, Caeterisque Belgii, Scotiae, Ger-
maniae, Galliae Academiis Christianis,’’ to which it was
declared the Confession of Faith was dedicated in order
that, in case of errors, they might warn them against these,
and give approval, ‘‘ vel silentio vel scripto '' to whatever
was truth in the document.
It was prayed that their previous persecutions, the suf-
fering in their present exile, their zealous efforts to propa-
gate the truth and to complete the work of the Reformation,
for the benefit of all Christians both their native and their
new country, might be admitted as excuses—should any
one charge them with arrogance on account of the publica-
tion, and, above all, on account of their appeal to the most
eminent corypheuses of science.
Johnson and Ainsworth did not let the matter rest there.
By sending one of them—quemdam e numero vestro, as
Junius calls him in his answer—with a copy of the Confes-
sion of Faith to the well-known Leyden professor Francis-
cus Junius, they ventured upon another attempt to procure
an answer to the Leyden faculty. Their hope was to ob-
tain the answer of the whole faculty, and not of a private
person, that of Junius. Being a friend of Cartwright, and
moreover known as a man of peace, Johnson looked for the
support and approbation of Junius. But owing to his
peaceful mind, or perhaps even more to fear of being sus-
pected of heresy, when taking the part of the Brownists.
Junius sought all sorts of subterfuges and constantly re-
fused the support desired of him.
54 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
His shuffling answer was drawn in the most amiable and
friendly terms. Yet he carefully evaded the speaking of
his true mind as to the contents of the Confession of faith,
Junius' letter was dated January 9, 1599, and not 16OO, as
Hanbury—who thinks that Junius adhered to the old
style—misstates in his Memorials I, page I 34.
Junius may have been in a quandary as to what he could
do for them in this direction. In his letter he intimates that
he does not like to meddle with the business of others. He
is not at all competent to decide whether they are in the
right. Besides, having solicited the opinion of the univer-
sity it would be most pretentious for him to pronounce judg-
ment about it in the matter without consulting others.
Junius referred the Brownists to the Amsterdam Consis-
tory as being their only legal judge. Yet, without saying
a single word as to its contents, he strongly disapproved of
the publication of the Confession. It contributed to
awaken doubts whether the presumption of heresy be un-
founded, as being otherwise useless. It was a hostile act
towards the Church of England ; a concealed resentment
against persecutions which should be borne Christianly.
Because so public an action was calculated to stir up men-
tal excitement, it could never remove any evil. It would
give reason to the enemies of the true church to rejoice in
the discords between the faithful. It would give offence .
to those lacking in faith. Perhaps, even contention would
be occasioned by it in the Reformed Church, which, be-
cause of having it kindly received on their arrival in Hol-
land has certainly not deserved it from them.
This letter Junius sent to the Consistories of the Dutch
Reformed and Walloon congregations for their reading at
the same time charging these with the delivery of it.
Through that same medium Johnson and Ainsworth re-
turned, in answer to Junius, a very elaborate, carefully
drawn up defence, dated February 19, 1599.
THE BROWNISTS AND THE CHURCHES 55
It seemed as if Junius had all at once forgotten how a
letter could reach the Brownist leader. Before receiving
their reminder, which came to hands March 9, and has
since been lost, Junius wrote, March Io, a second letter.
The fact is, that he was puzzled at having learned from a
letter of the ministers Taffinus and Arminius, dated March
3, that they were very angry with Johnson and his com-
panions. In fact his answer to their defence does not con-
tain anything new. Contradictory to his former saying:
‘‘putatisne quemguam ita dementem fore, ut quum tam
multorum bonorum judicium et opera desiderata est, unus
aliquis solitarius de ea ie dicat,” he now assures them,
that he ‘‘ nihil fratribus et collegis inconsultis fecit,”
and forbids positively that they should derive from his
silence respecting the contents of the Confession of faith,
his assent to it.
He, indeed, still addresses them as ‘‘ fratres dilecti et
charissimi,” but, when adding :—“habetote fiducium
vestram et nobis relinquite modestiam nostram ; quod si
vobis fortiores in judiciis esse vidennini, nos velut infirmos
ferte dum quiete pia et studio sacro ad altiora et certiora
venerimus,” displays the most haughty contempt. -
It is no wonder that the English, after due consideration,
resolved on retaining their friendly, submissive rejoinder,
which had been already drawn up March 18, as is shown by
one of their later letters sent to Junius, July 1, 16oz, and
printed in “Certain Letters.” The “Epistolae eccl. et
theol.’’ contain only Junius' answer to it.
After all their time and labor spent, their sole aim being
the intercession in their favor of the Leyden faculty, the
result was failure.
CHAPTER IX
THE GRIEvANCES OF THE BROWNISTs AGAINST THE
DUTCH REFORMED
EW troubles arose among these Free Churchmen. One
of their elders, Matthew Slade separated from their
brotherhood. He joined the Dutch Reformed Church and
was next appointed, July 1, 1598, sub-rector of the Amster-
dam grammar-school in the Koe (Cow) Street.* His name
and the date of his appointment are recorded in the Treas-
ury Accounts of Amsterdam, from February, 1598 to
February, 1599, stating :–‘‘ Paulus Tossamus, sub-rector
at the old side and Matheus Sladus, chosen in the room of
the said Paulus, paid florins 432, Io denaries, for salary
during four quarters of a year and four months due the 1st
of November 1598 ''—Four months being perhaps a clerical
* Matthew Slade, from the county of Dorset, was a mason by trade.
Yet he had received some education in letters. One day he strolled,
in his work-dress, into an Amsterdam street, and stopped at a book-
shop. In the window he noticed an open volume, in which he read a
Iatin poem. As he was reading, he shook his head, to the great
amusement of the poet, who happened to be inside the shop. Slade
was called in and the poet asked : why he turned his nose up at the
poem P “It is not bad,” was the answer, “but there are blunders in
it ; ” which he pointed out and corrected. The poet agreed with him,
and from that moment on, helped the mason to metamorphose him-
self into a man of science. He served as teacher, sub-rector and
rector of the grammar-school in Amsterdam until a couple of years
before his death in 1628. About 16oo he became also the first librarian
of the Amsterdam town-library, which, at that time contained but a
few hundred volumes and was opened but one day a week. Because
of his great knowledge of books, he was nicknamed : a walking
library. He made, in Latin, the first catalogue, entitled :-‘‘Cata-
logus Bibliothecae Amstelredamensis. Lugduni Batavorum, extypo-
graphio Henrici Ludovici ab Haestens, MDCXII.”—The copy in the
Cambridge Museum is probably the only one in existence. To both
the setting up and printing much care was devoted. On the title-
page is a beautiful engraving ; showing a large Bible with the arms
of Amsterdam and an inscription in Greek besides the figures of Com-
merce and Navigation with its attributes on either sides supported
upon the Book of books In 1880 a reprint of this extremely rare
catalogue was issued by the old firm of Johannes Enschedé and Son,
Harlein, for the lovers of books. –Zºranslator.
THE GRIEVANCES OF THE BROWNISTs 57
error for four weeks, in case of which Slade entered upon
his office October I, I 598. In the account of the next year,
four hundred florins are regularly noted for his salary. H.
Verheyk in his ** Oratio secularis de antiquitate et vicissi-
tudinibus scholae Amistelre damensis,'' I 778, page 55,
relates of him :—“ Matthaeus (Sladus) certe natione
Anglus, Graecis ac Latinis et poëticis elegantiis satis su-
bactus, nescio quo casu huc delatus, et Beronicio non absi-
milem degens vitam fabro caementario operam collocabat.
Forte in platae, quam Vitulinam vocamus, bibliopolium
transiens in venale carmen Latinum oculos coniicit, legit,
et veluti indignabundus caput quassat. Homo, ut vide-
batur, nullius pretü, squalida, et, ut solent opesae, attrita
veste Latini carminis censuram faciens, in officina adstan-
tibus risu excipitur, quorum tamen unus : hem quid tibi
videtur, amice ! non malum, inquit, sed vitia insunt duo
insignia. Ipse accedit poëta, quid factum audit sibique
monstrentur petit. En tibi, ait : placet etiamsi reprehensor :
abstine a tam vili opere, te pro meritis vestiam, et victum
curabo. Dictum factum. Non diu post publicae scholae
pars quaedam ei committitur, mox Conrectoris munus,
quod tamen, ducta in matrimonium Petri Plancü sacrorum
Antistitis filia, deire posuit.''
The proof of Slade's having been an elder with the
Brownists, is to be read in George Johnson's '' Discourse of
certain troubles, '' I 6o3. He states that Francis Johnson's
congregation had originally three elders : Studley, Knyve-
ton and Slade, whose name is not mentioned in Ainsworth's
answer to J. Sprint's reproach in his 2d Consideration -—
“ Besides your principal1 pillars of greatest rekning, gifts
and judgment have returned from you under the Church
of England ; as Harrison, Smith, Crud, Slade and sundry
other ministers.'' Ainsworth says, (** Counterpoyson,''
I6o8 page 4 I) :—'' Mr. Harrison returned not unto your
Church of England, but died in Middelburg, in this faith
58 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
that we profess. Mr. Smyth, Crud and some others, which
never were officers, much less pillars in our church, did,
indeed, forsake their first faith and died soon after.’’ He
does not mention Slade, because the latter had in fact been
an officer. -
Those who naturally wished to win back Slade into their
church, sent him a list of eleven articles explaining, why
they disapproved of this tranfer of his membership.
These entitled : “Articles against the French and Dutch
by Francis Johnson,’’ were issued in book form. No copy
of it, I think, is extant, but its contents may be seen in the
Epistolae eccl. et theol., page 79, and in the Acta of the
North Holland Synod of the 18th of June 16or, sub. 38, at
which Synod only the first ten articles were discussed.
According to these articles, the Reformed congregation
was too numerous to be a true church. It cannot meet to-
gether in one place, and accordingly is unable to conduct
rightly church discipline. Nor could it take knowledge of
the presence or absence of the members from the church
assemblies. They baptize children of non-members, and
neglect the care for such baptised children. Next to the
Lord’s prayer, they have all sorts of set forms of prayers.
They meet in the temples of the antichristians, that is, in
the former churches of the Roman Catholics : ‘‘the anti-
christian stones have some of them the ornaments of the
Roman harlot upon them remaining.” They maintain
their ministers out of funds and not by voluntary contribu-
tions. They do not ordain members of the Consistory for
life, but yearly. They assume the right to contract mar-
riages, which belongs to the prerogative of the magistrate,
and celebrate festivals, invented by man, as if they were
equal to the divine Sabbath. But, above all, in contraven-
tion of the rules given to us for church discipline, they do
not strictly conform to Matthew XVIII, 15-17, both by
temporarily forbidding any one to partake at the Lord’s
THE GRIEVANCES OF THE BROWNISTs 59
Supper instead of excommunicating him, and by readmit-
ting to the congregation excommunicates, before having
given sufficient evidence of penitence. -
This usage to let excommunication, by way of last warn-
ing, precede by suspension from communion, was quite un-
known to Calvin. It was for the first time practiced by the
Dutch Church in London, next at Embden, and afterwards
in Geneva, the Palatine and France. At length, in 1571,
it was enacted by the Synod at Embden for the Reformed
Church in Holland. Accordingly, this method or degree
of church censure—one of the objections of the Brownists—
dated then, from scarcely thirty years before, or about 1541.
The last, or eleventh article, concerning readmission of .
excommunicants, is passed over in silence in the letter of
the Reformed ministers, Taffinus, and Arminius, to Junius.
Was not this noteworthy P Perhaps the soundness of this
grievance was undeniable. -
The remaining ten articles were mentioned accurately—
which shows that Matthew Slade had hurried to inform
them thereof.
Another source of friction was developed when the Con-
sistory sent some deputies to lay the dispute before the
North Holland Synod, which assembled at Alkmaar, June
2 I, I 599. - -
The Synod, considering that “those who were called
Brownists and had come from England, bred disquiet
among several members of the Church,” thought fit that
‘‘any church, where such be the case, should reason the
magistrate into providing against it, under the authority of
the Honorable Lord States.” -
The relations with the Reformed did not improve when,
nearly eight months after, February Io, 16OO, some depu-
ties of Johnson's congregation lodged their complaint with
the Reformed Consistory, for having received as members
some who had been excommunicated for defending an adul-
60 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
terer, and a woman who had forsaken the Brownist church.
This woman was constantly reproaching the Brownists
with only naming, but in fact not regarding the Reformed
as Christians.
A fortnight afterwards the haughty answer was made
that theirs could not be considered as an ecclesiastical com-
plaint, since their gathering had never been acknowledged
as a church. In fact, in the protocol of the Consistory,
February Io, 16oo, III fol. 53, the word church, which the
secretary had put down by mistake, is blotted out.
The Consistory was disposed to take into consideration
any grievance which they might have individually, but all
further negotiations with the English were cut off. Yet,
fully a year after, April 5, 1601, the English reverted to
the matter. On that day six of their deputies came to the
meeting of the Consistory of the Reformed congregation.
One of them read aloud a Latin paper, in which most likely,
for the document is lost they harked back to their old
grievances. After the reading, they handed the document
to the president-minister, Plancius. The latter perusing
it, and seeing it was not signed, desired them to validate it
by their signatures, which they did. He next ordered
them to leave the room for a moment.
The Consistory agreed that the paper should be trans-
lated and sent to all the members to take cognizance of it.
that a committee should draft an answer and submit it for
the Consistory's approbation ; and finally, that the president
should administer a severe reproof.
No sooner were the Brownists deputies again ushered
into the waiting room, than there came from the lips of
Minister Plancius : ‘‘Nos maxima cum tristitia vestras
audiwinnus accusationes : confidimus autem omnibus piis
satis superque constare, nos ita hactenus Dei gratia vixisse,
ut semper apparuerit inter dicta et facta nostra optimus
consensus, ut pote qui promissa fideliter assidue praestiti-
THE GRIEVANCES OF THE BROWNIST's 61
mus. In vera Dei ecclesia semper viget vera christiana
charitas, quae omnino aliena est ab accusandi et condem-
nandi libidine. Vestra autem verba graves continerent
accusationes si essent vera, sed magnas continent calumnias,
si sint falsa. Ea vero esse hujusmodi, suo tempore (Deo
adjuvante) re ipsa docebimus.”
With these words the English were dismissed. Their re-
quest to have the Consistory’s deliverance put on paper, or
at least to repeat it once more, so as to enable them to
carry word for word to their congregation, was rejected. .
They had then to depart helplessly. Only three months
after, they came to know the right meaning of the promise:
“verba vestra esse falsa re ipsa docebimus.”
The Consistory, to get rid of the matter had ordered its
deputies to the North Holland Synod, which met June 18
of that year, to put the question : “For what should be
kept those who separated from the Reformed Church of
God in England, and besides withdrew from the Reformed
congregation, Jesu Christi here in Holland, for these follow-
ing ten chapters ?’’ after which the ten points in dispute—
the eleventh one being passed over in silence—were com-
municated.
In answer to this question the Synod declared “ that
those ought to be considered schismatics or apostates,’’ and
directed a few members of the Consistory that, should the
English, in consequence of that declaration, intend to ex-
communicate the Reformed Church, they were first to dis-
suade them from it, and next, if they continued obstinate
in it, to apply to the magistrate, not—as is added — for fear
of excommunication, which counts for little, but to prevent
the simple from being alarmed at it ; and if they neverthe-
less might proceed to excommunication and such was de-
clared publicly, the ministers were to announce to all the
world for what the said Brownists are kept by the churches
and also ought to be kept by anybody else.” (See Acts of
the North Holland Synod, June 18, 1601, sub. No. 38).
62 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
The Consistory now conceived itself freed from all further
negotiations with the English. Rupture was unavoidable.
The schismatics deserve neither refutation nor reply. Woe,
if they should ever venture to importune the Consistory
again.
Vain fear ! The English did not entertain the idea of it.
No further reference to the Brownists in the Consistory
records of 1602 has been found, except a resolution formed
July 25 (Protocol III, folio 82) to direct the ministers
Plancius and Arminius to investigate the records and to ad-
vise the Consistory in its answer to the inquiry of the
Classis of Walcheren : ‘‘How the Consistory behaved to its
Brownists P’’ This inquiry was, probably, also made in
consequence of the ninth gravannen, laid by four classes of
Zealand before the Synod and to be dealt with in its next
assembly : ‘‘Whether it were not advisable never to com-
municate any more in writing to irritable, fiery people,
either Brownists or other sectaries, lest they might after-
wards get it printed, to the stirring up of our members,
nay, to the injury of our religion and church-government,
and to the propagation of their own errors P’’ (See Records
of these Classes, July 11, 1602.)
New troubles were in store for the exiles. Indeed, a few
months after, a translation into English of their correspond-
ence with Junius, by one R. G., was published in England.
No extant copy of it, is known. s
It was to prove that the Brownists “shroud themselves
under the shadow of human authority,” and was, besides
considered an excellent means “to stay such as are waver-
ing, to confirm such as do stand and to recover such as are
fallen.’’
In view of this the elaborate refutation of the exiles, sent
Junius February 19, 1599 in reply to his accusation, was
omitted. With the delicate object of preventing Junius'
letters from becoming public property, Johnson and his
{
THE GRIEVANCES OF THE BROWNISTS 63
companions had always kept these missives to themselves
and had never allowed them to be copied. At first they
supposed Junius to have divulged the letters, but when he
most positively denied such to be the case, they changed
their mind. Yet they did not suffer themselves to be
deluded by Junius' subterfuges.
For example, the latter suggested, though himself know-
ing better, that the English Ambassador during his visit to
Amsterdam might have obtained the correspondence from
the Brownists themselves. Albeit Junius did not himself
contribute to promote the publication, yet it is clear that,
by communicating the letters to the English Ambassador,
he had played them in their enemy’s hands. As the refuta-
tion had been designedly omitted, and the translation was
in some places far from trustworthy, this publication was
not all that could be desired. Consequently, the Brownists
resolved to have an entirely new translation printed, which
contained not only the refutation, but also the undelivered
letter to Junius of March 18. Of this edition they sent,
July I, a copy to the Leyden professor Junius, who on the
I6th of the same month, exhorted them in a presumptuous
tone and left their next letter of the 21st following unans-
wered. -
Thus ended a correspondence which, indeed, did Junius
very little credit, and of which the English rightly said in
their preface :—“All wisehearted may and will, we doubt
not, easily discern how naked and helpless they be, which
neither by their friends at home nor the most learned
abroad, can otherwise be relieved than by such things as
hitherto they have printed : or howsoever this present
generation shall judge of these things, yet the ages to come,
which will be less partial, will easily give sentence.”
CHAPTER X
INTESTINE DISCORDS
HILE the efforts of persecutors, to disperse and stamp
out the Brownists were vain, a fierce dispute of
their own arose about the same time among themselves.
Never since its settlement at Amsterdam, had the brother-
hood been disturbed to such a degree. In fact, its vitality
was endangered even to possible annihilation.
Here lies the crux of the controversories.
During his imprisonment in London, September 1594,
Francis Johnson married Mrs. Thomasine Boys. She was
rather a wealthy widow who had 4,300 as her dowry.
Johnson's brother George had tried to dissuade him from
this marriage. A man confined on account of religion, said
he, should not ally himself to a woman notorious for her
showy dress, and probably unwilling to give it up for plain
garb. Indeed, George was not slightly shocked when,
shortly after her marriage, she visited him in his prison,
attired more magnificently than ever. He referred her to
Isaiah III, I 6, 17", and to what is said there of the daugh-
ters of Zion.
Mrs. Francis Johnson tried to soften her brother-in-law
with flattering words excusing herself with an allusion to
I Timothy IV, 4, 5 :—“For every creature of God is good,
and nothing to be refused if it be received with thank-
giving : For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.’’
When the news of their private marriage was bruited
abroad, the Archbishop of Canterbury felt that he must
take vigorous measures against the prisoner and Francis
Johnson, was henceforward debarred from enjoying all
visits.
As for George, he considered himself bound to write to
his brother, telling him that his wife gave much scandal to
INTESTINE DISCORDS 65
the members of the congregation by her luxurious dress,
wearing three, four, five gold rings olf her fingers, while
her husband was suffering imprisonment and their fellow-
believers at Amsterdam were struggling with the utmost
poverty. Still greater offence was given by the whalebones
and laces of her stays, her gorgeous bonnet, her stiff,
starched frillings, her rings, and musk-odors, and, beyond
all, an abominable, shocking breast-piece, which George
was ashamed to name, but which he prayed the Lord to
make her ashamed to wear. Indeed, he trusted the cost of
all these things was defrayed by herself, but if not, he was
willing to raise money for paying this debt, rather than
casting any longer aspersion on the “sacred belief and the
people of God.”
Though already resolved on sending the letter to his
brother, George, after due consideration, thought better to
show it beforehand to Francis' wife, promising that it would
not be delivered if she mended her ways. It was no use.
She immediately communicated the letter to her husband,
who, in a rage, called George a fanatic, a blockhead, nay,
an Anabaptist. George, in his turn, retorted that Jeremiah
III, 3 was applicable to her : ‘‘ thou hadst a whore's fore-
head, thou refusedst to be ashamed.”
Francis called this letter the most detestable one ever
written. He desired the congregation to excommunicate
his brother. But pastor Settle and elder Daniel Studley
took George's part. Sometime after, when Francis was
treated less rigorously and permitted to leave his prison for
a while, under strict Supervision of a guard, Studley effected
a reconciliation between the brothers. This was chiefly
due to George's indulgence, for he owned, that the woman
had made Some reformation. For the future, he would
hope for the best.
Afterwards when another church member made complaint
concerning Mrs. Johnson's dress, George even refused to
66 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
give it a hearing. He also readily partook at the commun-
ion, administered, éarly in the spring of 1597, in the house
of his brother Francis and his sister-in-law, however un-
worthily these two might have only a short time before,
behaved toward him.
Thus terminated this miserable conflict in England.
Church members of less obstinate temper flattered them-
selves with the hope that the old feud had fallen into obliv-
ion, through the hardships the exiled brethren encountered
on their outward and homeward voyage to North America.
In this, however, they were sorely mistaken. Francis'
wife had not been permitted to accompany her husband to
Rainea, but she probably traveled with him from England
to Amsterdam. There her presence was sufficient to re-
kindle the quarrel. Within barely ten weeks from their
arrival, the fire was burning more fiercely than ever. Still
further, George, who at times had to live on one shilling or
less a week, saw, most likely, the realative wealth of his
brother with envious and sorrowful eyes. He scarcely had
a home, while his brother was living ‘‘in a great house,
near the Reguliers Gate, having sundry rooms to spare,”
while to the wanderer George he ‘‘ not once offered one
corner of his superfluity.” So George wrote in his “Dis-
course of certain troubles and communications in the ban-
ished English Church at Amsterdam,” page I 13.
Moreover, George envied Francis his mastership as shep-
herd of the congregation. Nor could he stand his brother’s
ambitious temper.
Indeed, it seems that Francis had a lust for power and .
was not free from covetousness. This we noticed on a
former occasion.
It is also proved by the accusations against him by his
deadly enemy, the apostate Brownist Christopher Lawne.
True, these accusations are too much inflamed by party zeal
to be believed implicitly. Yet they may contain a modicum
INTESTINE DISCORDS 67
of truth. Ainsworth himself owns, that the principal
cause of the contests, which, before and after, pulled his
congregation so miserably to pieces, was no more than thirst
for supremacy. R. Clyfton writes (“An advertisement
concerning a book by C. Lawne,’’ 1612, p. 22) : “Love of
preeminence, which hath always troubled us, whilst the
governors of the church, which should serve it with meek-
ness, would rule it with lordship,” Francis Johnson,
quoting these words, inserted, by way of parody, after
“troubled us.” “while the people that should be under the
Governors, would be over and above them.’’
On November 25, 1597, Francis Johnson's overmastering
will displayed itself again very clearly. The congregation
agreed to nominate two more elders. Francis and his
friend, Elder Studley, expected George to stand for elec-
tion. On account of their scientific education at Cam-
bridge, both brothers were most fit for Church government.
Francis sent for George and told him that he should not
become an elder, unless he should apologize beforehand for
the most abusive affront offered to Mrs. Johnson, by apply-
ing Jeremiah III, 3, to her. George replied that he consid-
ered himself neither fit nor sufficiently worthy for the elder-
ship. Speaking in a presumptuous tone, he added that,
during his exile, on land and at Sea, he had thought a good
deal on that reference in question, but could, even at the
time, see nothing inappropriate or sinful in it.
Francis in reply declared that he would try the matter
out. “If you do not confess your guilt,” said he to his
brother, “you have to make your choice between your ex-
communication and my resignation as a pastor.”
The events were now to take their own course and shape
themselves. Ainsworth made an appeal for meekness and
indulgence, but Francis covered his mouth by exclaiming :
“If you knew him as Studley and I know him, you would
not say so l’’
68 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
George was continually summoned to appear before the
Consistory—very much to the detriment of his already bare
subsistence. When on one occasion, he excussd himself
from coming, he was exhorted with the words from Ezra X
8 : “And that whosoever would not come within three
days, according to the council of the princes and the elders,
all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated
from the congregation of those that had been carried
away.”
George made argument, that Francis who, with Studley
as a witness, was his accuser could not be at the same time
his judge. This was answered with a reference to Moses
who himself condemned Korah.
According to Francis, those who spoke in favor of George
were altogether unskilled in dispute and had best be silent.
Mrs. Johnson's bonnet was again the stumbling stone.
By vote, the brotherhood decided the bonnet of itself was
not unsuitable. George pretended never to have said so.
He only held it improper for a wife to wear such a bonnet
during her husband’s imprisonment. Now, showing his
ability in syllogism, Francis replied, that whatever is not of
itself unsuitable, does not become so by its being used ;
consequently, the bonnet did not become unsuitable because
his wife was wearing it. George rejoined, that velvet was
of itself not unsuitable, but that it would be very unsuited
to a sailor to be clothed in it.
Francis now proceeded to expatiate on the dress of all
sorts of people and referred to Tamar (II Samuel 13:18)
who dressed like a king's daughter. Other members of the
congregation, however, insisted that Mrs. Johnson's gor-
geous garment was not such as befitted a wife whose hus-
band was in prison. In consequence thereof, said they, not
a few had at the time been kept from sending a contribu-
tion towards refreshments for the prisoner.
All this irritated Francis beyond endurance. He
INTESTINE DISCORDS 69
Straightened up and powerfully argued that his wife's dress
was really decent and becoming in every respect. Drawing
a long breath, one of his hearers most singularly besought
him to drop the subject lest they might get into trouble
with their wives and daughters. Ainsworth, indeed, had
to use all his eloquence to quiet the turbulent meeting and
to adjourn it to a next occasion, when Mrs. Johnston's
gown, which too had given offence, should be exhibited for
inspection by the brotherhood.
Unhappily enough, this adjournment did not improve
matters. Francis refused to show his wife's gown. He
reproached his brother with thirty offences, and George
retorted, specifying numerous others. George maintained,
for exampie, that several persons took Mrs. Johnson to be
a coquette like the daughter of Zion, pictured by Isreal
(III: 16) who walks with stretched forth neck and wanton
eyes, walking and mincing as she goes and making a tink-
ling with her feet.” Moreover, she lay abed on Sunday
mornings until nine o’clock so hindering the usual assem-
blies, etc., etc. -
Francis took his revenge. On the 25th of December, (on
Christmas let it be observed) he preached from Psalm LII,
and very clearly compared George with the enemies of
David, who tried to deliver him to Saul, with Absalom,
Judas, Korah, Dathan and Abiram.
After the service, when church-matters were in discus-
sion, George accused his brother of corrupting the Script-
ures and abusing his office as a preacher.
The conflict seemed now to have attained its greatest
height. Yet Ainsworth, acting again as moderator, suc-
ceeded once more—January 12, 1598–in warding off the
excommunication of George, whom he thought was only to
be reproved rigidly for false evidence, and left out of the
next choice of elders. -
Though calling this sentence a gross injustice, George
70 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
acquiesced in it. Shortly afterwards, since Francis John-
son and Studley could not attain their end, in the election
of deacons and elders, January 23 and February 19, the
peace was temporarily left undisturbed.
Yet the quarrel revived August, 1598, when George had
to justify himself for withdrawing from the Communion,
because a few members of the congregation had declared
that they also would not partake at it, on account of what
had happened. George pleaded innocence by referring to
the precept : —“first be reconciled to thy brother and then
come and offer your gift.” (Matthew V, 24.)
This excuse tended to stir up the old question, which had
been at rest for the last half a year. George would accord-
ing to the thirty-eighth article of the Confession of Faith
have another congregation, viz.: the one of Norwich, to
give an advisory judgment in other words, he would have a
council called.
As was to be expected, neither Francis nor Studley, nor
any one of their party, would consent to this proposal. So,
too, John Johnson, their father, now already seventy years
old, came over from England, to reconcile if possible his
two sons. A letter from the ministers of the Dutch and
Walloon Reformed Churches tells us : — ‘‘ Narravit nobis
Joannes Jansonius Anglus se hominem septuagenarium es
Anglia in hanc urbem difficili itinere venisse, ut duos filios
suos Francis cum et Georgium dissidentes in gratiam redu-
Ceret.”
Probably the Consistories of the said congregations had
nothing to do with this letter. At all events, there is no"
mention of it in their records. Its contents are preserved
in C. Lawne's book, “The Prophane Schisme of the
Brownists or Separists. With the Impietie, Dissensions,
Lewd and Abominable Vices of that impure Sect,” 1612,
4", pp. VIII, 88.
John Shaw, in ‘‘Advice to his son,’
}
I664—a manuscript
INTESTINE DISCORDS 71
printed in J. Hunter “Founders of Newplymouth '' page
I82-186, consequently, thus misstates the case :-‘‘After
this the Johnsons, both father and sons, separated upon the
like grounds and went with their congregation to Amster-
dam, but they broke all in pieces.” In fact, the father
only left much later for Holland to make peace between
his sons. *
Francis did not shrink from the most rigid measures.
No church-member ventured to pronounce excommunica-
tion. At the meeting convened for that purpoee, every one
of them kept silent for fully an hour. At last, Francis rose
to his feet, and, white with rage, declared that if nobody
would do it, he should do it himself.
Thus George was cut off from the congregation. As his
father would not avoid the outcast “like a heathen and a
publican,” Francis permitted the brotherhood to pass the
same sentence upon the gray-haired man. The difference
between George and the father's excommunication is shown
in John Smyth's “Paralles, Censures and Observations,
1609 : “If Mr. Johnson pronounced excommunication
against his brother and if the church excommunicated the
father.” Many of the brethren vainly attempted to prevent
this excommunication and in vain, did the Reformed minis-
ters intercede. Francis persisted obstinately until the death
of his father, sending him down to the grave with a curse,
as if it were engraving the sentence of excommunication
upon his father's tomb. (See E. Pagitt, “Heresiography,”
page 51).
Who shall dare to approve of Francis' conduct P On the
other hand, who shall pronounce the sentence of condemna-
tion against him, definitively without reserve 2 Perhaps,
it was with a bleeding heart that he pronounced his ana-
thema. Perhaps, it hung heavy on his hands to sacrifice
his filial affection to what he considered to be his solemn
duty : the maintenance of a strict church-discipline, which
72 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
he supposed the Lord himself had commanded. Perhaps,
the man, from whom we turn aside with aversion, deserves
our regard, at least our pity, for being true to his principles.
For the accounts given of the whole affair, George's
writing is our sole source, and this is tinged with partiality.
It must, undoubtedly, be considered as creditable to
Francis, that Ainsworth, the only moderate one among all -
these hot-brained persons, was always on his side, and,
though with charity, was opposed to George. Even of
Francis' wife, who was the primary cause of all these con-
flicts, a fervent pious, strict, and scrupulous man, who had
known her for a long time, testified, ten years later, that
she was a pious, modest, respectable woman, well fitted to
be a pastor's help-meet and assistant. If anyone, she would
have been taught by experience. Advancing in life, she
might, too, have changed her habits.
Here is the light, that pierces the gloom, cast by these
deplorable conflicts. In the midst of these shadows, it is
not all darkness. True, the most impure passions are seen
stirring and at work there : envy and rancor, stubbornness
that never will confess offences, not even in the case of
invectives uttered against a sister ; and withal a love of
power unscrupulous in the means of attaining its end.
Yet, whoever is not diverted by what is before his eyes
and seeks deeper to penetrate the springs of actions, dis-
cerns also here, his own activity to shame, a sacred zeal to
preserve the church from corruption, a pious scrupulousness .
that regards the pride of the world as a horror for the
children of God ; a strong religious life of all, devoted to
the promotion of every one’s salvation.
CHAPTER XI
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT
FTER these turbulent times, which had lasted fully
eight years the exiles found comparative peace.
Yet they still met with numerous difficulties, which, how-
ever, were not rooted in their own circle. These entered
from without.
First of all, Francis Johnson was enlisted in a quarrel
with Henry Jacob, with whom in England he had had
some diversity of opinion.
In 1596, Henry Jacob was first pastor at Cheriton, Kent,
and afterwards of Johnson’s old congregation at Middel-
burg. Being a true Puritan, but condemning the Separatist's
practice, he was a staunch opposer of the Brownists. At
the desire of one Daniel Buck, he argued with Francis
Johnson, then still in prison that it was the duty of any
member of the Church of England, however convinced of
its corruptions he might be, not to separate from it.
Both Jacob and Johnson alike were able debaters. From
several passages of Scripture Johnson shows Henry Jacob
his error, that the true church of Christ could consist of
men of all conditions, as well the good as the wicked ones,
and that Jesus had taught this clearly in the parable of the
tares of the field (Matthew XIII:38). The field means
here the world, says Johnson, and not the congregation.
Johnson makes the following objections to the Church of
England : the discipline being scandalously neglected ; the
sacraments administered to unworthy persons ; the civil
magistrate expected to reform ecclesiastical abuses and as
long as he does not interfere, these corruptions are suffered ;
set forms substituted for prayers coming straight from the
heart ; laws obeyed ; worldly traditions approved ; offices
appointed, of which in the gospel one does not read ; their
74 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
dignitaries allowed to possess temporal authority ; to collect,
like Jewish and Popish priests, tithes, and, at their pleasure,
to compel inferior clergy to desert their flock. The condi-
tion of things furnished sufficient motives for avoiding these
false prophets, to refuse receiving the consecrated sacra-
ments out of the hands of these priests, and to cut off all
connection with a so deeply corrupted and unchristian
church. - -
Johnson, further, declares that, though Henry Jacob may
agree with him in thinking that the confiscation of ecclesi-
astical property by the State would be to the honor of God,
to the wide diffusion of the sacred scriptures and peace of
the church, he and all so-called Reformists would protest
against it, if the state should spend these funds on schools,
universities, hospitals, places of worship, on the relief of
widows, orphans or foreigners in distress, and would con-
sider it almost sacrilegious, should anybody else than he
with his partisans receive them. - {
It was not until three years later, in 1599, that Henry
Jacob, then at Middelburg, published his answer, entitled :
“A defence of the churches and ministry of England.
Written in two treatises against the reasons and objections
of Mr. F. Johnson and others of the Separation commongly
called Brownists. Published especially for the benefit of
those in these parts of the Low Countries. Middelburgh by
Richard Schilders, I 599, '' 4", 9 I pages.
As early as I 600, Francis Johnson made rejoinder by
putting into print, with many additions, what he had pre-
viously written. This quarto volume of 217 pages was en-
titled ; “An answer to Mr. Henry Jacob. His defence of
the churches and ministers of England,’’ 16oo, 4", XXVIII
pages, to which was apended : “An Answer to Mr. H.
Jacob, his Treatise Concerning the Priests of the Church of
England,” etc., 22O pages.
This paper warfare, apart from the consequences, shows
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT 75
^
that Henry Jacob persevered in his opposition to Johnson
and the Brownists, and that he was not convinced by their
written refutations.”
This polemic literature shows us also that Francis John-
Son and his associates did not lose heart. While in Holland
they were continually harrassed by their own countrymen.
The Dutch Reformed did not recognize their congregation
as a church.
Yet these homesick Free Churchmen did not despair.
Living in the Republic as foreigners, they were desirous
and cherished the hope of returning to England. At the
death of Elizabeth, March 24, 1603, and on the accession of
James the First, the end of their excitement, they thought,
could not be distant and their hope soon be fulfiled.
James the First, when still King of Scotland, had always
called the Puritans his friends. Even during the lifetime
of Elizabeth, he had considered London and all principal
towns of England, because of their Puritan majority, to be
well disposed towards him. No wonder, then, that the
monarch was now overwhelmed with petitions from those
who had so long been oppressed.
Francis Johnson and his partisans were among the fore-
most petitioners. Probably he and Ainsworth in person
carried over the address. They did homage to the King as
their lawful monarch, declaring that they adhered to the
true doctrines of the gospel, according to the tenets of the
Church of England, while averse to the antichristian
hierarchy, the corruptions in the public worship and the
receiving of unworthy members. They sent in their Con-
fession of Faith of 1596, in order that the King might be
well informed that they were unjustly persecuted by the
prelates. They asked that they might be granted the priv-
* In his “Congregationalism,” 1880, page 635, Dr. H. M. Dexter
misstates the contrary. Not until 16IO, under the influence of
Parker, Ames and Robinson, did Henry Jacob change his opinion.
76 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
ilege of returning to their country and to walk peacefully
in the faith of the gospel. -
To these, their prayers, no answer was returned. A
Second address, embodying the points of differences with
the Church of England, in fourteen articles had no better
SU1CC62.SS.
In a third effort, they appended a very extensive explan-
ation and a confirmation of the proposed articles, with
references to Scripture.
This time they were favoured with an answer. Through
the mediation of an eminent person, they were invited to
lay before the King a condensed statement of their wishes.
The former communication had covered no fewer than forty
quarto pages.
They responded promptly, for the task was easy. Their
sole wish was to be recalled from their exile. At the same
time, they demanded that, should the king think it advis-
able to confer with their opponents on the various points of
dispute, he might inform these of their arguments and him-
self preside at the proceedings.
It was all in vain On June 9 the University of Cam-
bridge issued a sharp resolution to confute their assertions
in regard to the ecclesiastical estates. This resolution was
passed by scarcely one-third part of the Senate, among
whom was not a single doctor of divinity, except the violent
anti-puritan vice-chancellor.
Oxford now followed with “The Answer of the vice-
chancellor, the Doctors, both the Proctors and others, the
heads of houses in the University of Oxford to the humble
petition, 1603.’’
This answer of thirty-two quarto pages, in which, Octo-
ber 7, the sister-university fully concurred, unfairly reviled
the exiles. The Brownists found now that all their hopes
were over though seventeen days afterward King James
consented to a disputation between the prelates and the
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT 77
Puritans. By the same resolution, His Majesty, first
promised that the Church of England was constituted
according to the gospel and to the primitive Christian con-
gregation, and that its present condition was highly credit-
able to its rulers.
England's ruler had now thrown off mask and disguise
forever. Henceforth he was inexorable, the cruel tool of a
priesthood, that flattered him fulsomely, and exactly in that
manner ruled him according to their will.
Hence the disputation, held January 14, 16 and 18 at
Hampton Court was a mere sham, not a single Puritan was
to be present. The King, in a Latin speech of his own,
jeered at all who differed with him in opinion. He even
expressed the amiable wish that those who disapproved of
the use of surplices might ere long want linen for their own
breeches |
Sufficient reasons, these, for the eighteen bishops around
him, to protest, on their knees,” that his Majesty undoubt-
edly spoke by the special assistance of God’s spirit !
Of these events Hallam, in his ‘‘ Constitutional History,”
vol. I, page 4O4, says:—“we are alternately struck with
wonder at the indecent and partial behaviour of the king
and at the abject baseness of the bishops, mixed, according
to the custom of servile natures, with insolence towards
their opponents.’’
Had that same spirit perhaps also to do with the King's
command issued March 5, to maintain by force when need
requires, uniformity in worship and in the use of the
Prayer-book ; with prohibition of all attempts to prevail on
him to depart from his resolution ; with turning out of
Christ's service, in about one year, three hundred minis-
ters ; and with seconding the bishops in their excommuni-
* Among the great things accomplished by the Separatists was their
breaking of the yoke of Norman Feudalism. See the North Ameri-
cant ſºczniezw, for January 1921. –ED.
78 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
cation, March 19 and 20, of every one who dared deny the
Church of England to be a true, apostolic church, or to
separate from it and form distinct assemblies 2
The exiles were now in despair. They no longer
expected to return to their country. They again addressed
the King a lengthy writing of one hundred eighteen quarto
pages, entitled :-‘‘An apology or defense of such Chris-
tians as are commonly (but unjustly) called Brownists,
against such imputations as are laid upon them by the
Heads and Doctors of the University of Oxford in their
‘‘ answer to the humble petition, Jeremiah VI, I p., Phil.
III, 2, 16O4.’’ .
There are two copies of this work in the British Museum.
An extremely scarce Dutch translation of it, dated 1612,
contains all the above-mentioned petitions and explana-
tions. They signed the Apology as ‘‘ overseers, deacons
and brethren of the English Church at Amsterdam in the
Netherlands exiled for Christ's Gospel's Sake.”
This address was the joint production of Francis Johnson
and Ainsworth, though it should be observed that later edi-
tions, as is the case with the Dutch one of 1680, are gener-
ally subscribed with Ainsworth’s name alone, probably be-
cause he was the principal author.
Meanwhile the exiled George Johnson gathered around
him some of his partisans and became their pastor. Yet
success did not crown his efforts. This is clearly shown
by his application to Domine Plancius to admit him and his
followers to the Reformed Church. His request was laid
before the Reformed Consistory, June 28, 1603, but by the
ministers Plancius and Halsbergius, was rejected (see Pro-
tocol III, folio 98.)
George Johnson now addressed himself to Hugh Brough-
ton, who happened to be in Ansterdam about that time.
Hugh Broughton, born 1549, was a man of great learn-
ing but of little judgment, very irritable and pedantic, a
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT 79
dogmatic zealot, coarse and rude in his polemics, a Puritan,
but still adhering to the Church of England —in conse-
quence of his hatred towards the Brownists. The title of
his works, edited in 1662 by John Lightfoot, reads:—“The
works of the Great Albanian Divine, renowned in many
Nations for rare skill in Salem's and Athen’s Tongues and
familiar acquaintance with all Rabbinical Learning !”
Broughton acquired a certain degree of reputation by
maintaining, in opposition to the opinion of the Church of
England, that Christ should have descended into hell,
Calvin's interpretation, who justly understood the Hades
to be the nether-world or the region of the dead.
With a view to inform King James, he was occupied at
that time with his book “An advertisement of corruption
in our handling of religion, 1604,” published in 1605, Con-
taining one hundred twelve quarto pages.
It must have been gratifying for a man of his stamp that
George Johnson, the exiled Brownist, had recourse to him.
Supposing that experience had taught his countrymen to
be submissive, he advised George to return to England.
He even gave him a letter of introduction to the Bishop of
Durham.
Results were quite otherwise. No sooner did George
Johnson get back to his country, than he paraded again his
former objections against the Church of England. For
this he was committed to prison. Then he became ill and
died before judgment was passed upon him.
Hugh Broughton reported afterwards : “George John-
son, for whom I wrote to the Bishop of Durham, that I
thought him tractable, and desired that he might be suffered
to come hither, was accused of turning the subjects from
obedience, upon contempt of our churches, and is dead.”
Francis Johnson wrote in 1606 (“Inquiry and Answer,”
page 6 I) of his brother : “he did not, like as this man,
(Thomas White) leave or contrary our general cause and
80 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
testimony against the Church of England ; he was there
taken and put in prison for this cause, where he died under
their hands;” and, a few lines higher : “it pleased God to
visit him with sickness that he died.” º
Assuredly, it was for the most part to his book on the
controversaries in the congregation of the Brownists, that
George Johnson owed Broughton favorable opinion respect-
ing him. In the bitterness of his grudge George Johnson
had this book published before it was half finished.
This action of George Johnson, formerly considered as
one of its members, was very grievous for the Brownist con-
gregation. Not less violent, was the conflict arising some
time after. Ainsworth was attacked by Hugh Broughton,
and Francis Johnson by Thomas White.
In consequence of a cursory remark of Broughton, in his
“Advertisement of corruption in our handling of religion,”
Ainsworth defended the usual interpretation of Exodus
XXVIII:6 and XXXIX: 2,3. It irritated Broughton to
such a degree that he charged Ainsworth, who, according
to the professors of the University of Leyden, “‘had not his
better for the Hebrew tongue and had an excellent gift for
opening the Scriptures,” without understanding a single
word of Hebrew, nor being able to expound a line of the
New Testament. Broughton now availed himself of this
occasion to call the Brownist Church : “a Synagogue of
Satan,” on account of their opinion as to the use of former
Roman Catholic Churches; on forms of prayers ; and on
church discipline.
Ainsworth made answer to this attack in a lengthy writ-
ing, published in 1605 by Francis Blackwell, an elder of his
church. Its title runs : “Certain questions concerning :
I, Silk or Wool in the Highpriest’s Ephod. 2 Idol Tem-
ples Commonly Called Churches. 3, The Form of Prayer
Commonly Called The Lord’s Prayer. 4, Excommunica-
tion, etc., Handled between Mr. Hugh Broughton, remain-
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT 81
ing of late at Amsterdam in the Low Countries, and Mr.
Henry Ainsworth, Teacher of the Exiled English Church
at Amsterdam aforesaid.” I Thess V 21, 1605, 4", IV
and 40 pages. -
This elicited Broughton’s rejoinder, entitled : “An ad-
monition to Mr. Francis Blackwell, one of the Company of
Amsterdam,” etc. (See Broughton's Works, page 722).
From this title it appears that the book was published by
Francis Blackwell and not by Francis Bright, as Brook, in
his “Puritans,” Vol. III page 518 suggests.
Ainsworth made rebuttal under the title : ‘‘ An answer
to the Articles of Unlearnedness objected to me by Mr.
Broughton.” His defence is written in a dignified style,
which is now and then trenchant, yet indeed gentle and
moderate, when contrasted with Broughton's invectives.
This is all the more to the praise of Ainsworth because
just about that time a scheme was formed, more dangerous
for Ainsworth and his church, than any former measure of
the magistrate ever had been. Perhaps—the supposition
at least is rather obvious—this scheme was contrived by
Broughton and prepared by Matthew Slade, mentioned pre-
viously, who, according to the records of the Consistory,
had now already been promoted from sub-rector to rector
of the grammar School.
This apostate Brownist laid, May 5, 1605, a complaint
before the Consistory of the Dutch Reformed Church, on
account of several “ill handlings ’’ of the Brownists living
here in Amsterdam, which handlings were partly contrary
to the authority of the magistrates and the obedience which
all subjects are due to them, and partly fatal to God’s Re-
formed Church. (Protocol III folio 128).
The Consistory now resolved on conferring upon this
matter with the Walloon Consistory, as both these bodies
had always acted in common with regard to the Brownists.
Three deputies were nominated, who met with those of the
82 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Walloons, and sent for Rector Slade on the 1st of June.
But though the so-called “ill handlings ’’ referred to “la
grande confusion et desordre qui se void en ce qui concerne
le marriage et l’excommunication '' (Actes du consistoire
de ‘’Eglise Wallone, I May 1605), that is, to the aversion
of the Brownists to celebrate their marriages in the Re-
formed Churches and to their execution of excommunica-
tion, the real purpose of Slade was soon unmasked.
He wrote that : ‘‘there were here in this town (Amster-
dam) a great many Englishmen who did not understand
the Dutch language and for that reason entreated to be
assisted in the formation of a Reformed English Church,
uniform in doctrine and government to the other Reformed
churches in Holland. The complaint put in beforehand, as
the words : ‘‘uniform in doctrine and government showed
clearly enough, against whom this measure was directed.”
Of course, the erection of such a church would be most
derogatory to the Brownists. Nor was it less visible who
was concealed behind this all, when, a few months after, as
soon as the burgomasters favored the plan, it was reported
that Hugo Broughtonus had been highly recommended to
the burgomasters for the service of such a congregation
(Protocol III folio 184).
It is further observable that, entirely distinct from that of
the Brownists, there existed already in 1597 a congregation
of Englishmen in Amsterdam, having Henoch Clapham as
pastor. From the title of his “Theological axioms or con-
clusions,’’ published in that same year, it appears that these
were “publikly controverted, discussed and concluded by
that poore English congregation in Amsterdam, to whom
Henoch Clapham for the present administereth the Gospel.”
The Walloons had wisely refrained from all further in-
tervention. Their opinion was that they ought not to have
anything more to do with the Brownists, who had better
bring their complaints, established by precise proofs, to the
magistrate.
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT 83
In the records of the Walloon Consistory, May 9, 1605,
we read : “la compagnie a ingé qu'il nestoit pas expedient
d'en conferer avec les susdits Brownists, mais estime neces-
saire, que les exemples de leurs desorders sayent representer
a messieurs les Bourguemaistres parcent, qui ont fait leur
plainte de telles choses.” *
But even the Dutch Reformed got little good from these
measures of theirs. Bronghton left Amsterdam within a
month, and repaired to Middelburg. See Protocol III folio
136, November 17, 1605. Three years elapsed before the
Presbyterian Congregation was established (in Amsterdam).
For the present the danger threatening the Brownists was
averted.
It would have turned out quite otherwise if the design to
call Thomas White, after Broughton’s departure, had been
successful. . The British merchants, agreeing with Slade,
would, however, have nothing to do with him, [White].
According to the Protocol III, folio 141, March 9, 1606,
Jonas Thomassen, Ritsaert Auwen and Jonas Harwan,
British merchants, appeared before the Consistory and de-
clared that the British merchants were not inclined to call
Mr. Thomas Weyt, and consequently requested that another
able minister, having the required qualifications, should be
called.
The only ground on which White was recommended by
the Reformed Consistory, must have been his most vigorious
invective against the Brownists, published a short time be-
fore under the title of “A discoverie of Brownism ; or a
briefe Declaration of some of the Errors and Abominations
daily practised and increased among the English Company
of the Separation, remayning, for the present, at Amster-
dam in Holland. Proverbs XVI:29 London 1605,” VI,
30 pages quarto. An unworthy attack by a renegade.
In fact, Thomas White, of the County of Wiltshire, had
separated from the Church of England with a most tren-
84 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
chant, parting letter, dated February 25, 1603, and not
I6O4 (as Hanbury, most likely mistaking it for Old Style,
states in his “Memorials'' page 108.)
White embraced Brownism and repaired with twelve or
thirteen fellow-believers to Amsterdam. He immediately
joined there the Brownists, though he with his fellow-
travellers continued to keep together in one distinct body.
He assigned as a reason for his action that they knew each
other better than they did the Amsterdam members, and
that it was rather desirable to form several congregations.
But Francis Johnson suspected him and his friend Thomas
Fowell of keeping aloof, because they wanted to remain
their own masters and not to be subjected to him as their
pastor.
Be this as it may, during ten weeks, White enjoyed at
Johnson's house the most liberal hospitality. In April,
1604, he married an English woman named Rose Grempre,
widow of John Philips. She was probably not a Brownist,
but a member of the Church of England, to which may be
attributed the fact that White, as soon as he returned with
her to England, suddenly reverted to that church and
changed his opinions.
White now repaid the Brownists' civilities with the most
indelicate reproaches and vulgar imputations in the afore-
said printed invective. He not only tried to hurt as much
as possible the feelings of his host and benefactor Johnson,
by revealing again, what had happened with Johnson’s
father, and by ridiculing the moderation of his silence at
the insults offered him by his late brother George, but he
even called the deacons thieves and the elders lewdsters.
He apologizes for the rudeness of the style of his pamphlet,
with the words:—“Being but newly arrived.”
White further says (page 25):—“These that pretend
such sincerity of Religion, do abound above others with all
kinds of debate, malice, adulteries, cozenage, uncleanesse,
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT 85
so that W(illiam) C(lerck) complained, that he thought,
that they had been all saints, but, I see, they are all devils.’’
As William Clerck continued member of the Brownist
Church, it is obvious that this complaint should not have
been taken seriously.
Against these imputations the Brownists had no other
antidote than laying a complaint before the magistrate, but
in vain. White represented that his pamphlet had been
printed by order of the highest church dignitaries. At the
end of the preface to Francis Johnson’s “Inquiry and
Answer,’’ we read :-‘‘ But thus is he the fitter servant for
his masters the Prelates, by whose authority he pleaded
here, before the magistrate, that his book was printed.”
Just about that time, the first month of 1606, it had been
reported to the King of England, that English exiles in
Holland were shamefully abusing the freedom of the press
by printing books and libels of a most dangerous kind. In
consequence of this, the king directed Archbishop Bancroft
to make Ambassador, Sir Noel Caron, give his attention to
it, in order to provide a remedy. How very sensible of the
publication of such pamphlets the English government was,
is seen in 1619 when Ambassador Carleton, on his own
authority, instituted close inquiry concerning William
Brewster,” a Brownist and printer at Leyden. Carleton had
* “July 22, 1619. One W. Brewster, a Brownist, hath been for some
years an inhabitant and printer at Leyden but now within three
weeks removed from thence and gone back to dwell in London,
where he may be found out and examined, not only of his book : . . . .
but likewise of : Perth' Assembly, of which if he was not the printer
himself, he assuredly knows both the printer and author ; for, as I
ann informed, he hath had, whilst he remained here, his hand in all
such books as have been sent over into England and Scotland ; as
particularly a book in folio, entitled . . . . was printed by him. So
was another in 18? . . . . of which I send your honor the title page ;
and if you will compare that, which is underlined therein, with the
other —you will find it the same character, and the one being coll-
fessed (as that . . . . Brewster doth openly avow) the other cannot
well be denied.
Sept. 12.-In my last I advertised your honor that Brewster was
taken at Leyden, which proved an error, in that the Schout, who was
employed by the magiatrates for his apprehension, being a dull
drunken fellow, took one man for another.”
86 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
both his types and the whole number of copies at Leyden
seized and apprehended his assistant.* To a similar meas-
ure of the English Ambassador, in 1591 at Middelburg, we
have adverted before.
No wonder that the Amsterdam magistrates, after such
sharp exhortations from a superior authority,” durst not, a
few days after, prosecute the slanderer. A welcome way
out was found. The complaint was made in the name of
the congregation by its complete board ; but as the com-
pany of the Brownists had never been acknowledged by the
magistrates as a legal congregation, their request could
consequently not be admitted. The records or resolutions
of the Amsterdam burgomasters, preserved in the Municipal
Offices of Amsterdam, give no intimation of it. The appli-
cation was signed by all known persons, except by Mercer,
Kniveton and Bresto, who were replaced by Francis Black-
well and William Barbons. It was also signed by the
deaconesses Jane Nicolas and Judith Holder. -
After this disappointment Francis Johnson took up the
pen once more in his own defense. This writing and per-
haps also his republishing in 1605 of the book of Barrowe
and Greenwood, awoke the anger of this Bishop of London.
This prelate having the English ecclesiastical mind of that
period—printing not being free in England, as in the Dutch
Republic, imagined that this writing and all books pub-
lished by the Free Churchmen called Brownists were not
only licensed but also approved by the Dutch magistrates.
He was delighted to be better informed by the deputies
of the Dutch at London, when these particulars were com-
*See the full account of this in the article by the editor “The New
England Magazine, entitled “The Pilgrim Press in Choir Alley, and
in his Young Peoples' History of the Pilgrims, 1920. –ED. .
** The power of the British envoy in the Republic is understood,
when we remember that the British and Dutch were allies in the war
for Dutch independence against Spain and Sir Dudley Carleton sat in
the Raad van State, or Supreme Council of the Netherlands.-E.D.
OPPOSITION FROM WITHOUT 87
municated in a letter of that Church (in Austin Friars and
still existing) to the Consistory of the Reformed Church in
Amsterdam (Protocol III, fol. 146, January 8, 1606.)
Francis Johnson could not prevent the misrepresentations
of White and his co-workers being credited, by many in
England. For many years afterwards these slanders found
willing ears and were continually spread. Most of them
are enumerated in C. Hutton's book “The prophane Schism
of the Brownists or Separatists with the impiety, dissen-
sions, lewd and abominable vices of that impure sect, dis-
covered by Christ. Lawne and Robert Bulward, lately re-
turned unto the bosom of the Church of England from the
Company of Mr. Johnson,” 1612.
Fortunately this bitter conflict did not impair the concord
of the congregation. The bonds of friendship between its
leaders Francis Johnson and Henry Ainsworth were all the
more tightened. The congregation daily increased in num-
bers and strength. Another influx of fugitives promised
the highest prosperity, but, in fact, lighted the torch of
discord. Schism after schism was caused, many times
more injurious than the congregation had already deplored.
CHAPTER XII
JOHN SMYTH
HEADING these fugitives from the home land, there
was among the first comers, a certain John Smyth,
born in one of the eastern counties of England, to the south
of the Humber and the north of the Wash. He studied at
Cambridge, probably from 1586 till 1593. There, Francis
Johnson (from about 158o student, and expelled from his
college, October 30, 1589, for difficulties with the heads of
the University) was for some time his tutor. Richard
Bernard, who most likely entered there as a student in
I 591 (the registers from 1589 to 1602 are lost) became
Bachelor in 1595, and obtained, in 1598, the degree of
Magister (doctor). He was consequently a contemporary
of Smyth and states in the preface to his “Plain Evidences,”
I6 Io, that Smyth was made minister by Bishop Wickam—
a wrong spelling for Wickham, who was bishop from 1584
till his death in 1595. From his later sentiments, it may
be concluded that he was deeply interested in the contro-
versies about predestination, gratia universalis (universal
grace) and perseverantia sanctorum (perseverance of saints)
which at that time convulsed the University. Besides, by
the shallowness and pedantry of one student, Barret, the
anti-Calvinistic sentiments of professor Baro, called in 157 I
and now deprived of his chair, were displayed. In the
meantime, November 20, 1595, the so-called Lambeth-arti-
cles, intending to embody the calvinistic doctrine respecting
predestination, were drawn up. º
Yet what part, either openly or secretly, Smyth took at
these conflicts, and however he might, perhaps unwittingly,
have imbibed the Puritan views at Cambridge, he was not
prevented by them from being shortly after ordained a min-
ister of the Church of England at Lincoln. In his “Plain
Evidences,’’ Richard Bernard says of him :—‘‘He was a
JOHN SMYTH 89
Subscriber, a conformitant, and as honest a man then, as
ever since, for anything seen or heard hitherto to the con-
trary : this is evident, when first he was made minister and
when he was instituted into a living. Whether wholly a
conformist, he best knoweth : it is enough, that he was,
what he was.”
Long this burning zeal, evidently the result of the noblest
principles, his more than usual abilities, his peculiar gift of
preaching, which, at a later date, was even acknowledged
by his opponents, were all instrumental in ranking him fore-
most among the most beloved preachers. Bishop Hall
places him above Robinson ; Baillie attributes to him emi-
nent gifts; an unknown opponent calls him : ‘‘ a Scholar of
no small reading and well seen and experienced in arts ''
and Bradford describes him as “a man of able gifts, a good
preacher and of other good parts.’’
The library of Emanual College, Cambridge, contains a
collection of Smyth's sermons, entitled : “The bright morn-
ing starre or the resolution and exposition of the 22 Psalms
preached publicly in foure sermons at Lincolne by John
Smith preacher of the citie.” Printed 1603, 16mo.
The corruptions he detected in the Church of England
tended constantly to turn his mind to the opinions of the
Puritans. He even questioned his own conscience whether
it were not his duty to lay down his office and abandon for-
ever the communion of the Church of England. His inde-
cision lasted nine months. In his ‘‘ Paralleles, Censures,
Observations,” page 128, he states : “that I doubted nine
months I acknowledge.’’
During this period, perhaps to overcome his own doubts,
he probably employed himself in compiling the writing in
which he confuted the objections of the Brownists, with
whom, according to Neal (“Puritans,” I p. 374) the county
90 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
near Lincoln was infested, to the use of the Lord’s prayer,
both as such and as the finality of all prayers.
No copy of this composition seems to be extant which
Richard Bernard cites in his “Plaine Evidences '' to them in
the preface and also on page 18 I ; so that the book must
have been rather copious.
As he was writing, it occurred to Smyth that the Brown-
ists' views, especially in regard to the authority of the
bishops, were well-founded. Though threatened by these
prelates into professing orthodoxy, he decided in 1602, at
the end of his nine months of deliberation, to resign his
office and separate from the Church of England forever.
Had not the year of his change of creed been stated by so
reliable a witness as Nathaniel Morton, the cousin of
Governor Bradford, we should, on account of aforesaid col-
lection of sermons, rather think it took place in the year
following. Very soon Smyth gained a great many adher-
ents, especially among the merchants in the neighboring
town of Gainsborough. There be became pastor of a
Brownist congregation.
At the end of the preface to his “Plain Evidences,”
Richard Bernard writes : “he was made minister by trades-
men and called himselfe the pastour of the Church of
Gainsborough.” To the ‘‘town of Gainsborough and
those there that knew my footsteps in this matter,”, Smyth
refers in his “Paralleles '' page 128, when proving that
since his change of mind he never wavered in his conviction
as to the necessity of his separation.
He now travelled all over Gainsborough’s environs :
Austerfield, Scrooby, Yorkcastle, Basford near Nottingham
and Worksop. The circle of his followers constantly wid-
ened. At the first named places he brought over to his
opinions William Brewster, born 1560, and Richard Clyfton,
born 1553, as J. Hunter states in his “The founders of New
JOHN SMYTH 91
Plymouth '' page 45* ; at Basford the couple Thomas and
Jane Helwys, who tenderly nursed him during his sickness,
perhaps the first fit of the disease of which he died after-
wards; * at Worksop, Alexander Hodgkin and his family,
including his daughter Jane, afterwards married to John
Murton, a member of the congregation at Gainsborough,
and his former fellow student Richard Bernard who since
June 19, 1601, ministered in the English Church. Bernard
had studied at the expense of Sir George Saintpoll, to
whom he dedicated in 1608 his “Christian Advertisements,”
in which dedication he says : ‘‘ by your works of mercie, in
the universitie was I brought up, whereby through the
good grace of God I am that I am.’’
Bernard regarded with envy the impression of Smyth's
preaching upon his audience. To save his own church
from desertion he thought best to pretend to agree with
Smyth's opinions. A hundred members of his congrega-
tion he called to a solemn celebration of the Lord's supper,
on which occasion the partakers promised never again to
* According to this statement, obtained from family papers, Clyfton
would have been only 55 years old when coming to Holland. Yet
Bradford in his “Dialogue,” page 455, says : “he was a grave and
fatherly old man, when he came first into Holland, bearing a great
white beard, and pity it was that such a reverend old man should be
forced to leave his country and at those years to go into exile. ”John
Smyth was, moreover, upbraided with opposing Richard Clyfton, as
being “a weake man, unable to deale in so great a controversy.”
Perhaps he was, therefore, some ten years older and the statement in
the family-papers 1may be incorrect.
** Smyth, “Retraction of errors : ”—“All that ever Mr. Helwys
can say is that, when I was sick in England at Bashforth, I was trou-
blesome and chargeable to him, wherein I confess his kindness, but I
would have given him satisfaction and he refused it, and in my sick-
ness there was so much brought in as I spent.” Sulyth in his
“Paralleles’’ and Bernard in his “Christian advent. p. 38 says of
this illness : “a sickness nigh unto death.” Barclay “The Inner
Life” etc., page 52 errs when presuming that Smyth fell into this dis-
ease when committed to the Marchallsea. A William Smyth was im-
prisoned there in 1593, but never the John Smyth in question. Brook
(“Puritans”), J. Hunter (“Founders of New Plymouth '' p. 55),
(“Congregational History,” page 157) fall into the same mistake.
92 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
attend to the service of the detested ministers of the Church
of England.
In his “Paralleles’’ Smyth says: “I have considered
your covenant made with one hundreth people, a thing of
such note and observation, as that the whole country ringeth
of it,” and a few pages later : “you did call out a hundreth
persons of so many parishes so far distant to enter covenant
together not to heare the dumb ministers, to watch one over
another, to admonish one an other and thereupon to receive
the Lord’s supper.’’
Bernard himself acknowledges to have done such, ‘‘ only
in policy to keep his people from Mr. Smyth.” (Robinson,
Works II, page IOI). On account of that statement I
judge of him quite differently than J. Hunter, in his “ New
Plymouth,’’ page 37.
After all, caught by the strong current, Richard Bernard
became openly an opponent of the Church of England, re-
fused to subscribe the articles for observing its doctrine and
public worship, and was on account thereof sequestered
from his function. Smyth in his “Parallells,’’ page 2,
says: ‘‘ afterwards having lost your vicaridge.”
Smyth officiated about four years as pastor of Gainsbor-
ough. At the expiration of that term three Puritan minis-
ters: Dod, Hildersham, Barbon, invited him to a public
disputation * at Coventry at Sir William Bowes' residence;
to which he agreed.
As a rule, disputations of this kind never carry convic-
tion. Either party professes to have gained the victory.
At the request of the others, Smyth closed the conference
in the evening with prayer. He thanked God for the
peaceful disposition among the disputants and besought for-
* Waddington (“Congregational History,” p. 157), H. M. Dexter
(“Congregationalism'' p. 312) and others inaccurately state that this
disputation took place earlier, but Richard Bernard (“Christian
Advertisement'' page 37) connects it with Smyth's visit to Holland.
JOHN SMYTH 93
giveness for any error and imperfectness in argument or
refutation.
Smyth himself was not at all convinced by the Puritans.
On the contrary, he even thought he had silenced them on
more than one point. In his “Parallel,’’ page 129, we
read : that “I praised God for resolution of my doubts I
deny to death,’’ and on page 128 : “that ever I did
acknowledge the seperation for truth and seperated from
the English assemblies and then returned againe unto them
I do utterly deny and I appeale,” etc.
On the other hand it was that prayer of Smyth's that
gave opponents cause for proclaiming that Smyth had been
convinced by them of his error and had solemnly recanted
it, Richard Bernard tells us in his ‘‘ Christian Advertise-
ment,’’ page 37 : that “Smyth conferred with certaine
godly and learned men, whereby he became so satisfied, as
he kneeled downe and in prayer praised God, that he was
not misled further.” In the preface to his “Plaine Evi-
dences,’’ 16Io, he referred again to this, though Smyth had
already in 1609 said in his “Paralleles : ’’ ‘‘ther is one
untruth that I did kneele downe and praise God for
satisfaction after doubting.”
It is not to be wondered at that attention was more than
ever drawn to Smyth by this controversy. Since 1605 the
vigilance and secrity of the State church clergy against all
nonconformists had increased. Even the “Gunpowder
Plot,” was a tool in their hands to provoke hatred among
the people against all sectaries. Under such circumstances,
and perhaps because of threats or still worse, Smyth thought
it advisable to fly from Gainsborough with as many of his
congregation as could and would go with him. Cotton
(“Way of Congregational Churches,’’ page 6) reproaches
him with this change : ‘‘ for though the tyranny of the
ecclesiastical courts, was harsh towards him and the yokes
put upon him in the ministry too grievous to be borne, yet
94 . HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
neither was he alone in suffering.” Smyth states that he
twice escaped from his persecutors. The first time was pro-
bably, when in 1602 a confession of orthodoxy was extorted
from him ; the second when he fled to Holland. Richard
Bernard (“Christian Advertisement,” page 38) charges
him with : “a dauntablenesse of spirit with feare, not dar-
ing to be bold to suffer for the cause here with us,” viz.:
with Bernard and his people, then belonging to the
Brownists.
Smyth formed the design of repairing to Amsterdam—the
usual asylum for Brownists. He did not grudge the Puri-
tans—who were still always priding themselves on their
supposed victory—their foolish boast that he had been
completely won over to their opinions and that was now
going to convert Francis Johnson. To load Smyth again
with inconstancy Richard Bernard asserts in his “Christian
Advert.,’’ page 37 : “he was so resolved as he purposed to
disswade his tutor Mr. Johnson from the same, saying he
would goe to Amsterdam for that end.” Cotton, doubtless,
borrowed from the preface to Richard Bernard’s “Plain
Evidences '' his information on page 6 of his ‘‘ Way of
Congregational Churches : ’’ ‘‘ he thought he could have
gained his tutor Johnson from the errors of his rigid
separation.
Indeed, at his departure, Smith provided as much as
possible for the remaining part of his congregation. This
task was rather easy. Just at this juncture John Robinson
happened to come into the neighbouring village of Scrooby,
where elder Brewster was living in a large mansion. Rob-
inson, born 1575, had studied at Cambridge from 1592 to
I598, and had been, from 1600 to 1605, pastor at mundham,
of which benifice the municipal government of Norwich
had the right of presentation.”
Difficulties concerning his preaching at Norwich led
Robinson to the decisive step of separating from the State
JOHN SMYTH 95
church. Henry Ainsworth in his “ Answer to Crashaw,”
page 246, says: “witness the late practice in Norwich,
where certain citizens were excommunicated for resorting
unto and praying with Mr. Robinson, a man worthily rever-
enced of all the city for the graces of God in him.” Ac-
cording to Pagitt (“Heresiography, page 77) : ‘‘ one
master Robinson, who leaving Norwich malcontent became
a rigid Brownist.”
The friends at Scrooby soon recognized Robinson's great
abilities, and in 1606, probably when Smyth was about to
depart, or had already left, appointed him, in his room, as
their pastor, to assist the old teacher Richard Clyfton.
The Brownist congregation at Gainsborough and the one
at Scrooby were two distinct churches, as Hunter in his
‘‘Founders of new Plymouth Plantation,” page 53 and
elsewhere rightly states, on the authority of Bradford,
“History of Plymouth,’’ page 9 : ‘‘these people became
two distinct bodys or churches and in regarde of distance
of place did congregate severally. In one of those churches
was Mr. John Smyth, who afterwards was chosen their
pastor. But in the other church was that famous and
worthy man Mr. John Robinson who afterwards was their
pastor for many years.”
I Suppose, however, that the congregation of Scrooby
never had a pastor of its own, before Smyth's departure, as
Bradford adds page IO : ‘‘so after they had continued to-
gether about a year, they resolved to get over into Holland
as they could, which was in the year 1607 and 1608.”
Accordingly, the congregation was founded one year before
I6O7, otherwise in 1606, the year of John Smyth's
departure.
The Scrooby congregation now being provided for, Smyth
resolved to set out. He arrived in Amsterdam late in the
autumn of 1606, probably in October or November.
CHAPTER XIII
THE TWO ENGLISH CONGREGATIONS IN AMSTERDAM
OHN SMYTH did not join himself to the congregation
J of his former tutor, Francis Johnson, but formed with
his people another English Church which though separate,
was intimately connected with the first or elder of the two.
This, perhaps, led Baillie to misstate (in ‘‘Errours,” page
I6), that Smyth established himself not at Amsterdam, but
at Leyden. Shaw (“Manuscript,’’ page 185) and Neal
(‘‘ Puritans,’’ page 422) fall into the same mistake, which
mistake Prince (“Memorial,’’ page 120) already detected,
but, in turn, commits in the same place an error by saying
that Robinson went to Leyden at the end of 1608—which
was in fact not before 1609. -
For various reasons Smyth did not join Johnson's com-
pany. This was, first, because the congregation, increased
by the exiles from Gainsborough and environs, might have
become too numerous to meet together conveniently in one,
rather small place, and to watch over each other properly.
Then also, each congregation had but one pastor, and as
Francis Johnson had already held during nine years that
dignity in Amsterdam, John Smyth would have had to
renounce his position of pastor.
Bradford (see Young, Chronicles page 450), tells us —
he [Smyth.] was some time pastor to a company of honest
and godley men, which came with him out of England, and
pitched at Amsterdam.* Finally, while in Holland the
contest between Gomarus and Arminius more and more
agitated the nation, it was surely not strange that it was
* Brooke (Puritans II p. 146), Barclay (Inner Life, p. 63 and 68)
and Dexter (Congregationalism, p. 312 note).unjustly presume that
Smyth joined Johnson's congregation, for which no evidence exists
to warrant the statement.
Two ENGLISH CONGREGATIONS IN AMSTERDAM 97
Soon shown how rigid a predestinarian Johnson was, and
that Smyth and his followers held opposite views &
Yet both congregations were on most friendly terms.
They were two children of one mother, attached to each
other in sisterly affection.
On the title-page of his “Differences of the churches of
the seperation “* Smyth calls his congregation “the
second English church at Amsterdam,” and the other one
in the preface “the auncient brethren of the seperation.”
On the ground of the intimate connection of these two
congregations, Henry Ainsworth was justified in saying in
the preface to his “Defence of the holy Scripture,” 1609,
of John Smyth that : “not long since he professed himself
to be a member with us.”
Smyth's congregation was the less numerous but kept
constantly increasing in members but from refugees from
the Lincolnshire region.
These exiles were in a thankful mood. In a letter of
Hugh and Anne Bromhead, in answer to one of July 13 and
written about August 1607, as accompanying Smyth's
“Principles and Inferences,’’ probably published in the
middle of 1607, we read : ‘‘ unto our good God
and Father, that hath in his merciful providence brought
us out of Babylon, the mother of all abominations, the habi-
tation of devils, and the hold of all foul spirits, and a cage
of every unclean and hateful bird, and there withal hath
given us a charge to separate ourselves and to touch no un-
clean . . . we seek to establish and obey the ordinances
and laws of our Saviour, Christ, left by his last will and
* Dexter (“Congregationalism,” p. 314) assigns a later date to
Smyth's Arminian principles, without, however, supplying proofs.
The event of the Lambreth articles being drawn up in 1595, does not
render it probable that Smyth was quite free from Arminianism when
coming frolli England.
* See reprint in Appendix B.
98 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
without altering, changing, innovating, wresting or leaving
out any of them, that the Lord shall give us sight of, by
the assistance of the Holy Ghost, in this faith, and order
to lead our lives, and for this faith and order to leave our
lives, if such be the good-will of our heavenly Father.’’
At that time the congregation, of which Francis Johnson
was pastor and Henry Ainsworth teacher, attained a hith-
erto unknown prosperity. It numbered three hundred
members. In remembrance of it, the famous Plymouth
father, Governor Bradford, forty years afterwards, ex-
claimed : “truly there were in them many worthy men :
and if you had seen them in their beauty and order, as we
have done, you would have been much affected there with,
we dare say.”
After having made mention of its government, Bradford
says further : There was ‘‘ one ancient widow for a dea-
coness, who did them service many years, though she was
sixty years of age when she was chosen. She honored her
place and was an ornament to the congregation. She
usually sat in a convenient place in the congregation with a
little birchen rod in her hand, and kept little children in
great awe from disturbing the congregation. She did fre-
quently visit the sick and weak, especially women, and, as
there was need, called maids and young women to watch and
do them other helps, as their necessity did require, and if
they were poor she would gather relief for them of those
that were able, or acquaint the deacons, and she was obeyed
as a mother in Israel and an officer of Christ.’’
The consequence of this growth of the congregation was
that Johnson and Ainsworth looked for a place for assem-
bly more suitable than the one with which they had hitherto
been content. A site on the Groeneburgwal (Green city
wall or rampart) was purchased in the name of one of the
Two ENGLISH CONGREGATIONS IN AMSTERDAM 99
brethren, and the necessary money for the building raised
by subscription.
Ainsworth (“Animadversion '' page 2) tells us, that the
assurance of the ground was made in the name of one man
only, whose name was used but in trust, for any other
might have had the same as well as he, and that two of our
brethren and a widow were chief owners of the building.
Yet, too, from England fellow-believers sent contributions.
The records of the Consistory of the Amsterdam Presby-
terian Congregation, February 4, 1607, informs us that :
‘‘ applying to their friends in England, they obtained money
to build a house to dwell in and to preach in it secretly, if
need be.” This means that added to the chief building
there were various dwellings, just as afterwards was the
case with the church of John Smyth in Amsterdam and that
of John Robinson at Leyden.
Thus the English pretended to use the building as lodg-
ings for their own people rather than as a new meeting
house. Their real design, however, did not escape the
sharp-sighted eye of the Reformed Consistory. Already
November 30, 1606, as soon as the purchase of the site was
rumored, the ministers Plancius, and Ursinus were deputed
to interview the Burgomasters and to protest against the
building of a church by the Brownists from England.*
Nevertheless, the Brownists began in January to build.
To prevent, if possible, this “abominable ’’ intention, the
said ministers were sent again (see Protocol, folio I 54 et
seq., January 4, 1607). But as before they came in vain.
Again this time the magistrate displayed his kindly feelings
towards foreigners and those of a different opinion.
It was, therefore, the more gratifying to the ecclesiastics,
that a violent hurricane arose and entirely destroyed the
* While perfect liberty of conscience and worship was allowed to all
within their own dwellings, it was not then permitted by law to build
an edifice called a ‘‘ church '' or one that looked like a “church '' or
make any public propaganda in any form.–ED.
100 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
still unfinished building. It gave John Paget + a welcome
cause to open one of the first pages of the Presbyterian
Consistory’s record book with the observation : “The
beforesaid Brownist preaching-house being half ready, God
sent his strong wind most furious from heavens and cast the
house only, and no other, flat down unto the ground, which
was a sign that they do not build upon the rock, the true
and wise foundation.’”
Despite this warning these Free Churchmen set about re-
pairing the damage, and after some time completed the
* John Paget was a chaplain in “the Scotch Brigade ’’ composed
at first in Elizabeth’s time under Leicester of North Welsh, English
and Scottish soldiers in three regiments. Later this, the oldest
standing army in Europe was recruited in the region north of the
Tweed, and not disbanded until 1795. King George III before hiring
the Hessians tried hard to get the services of this brigade against
America, but the Republic refused to allow this. In Rotterdam in
the Scotch church is a memorial tablet in honor of the Scotch Brigade
which was in active service until 1795.-E.D.
John Paget was in 1598 minister at Northampton, Cheshire. In
I605 he went over to Holland as chaplain in the regiments, levied in
England by the States. After January 18, 1605, he agreed to the
Dutch Confession of Faith. On the 5th of February following he was
installed pastor of the Presbyterian Church at Amsterdam, to whom
the day before, the church on the Begynhof had assigned and given
by the city. Until his death August 18, 1638, Paget was the pastor of
this church.
**In this same edifice of the church in the Begyn Hof., Amsterdam,
of which Paget was pastor is a bronze tablet in honor of the Free
Churchmen and also stained glass memorial windows—unveiled by
the editor in 182O.-E.D.
O N E | N C H RIST
16O 9—FROM . SCRO OBY . TO . AM STERDAM– 19 O 9
Al NSW OR TH . JOHNSON . ROBINSON . BREWSTER . ERAD FOR D
BY . A . JOINT ... CONSENT . The Y . RESOLVED . TO
GO . INTO . THE . LOW . COUNTRIES
WHERE . THEY . HEARD . WAS . FREEDOM . OF . RELIGION . FOR . ALL , MEN
-y AND LIVED AT AM STER DAM
GOVERNOR . WI LLIAM . BRAD FORD :
HISTORY. OF . PLY MOUTH . PLANTATION
IN . GRATEFUL . REMEMBRANCE . AND . IN . CHRISTIAN . B RoTHER HooD
THE . CHICAGO . CONGREGATIONAL . CLUB
REAR . THIS . ME MORIAL
A. D. 19 O 9
Two ENGLISH CONGREGATIONS IN AMSTERDAM 101
building, in which they worshipped for many years. It
was perhaps on the occasion of recompletion of their meet-
ing house that they issued the second Latin edition of their
confession of faith, this time with an annexed list of the
points in which they differed from the State Church. The
first being of 1598—and the fifth English one—the first
edition was dated 1596, the second 1598, the third appended
to “Certayn Letters, 1602 ” and the fourth printed with
the apology of 1604.’’
It is unknown where John Smyth and his people met
these first days. Perhaps in his own house, or in one of
his friends. He then practiced physic at Amsterdam, hav-
ing gained at Cambridge some medical knowledge. The
number of his patients very soon increased, so that he need
not avail himself of his pastor’s right to be maintained by
the voluntary contributions of the members. Laying upon
his death bed he could, indeed, declare : ‘‘I never received
of them, all put together, the value of fortie shillings.”
(Smyth “Retraction of errors,’’ page VI.)
It was no wonder that his practise increased daily. Rich
people he only charged half the fee of other physicians and
most of the time, refused to accept more. Of the poorer
sort he took nothing. About his charity to distressed per-
sons Thomas Pigott, in his Biography of Smyth, tells us :
‘‘ On one occasion seeing one slenderly apparalled he sent
him his gowne to make them clothes, ’’ and when it was
declined, because necessity was less urgent than it appeared,
Smyth justified himself, though repulsed, prevented by this
refusal, as fulfilling his bounden duty, according to the
prescript : that he that hath two coats let him impart to him
that has none. (Luke III, II).
Smyth was generally beloved. Only a few among the
English objected to him, especially afterwards, for holding
different opinions on some religious and ecclesiastical points.
They reproached his “inconstancy and unstable judgment
102 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
and being so suddenly carried away with things, did soon
overthrow him.” (Bradford, “Dialogue'' page 450).
Robinson (Works II, page 62) says:—‘‘ his instability and
wattonness of wit in his sin and our cross.” Bernard in
the preface to his Christian advertisements, exclaims :
“miserable people will you still be led by so changeable a
chameleon '' -
Yet this inconstancy was more apparent than real. It
resulted from a too scrupulous dread of impairing the inner
life. “Truly, said he,” we being now come into a place
of liberty, are in great danger, if we look not well to our
ways, for we are like men set upon the ice and therefore
may easily slide and fall.”
Indeed, John Smyth himself did not deny that there was
Some truth in what was laid to his charge. Shortly before
his death he declared : “Now I have in all my writings
hitherto received instruction of others, and professed my
readiness to be taught by others, and therefore have I so
oftentimes been accused of inconstancy, well, let them think
of me as they please, I profess I have changed and shall be
ready still to change for the better : and if it be their glory
to be peremptory and immutable in their articles of religion,
they may enjoy that glory without my envy, though not
without the grief of my heart for them.”
This corresponds perfectly with what Smyth wrote four
years earlier, I 608, in the dedication of his “Differences of
the churches of the separation : ” “And although in this
writing something there is which overthwarteth my former
judgment in Some treatise by mee formerly published : yet
I would entreat the reader not to impute that as a fault unto
mee : rather it should be accounted a vertue to retract
errors. Know therefor that latter thoughts ofttimes are
better than the former ; and I do profess this (that no man
account it strange) that I will every day as my errors shall
be discovered confesse them and renounce them : For it is
Two ENGLISH CONGREGATIONS IN AMSTERDAM 103
our covenant made with our God to forsake every evill way
whither in opinion or practise that shall be manifested unto
us at any time : and therfor lett no plead now, as some have
formerly done, these men are inconstant : they would have
they know not what : They will never be satisfied and the
like : For wee professe even so much as they object : That
wee are inconstant in erroer : that wee would have the
truth, though in many particulars we are ignorant of it :
Wee will never be satisfied in endevoring to reduce the
worship and ministery of the Church, to the primitive
Apostolique institution from which as yet it is so farr
distant : Wherfor my earnest desire is, that my last writing
may be taken as my present judgment and so farre forth as
it overthwarteth any former writing of myne let it be
accounted a voluntary retraction and unfeyned repentance
of my former errors and evil wayes before the whole earth.”
(Compare appendix B.)
Consequently, no fear of inconstancy ever enslaved him.
His was a desire to possess the whole truth. Doubts of
views, formerly maintained by him, continually crossed his
mind. Unfortuately, this dubiety tended to cause to grow
up a feeling of estrangement between him and his friends.
It is no matter. Love of truth surpassed and silenced all
his other feelings. It led him to extremities from which he
had shrunk at first.
Soon after his arrival in Amsterdam he put the question
to himself ; whether the reading of a sermon and the singing
out of books, though perhaps aright and edifying within the
family circle, should be a part of public worship 2 Smyth
thought the answer could not be doubtful for a Brownist.
If the latter holds that the reading of a prayer and the use
of set forms of prayers is entirely inconsistent with the true
worship, which should be produced out of the heart, it
must be so also in preaching and singing.
“Writing and reading,’’ says Smyth, ‘‘ nay, all letters
104 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
and characters, are invented by men, while speaking is
natural. If consequently writing and reading be artificial
devices, so it cannot be spiritual worship, no more than in
the Old Testament the killing of sacrifices, the ingraving in
the stones of the high priest’s breastplate, the anointing or
preparing of wood and stone for the construction of a
temple.” From I Corinthians XIV:26 he deduced the
singing of a psalm to be the utterance of the Holy Ghost,
and that no one is tied either to rhythm or tune, as it would
otherwise quench the spirit. Accordingly, it must be done
by one person alone and not by all together, so that the joint
singing in the church be abolished. On this very subject,
there was afterwards a great contention in the Independent
Church at Arnhem, Holland.
Further : “if the Brownist holds that the Bible is God’s
word, as Smyth fully believed, it is only true of the original
text ; of Hebrew and Greek. The translations, however
excellent they may be, were but the work of men and there-
fore on the level of an apocryphal writing. The originals,
containing more substance of truth than even the prophets
and apostles can conceive, cannot be fully rendered by any
translation. The original scriptures are the image of the
mind of God, and a translation is but an image of the
original. Even the most learned and holy men cannot in a
translation express truly and fully the Holy Ghost’s
meaning in the originals so that their translation is equal to
an apocryphal writing of an ordinary man, and if brought
into the worship of God, why not likewise all other
apocryphal writings 2 :
To this Hugh Bromhead, a member of Smyth's Church,
agreed. He wrote, probably in August, 1607. “No
apocrypha must be brought into the public assemblies, for
there only God’s word and the lively voice of His own grace
must be heard in the public assemblies, but men's writing
and the reading them over for prayers are apocrypha,
TWO ENGLISH CONGREGATIONS IN AMSTERDAM 105
therefore may not be brought into the public assemblies.”
The minister should, accordingly, employ only the origi-
nal text and translate and expound it publicly. Finally,
a part of the common worship is the action of contribution,
which should be sanctified by prayer and thanksgiving.
This acknowledgment includes the truth that contribution
is an action of the communion of the Saints; and, therefore,
the gifts of those not belonging to the congregation, but
attending upon the service, should be kept separate.
Another of John Smyth's objections was the constitution
the church. The Brownists were headed by a pastor having
under or next to him two sorts of elders: the one are to
teach and aid in preaching ; the other are church-governors,
who, as a rule, looked only after the discipline.
Now, again, searching the Scriptures, Smyth concluded
that there had been in the apostolic churches but one sort
of elders, or overseers, who were charged with both
preaching and ruling, and who, all of them, were pastors,
having the same equal rights and duties. Next to them
were the deacons. Accordingly, Smyth said, that it can
never be proved that there was but one pastor in a church.
It was, moreover, a corruption, that nothing could be done
in the church without the Consistory’s consent and that no
member of the Church could offer anything for considera-
tion without first acquainting the elders with it, as the
Consistory had been invested with all its power exclusively
by the members of the church, who were, even in a clergy-
man’s absence, entitled to administer baptism and
communion.
John Smyth's opinion on the value of the translation of
the Holy Scripture was the chief cause of tart discussions
between him and Henry Ainsworth. The latter said in his
“Defence of H. Scriptures '' that he had five times con-
futed viva voce this opinion. It even led to some estrange-
ment between the sister churches. What wonder P It was
106 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
displayed in every service, when Smyth read out his text in
the original language and expounded it. The difference
became still more manifest when it was made a practical
rule immediately after the Bible reading to lay aside the
books to abolish totally the singing of psalms, and to say a
prayer before and after the collection.
Trusting in his personal influence, Francis Johnson pro-
bably tried to check these innovations, but this only gave
the impulse to Smyth's objections already mentioned against
the constitution and power of the Consistory. A pamphlet
of thirty-two pages 16 mo. issued by Smyth about July
1607 and entitled ; “Principles and inferences concerning
the visible Church,’’ was in 1608, followed by another one
of forty quarto pages under the title of : “The differences
of the churches of the separation.’” This was not publicly
confuted until one year later, 1609, in Henry Ainsworth’s
“Defence of the Holy Scriptures.” ... •
However vivid these discussions in print might have been,
they did not become the talk of the town. The public
never got information about these matters until John Smyth
and his followers had abandoned the Brownists for good.
From that moment, 1609, Henry Ainsworth’s reason for
observing privacy was removed. He published a vigorous
confutation against the man who, as he said, ‘‘ fighteth
against the faith which he himself once professed, and who
after having drunk the wine of violence (Proverbs IV, 17)
proclaimeth open war against God’s everlasting Covenant.”
* See the reprint in Appendix B.
CHAPTER XIV
THE REMAINING SCROOBY CONGREGATION FLEES
TO HOLLAND
EANWHILE, it became an eventful time for the
Brownists at large. The remaining portion of
Smyth's congregation at Scrooby, now guided and kept by
Richard Clyfton, John Robinson and William Brewster,
was persecuted with increasing vigour.
So, after they had continued together about a year, or,
since the autumn of 1606, and kept their religious assem-
blies, in spite of all diligence and malice of their opponents,
these villagers in the north country of England resolved on
getting over into Holland. They met, however, with great
difficulties of which Governor Bradford in his ‘‘ History of
Plymouth Plantation’’ tells us, in a long passage which is
familar to readers in every country in which the English
language is spoken.
About May, 1608 all of them Separatists (from Scrooby
and the north region) had arrived in Amsterdam, number-
ing in all probably three to four hundred souls of whom
nearly two hundred were members of the church. A few,
such as the old, decrepit teacher Richard Clyfton, could
not yet determine as to making the passage across the
North Sea. According to the family records published by
Hunter in his “Collections concerning the founders of New
Plymouth,’’ page 44, Clyfton did not come over until
August 1608, (and not in 1606, as Hanbury in his “Me-
morials '' page 185, nor in 1607, as Prince’s “Memorial,”
page 254, misstate.) -
Left by his congregation, Clyfton went to Sutton, prob-
ably Long-Sutton in Lincolnshire, where he was still
teacher in July 1608. (See No. 52 of appended List of
marriages.* As to the rest, the weakest and most indigent
*See Appendix A.
108 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
ones came first. John Robinson and William Brewster
stayed to help the weakest over before them and stayed
until the last. Though not mentioned by William Brad-
ford, I suppose that Thomas Helwys was also among the
finals, as it is said ; “that he above all, either guides others
or furthered this passage into strange countries.”
However, his wife Jane, apprehended for Brownism in
July 1607, was still suspected one year later in July 1608.
Had Thomas and she already left in 1607, or early in 1608,
for Holland, this suspicion would not have been so easily
excited.
The Amsterdam Brownists, and certainly most particu-
larly their old friends and former pastor John Smyth
rejoiced at the arrival in the republic of John Robinson,
William Brewster and Thomas Helwys. They met with a
welcome reception. They communicated to Smyth what,
since his departure, had happened in England. Either
they told him, or he learned it from a letter of Clyfton,
that Richard Bernard had signed the articles of the State-
church, had been restored to his vicarship at Worksop and
was now longing for the still larger office of prebendary of
Sawenby and at Gainsborough.
In a letter to Helwys, Bernard had spoken slightingly of
Smyth's last pamphlet : “Principles and Influences.”
Irritated over both this and his apostasy, to which he
referred—more biblically than elegantly, according to 2
Peter II, 22 :—“the dog is turned to his own vomit again ;
and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire,”
Smyth wrote him at once a letter. He inserted this letter
in his “Paralleles '' and stated in the preface to it –“Mr.
Bernard had in his hands this lettre of myne six or seven
months before he published this his book, entitled the
Seperatists Schisme.”
This book, bearing date, June 18, 1608, shows that
Smyth's first letter must have been written about November
SCROOBY CONGREGATION FLEES TO HOLLAND 109
I6O7. In reply to it, Richard Bernard published, June
I608 his “Christian advertisements and counsels of peace.
Also disswasions from the Separatists Schisme,” etc. It
called forth in 1608 Ainsworth’s “Counterpoyson,” and in
I609 Smyth's “Paralleles’’. These again were followed by
Bernard’s “Plaine Evidences : the Church of England is
apostolicall ; the Separation Schismaticall, directed against
Mr. Ainsworth the separatist and Mr. Smyth the se-baptist,
I6IO.” In the same year, John Robinson at last published
his “Justification of Separation,” which, too, was against
Richard Bernard.
This battle of the books and of men ended without not-
able success. Both parties stuck to their own opinions and
there was no compromise on either side. John Smyth and
Richard Bernard alike reproached each other with great
inconstancy. According to Smyth’s “Paralleles '', Bernard
was ‘‘ as changable as the moone, as mutable as Proteus, as
variable as the chamaelon ’’; while Bernard said of Smyth
in the preface to his “Plaine Evidences”;-‘‘ his judge-
ment is instabilitie itselfe, his course is as changeable as the
moone. Miserable people ! will you still be misled by so
changeable a chamaelon 2 ”
Indeed, the accusations brought against Smyth were, in
Some degree, countenanced by the English who had come
from Scrooby.
CHAPTER XV
JOHN SMYTH's SE-BAPTISM AND SEPARATION
FROM THE BROWNISTS
UST at the very time of the arrival of the English from
J Scrooby the controversy about the use of Bibles and
prayer books, the value of translations of the Bible, the way
of collecting and, more especially, about the composition
and authority of the Consistory, was in full force. Though
acquainted and on friendly terms with John Smyth, many
of the newcomers, therefore, hesitated to side with either
party.
John Robinson, the pastor of Scrooby, was probably
hesitant about parting with his dignity in yielding to Francis
Johnson's authority. His connection to Smyth, however,
was so close that Joseph Hall, in his letter to Mr. Smyth
and to Mr. Robinson. mentions him in the same breath
with Smyth as the ringleaders of the separation at Amster-
dam in 1608. One year and a half after, Hall, jestingly
apologizing, said in his “Common Apology of the Church
of England,’’ page 31 : “as for the title ringleader where-
with I styled this pamphleteer (Robinson), if I have given
him too much honor in his sect, I am sorry. Perhaps, I
should have put him in the tail of his train. Perhaps, I
should have endorsed my letter : to Mr. Smyth and his
shadow, as I perceive he was.”
On account of Robinson's wavering attitude, it was for
Smyth certainly a matter of double importance to win
Richard Clyfton, whom he, in truth valued so highly. He
sent him, probably in the beginning of 1608, two proposi-
tions, on which he wanted to learn his opinion. Perhaps
Clyfton had already detected in Smyth's democratic striving
for the power of the congregation against the obligarchy of
the Consistory, and in his objection against divers sorts of
John SMYTH's SE-BAPTISM AND SEPARATION 111
elders, traces of Anabaptical tendencies, or rather of Men-
nonnite influence. If so, this suspicion must have been
greatly strengthened by these propositions. They read :
1st, infants should not be baptised. -
2nd, those converted from infidelity to the faith must be
admitted to the Church by baptism.
Brownism inevitably falls to Anabaptism and this Joseph
Hall shows in a trenchant style. He says : ‘‘there is no
remedy, you must go forward into Anabaptism, or come
back to us; all your Rabbins cannot answer the charge of
your rebaptised brother John Smyth : if we be a true
Church you must retain us ; if not, you must rebaptise.
If our baptism is good, then is our constitution good. He
tells you true, your station is unsafe, either you must for-
ward to him or back to us.”
And in his letter he reproaches Robinson and Smyth with
living at Amsterdam “in the stench of Judaism, Arianism,
Anabaptism,” to which Robinson replied : ‘‘We have
nothing common with Jews, Arians and Anabaptists but the
streets and market place.’’
Clyfton replied March 14, 1608, to the propositions with
a sharp exhortation. Ten days later he received from
Smyth an elaborate answer consisting of seventy-one quarto
pages, which still more warmly advocated baptism on con-
fession of faith. Its final words run : ‘‘thus hoping speedily
either to hear an answer to this writing or to see you yield
to the truth, which I unfeignedly ask the Lord for you, my
countrymen, I end writing this the 24th day of March,
I 608.” -
Smyth still always cherishing hopes to win Clyfton to his
own views, wrote with moderation. Nor did he publish his
writing. Should ever his wish be fulfilled, it would be
better not to let anybody meddle with their dispute. Pro-
visionally, it was only a question between these two.
Clyfton says ; “Seeing I had received the copie of Mr.
112 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Smyth's book in written hand, which he purposely sent unto
me as a reply to my former answer to his two Anabaptistical
positions, where unto I had almost finished this my second
answer (“A plea for infants) before his book was printed.”
With Henry Ainsworth, John Smyth was on quite differ-
ent terms. He did not expect him ever to adopt his views.
He took it very ill of him to have rejected, in his confuta-
tion of Richard Bernard, a few of his doctrines. Of
Clyfton's rejoinder, he had far better expectations.
At last, August 1608, Clyfton came from Longsutton to
Holland. He had in vain flattered himself with the hope
of being left alone, because of his age and bad health. But
when Clyfton joined Francis Johnson, John Smyth had, as
he states in his “Plea for infants,” to renounce all hope.
Yet, in no long time, Smyth took the great decisive step
and separated himself from the Brownists for ever.
This end had been foreseen. A man like Smyth never
shrinks from the consequences resulting from what he con-
siders to be truth. For a year he had been convinced of
the invalidity of infant baptism. He had defended the
idea of restricting baptism to adults on confession of faith.
But he was still at a loss to decide, how to commence this
practice in his Church 2 If he administered this sacrement
in virtue of his office, should he himself then first not be
baptised on confession of faith ? Was baptism received
from one unbaptized valid.
To Smyth's mind, the obstacle was to be overcome. They
were surrounded by at least three Mennonite churches :
that of the Flemish, of the Frisons, of the United High
German and Waterlanders. Particularly with the least one,
Smyth had already come in contact. From it he borrowed
his views on the ministry, nay, even on baptism itself.
Why not, for baptism, resort to one of its elders who
indeed had been properly and lawfully baptised ? Here was
the root of the difficulty. Could Smyth do so with a clear
JOHN SMYTH's SE-BAPTISM AND SEPARATION 113
conscience 2 It would be acknowledging this congregation
to be the true Church of Christ, and this was contrary to
his conviction and, therefore, sinful for him to do. There
was but one way out.
For a long time, already, in his writings against Richard
Bernard, Smyth held the opinion that the successio apostolica,
the very stumbling stone between Catholics and Protestants,
did not exist ; and that, owing to the corruptions of the
Roman Catholic Church, as to doctrine, rule and adminis-
tration of the sacraments, an uninterrupted succession of
true Christian ministers, who, since the apostles' time,
delivered the truth from generation to generation, is out of
question.
In his last tract, Smyth wrote : ‘‘I hold as I have written
to Mr. Bernard, that this succession is abolished by the
Church of Rome, and that there is no true ministry derived
from the apostles through the Church of Rome to England,
but that the succession is interrupted and broken off. Suc-
cession being broken off and interrupted, it may by two or
three gathered together in the name of Christ be renewed
and assumed again.’’ ---
From Matthew XVIII, 2O :—‘‘ For where two or three
are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them ’’—Smyth concluded and wrote (“Character of the
Beast,’’ page 58) :-‘‘ if all the commandments of God must
be obeyed, then this of baptism, and this warrant is suffi-
cient for assuming baptism. Now, for baptizing a man’s
self, there is as good warrant as for a man’s churching him-
self ; for two men singly are no church, jointly they are a
church, and they both of them put a church upon them-
selves, for as both these persons unchurched, yet have
power to assume the church, each of them for himself and
others in communion, so each of them unbaptized hath
power to assume baptism for himself with others in com-
munion.’’
114 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Such was Smyth's opinion. Such was what he taught
his friend Helwys and the members of his church, who
readily attended his teachings. And what Smyth thought
and taught, he also practiced. In a solemn divine service,
before them all, he baptized himself on confession of faith.
From partiality, the historians of the Baptists : Crosby,
Taylor, Ivimey, unjustly deny this fact. According to
John Robinson (Works III, page 168) Smyth baptized first
himself and next Helwys and so the rest, making their
particular confessions. They numbered fully forty. The
records of the Amsterdam Mennonite congregation contain
a list of fifteen men and seventeen women, who own to have
been baptised in this manner, and say that they regret it.
Other sources tell us that there were still another ten, not
recorded in this list, as they did not repent of it.
This baptism not only involved separation from the
Brownists for ever, but also the formation of the first con-
gregation of English Teleiobaptists. -
During the sixteenth century, there were in England
these Dutch Mennonites. For the greater part, if not ex-
clusively, they consisted of these refugees from the Nether-
lands. -
Excommunication of Smyth and his followers by the
Brownists, of which mention is nowhere made, was, indeed,
rendered unnecessary, as the fact itself led to their separa-
tion. It, probably, took place in 1608. Of course, Smyth
could not have resolved on editing “The Character of the
Beast ’’ before leaving the Brownist Church. The book
was published January 1609, and his “Paralleles'' a few
days before, as Henry Ainsworth states, in his ‘‘Defence”,
page I 19. The printing and preparation of both books
(together thirty six sheets) must certainly have taken three
mouths.
Richard Bernard, Smyth's former competitor, and now
his violent opponent, thereafter called him a se-baptist—a
JOHN SMYTH's SE-BAPTISM AND SEPARATION 115
gibe warmly applauded and readily adopted by all his
partisans. In his “Plaine Evidences '' 16Io, page 17,
Bernard writes:—“he wanted, I know, a godfather, when
he was christened againe ; now it is an ancient custome to
name then the childe and the susceptors to give it. Indeed
I was not requested by this childes parents to be an under-
taker, nevertheless upon so extraordinarie an act, I will be
somewhat exorbitant with myself to cal him Mr. John
Smith the anabaptisticall se-baptist. He is anabaptisticall
for rebaptization and he is a se-baptist because he did bap-
tize himselfe.’’
John Smyth confirmed his removal by the publication of
two writings : the already mentioned “Paralleles, Censures,
Observations,” directed against Richard Bernard ; and the
treatise on baptism, sent to Richard Clyfton, to which was
added a sharp preface and a not less sharp epilogue, all
together under the title of : “The character of the beast ’’—
the latter word referring to the beast in the Revelation of
St. John ; and character, to infant baptism.
CHAPTER XVI
THE CONGREGATION OF FRANCIS JOHNSON AND
OF HENRY AINSWORTH
So far as appearances went, the congregation of Francis
Johnson and Henry Ainsworth suffered less by John
Smyth's renouncing Brownism, than many had probably
expected. It assembled as often as before. Smyth and his
people had never joined them and the number of members
transferred to the new congregation, if any, was certainly
not large. Yet a stricter examination will show that
Smyth's withdrawal had important and in some respects
fatal effects.
John Robinson was disgusted with their controversy.
He was now glad of having always refused to join Mr.
Smyth, because, as he declared, he would use his liberty in
this point. Having now lost his friend Smyth for ever, he
carried out the plan long before formed, to leave Amster-
dam with his people and settle down at Leyden. He at
once appliedº to the lords, Burgomasters and the Court of
* In the Journal of the Court of Justice of the city of Leyden, G.
page 34, there is the following petition, written in Dutch —
“To my Hon. Lords, my Lords, Burgomaster and Court of Justice
of the City of Leyden, -
beg leave, respectfully and obediently, to acquaint, Jan Robarthse,
minister of God's word, together with some of the church of the
Christian Reformed Religion, born in the Kingdom of Great Britain,
to the number of one hundred or thereabout, as well men as women,
that they would intend to come and settle down within this city and
the jurisdiction thereof, one of these days, viz., towards May next, to
earn their livelihood by their various trades and traffics, without,
however, causing the leave hindrance to anyone soever, so it is that
supplicants apply to Your Honourable, praying 111ost urgently that it
Iuay please Your Honourable to grant them free consent to go to
aforesaid city ; that is to say, &c.—”
In the margin is noted:—
“Those of the Court of Justice, deciding in the present request,
declare that they do not refuse any honest person to come and settle
down within this city, provided that they behave themselves honestly
and obey to all regulations and by-laws of this place, in case of which
suppliants’ arrival here will be welcome and agreeable to them.
Done in their meeting at the Townhall, the 12th of February 1609,
on that date, in my presence, and signed
J. v.AN Hou’r.”
CONGREGATION OF FRANCIS JOHNSON 117
Justice of the city of Leyden for permission to do so. It
was granted February 12, 1609.
John Robinson came to Leyden about the first of May in
that year, the very date named in his petition. This date
corresponds to what Prince (“New England Chronology,”
page 254) states:—‘‘ they therefore with Mr. Robinson
remove to Leyden about the beginning of the twelve-years-
truce between the Dutch and Spaniards”. This truce dates
from the 9th of April 1609.
Robinson was accompanied by more than a hundred per-
Sons, both men and women, as his petition says. Perhaps
double the number When eleven years afterwards, fully
one hundred of his people took the great voyage to Amer-
ica, there still remained in Leyden from one hundred-twenty
to one hundred and fifty members, though during these
eleven years the congregation was on the decline.
From the List of passengers of the “Mayflower”* (see
appendix C), we can see that the true number of emigrants
on this ship was one hundred and two, while according to
Winslow's ‘‘Brief narration ” (Young, “ Chronicles of the
Pilgrim Fathers,’’ page 384) :——‘‘the major part stayed and
the pastor with them for the present. The minor part with
Mr. Brewster their elder resolved to enter upon this great
work, but take notice the difference of number was not
great.”
The congregation of Leyden, consequently, must, about
I62o have numbered something like two hundred and fifty
souls. But having diminished in number since its arrival
at Leyden, which diminution was one of the pressing
reasons of its members for setting out, it will at first,
shortly after its establishment in Leyden, likely have been
* The real number leaving Leyden and the core and real spirit of
the Plymouth Colony, from first to last was the company that em-
barked on the Speedwell from Delfshaven. Not as many as forty
(probably 35 in all) who had been of the Leyden church sailed on
the Mayflower. —(ED.)
118 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
some three hundred. At their departure from Amsterdam,
I estimate its number at two hundred, but governor Brad-
ford tells us, that many came unto them from divers parts
of England, so as they grew to be a great congregation, not
much fewer in number than the one of Amsterdam, having
had, before the brethren left for Leyden, three hundred
members. It is, therefore, probable that Francis Johnson’s
congregation lost by this departure to Leyden fully hun-
dred, perhaps hundred and thirty or hundred and forty
members, and these followers of John Robinson numbered
some two hundred, children included.
To trace the further adventures of this congregation,
guided by John Robinson ; the history of the Independents,
originating with them, with the assistance, too, of Henry
Jacob ; the colonization of its majority in New Plymouth
and its dispersion from Leyden after its founder’s death—is
not now our province. Suffice it to say, that the departure
of the Brownists to Leyden was a great loss to Francis
Johnson and Henry Ainsworth’s congregation. Its number
fell to far below two hundred members.
Besides, its peace was disturbed. In vain Henry Ains-
worth repeated in his book “The Communion of Saints,
1607,” “the never superfluous exhortation to harmony.
In vain Ainsworth and Johnson agreed with each other :—
‘‘when others therefore, as namely, Mr. Smyth, wrote
against the truth, which they formerly professed, not to
answer, till the second or third time we were exceedingly
provoked, for we considered how the common adversary
would rejoice at our intestine troubles.” (Henry Ains-
worth, animadversion to Mr. Richard Clyfton’s ‘‘ Adver-
tisement,” page 3).
In vain Francis Johnson kept his warlike spirit in check,
* This well written treatise became an edifying book for family use,
even among people of different opinion, and was reprinted in 1615,
1628, 1640, and for the last time in 1789 by Stevart, incorporated, with
“An arrow against Idolatry.”
CONGREGATION OF FRANCIS JOHNSON 119
and only issued his ‘‘ Certayne reasons and arguments,’’
which treatise, he says (page I of the dedication) : “was
for the substance of it written long since (1601) in nine
reasons, which now I have revived and deduced to seven.’’
It called forth a refutation of W. Bradshaw : “The unrea-
sonableness of the separation,” published, under revision of
Amesius, by George Waters, in 1614, at Dordrecht. John
Robinson, too, made some objections to it in his treatise
entitled “Of the lawfulness of hearing of the ministers of
the Church of England.” (Works III, page 360.)
All these efforts to preserve peace in the congregation
were, however, to no purpose. On the other hand, Ains-
worth, Clyfton and Johnson's hot polemics, as soon as
Smyth renounced Brownism, did nowise affect that peace.
Henry Ainsworth was not wanting in words to reprove
John Smyth. In the preface to his “A defence of the Holy
Scriptures” we read : ‘‘the fraud and malignity of this
boaster,” and at the end of it : “God's hand is heavy upon
him, in giving him over from error to error and now at last
to the abomination of Anabaptism.”
Clyfton vented his indignation in his “A plea for infants
and elder people concerning their baptism, 16Io,” to which,
still in the same year, John Smyth made answer with ‘‘A
replie to Mr. Clyfton's plea.”
It seems remarkable that Francis Johnson was the only
one of them who treated the dispute on baptism in a
strictly objective manner, exempt from all personalities.
Probably on account thereof, Smyth passed over in silence
Johnson's book “ A brief treatise containing some grounds
and reasons against two errors of the Anabaptists.” The
imprint book bears no date, but must have been published
at the end of 1609 or in 16Io, and certainly after 1608, the
date fixed by Underhill (“Tracts on liberty of religion,”
page 73). -
Moreover, one J. H. (‘‘ none of Rabbies but one of the
120 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
unlearned babies '' published in 16Io a vehement pamphlet
against John Smyth.
The attacks upon Brownism by Joseph Hall, the after-
wards famous bishop of Norwich, produced little effect,
being considered as chiefly directed against Robinson and
Smyth individually. Joseph Hall's letter precedes Robinson's
answer to it in his Works III, page 4or. No reply was re-
turned to Joseph Hall's “A Common Apology of the
Church of England, in 16 Io,” he ridiculed Robinson :-
“what is, become of your partner, yea, your guide? Woe
is me ! he hath washed off his former water with new, he
hath washed off thy font-water as unclean and hath written
desperately both against thee and his own fellows.”
This paper-war, I repeat, was not at all fatal to the con-
gregation. Danger did not threaten from without, but
perils were hidden within.
The effects of Smyth's objections, to submit the brother-
hood to the power of the Consistory, were still operative on
many members. To that question, and not to the con-
troversy with John Smyth, who had departed from the
Brownists for ever, Bradford refers in his “Plymouth Plan-
tation,’’ page 16. He there states as one reason for John
Robinson's removal to Leyden, in May 1609—“the
flames of contention were like to breake out in the anciente
church itselfe, as afterwards lamentably came to pass.”
Indeed, the twenty-fourth article of the Confession of
Faith says, that Christ had given the power of admitting
and cutting off members to the body of the church, of each
congregation and not to any particular common person,
though with this restriction that every man ought to do his
utmost and use the most meet member to pronounce sen-
tence in the public assembly. Doubtless, the power of ex-
communication was, therefore, in the whole brotherhood.
It was nowise abridged of this right by the nineteenth and
twenty-sixth articles. Concerning Shepherds, teachers,
CONGREGATION OF FRANCIS JOHNSON 121
elders, deacons : particular persons whose official duties are
to rule, oversee, visit and watch over the church.”
Henry Ainsworth agreed to the same opinion in his
‘‘Communion of Saints '' he advocated the members' rights
by referring to the Apostles' days, when the body of be-
lievers took part in church affairs, elected, ordained, if
necessity be, punished their ministers, decided in matters
of question and dispute, and punished or cut off impenitents
by excommunication. These privileges, he argues, pertain
to all members of all congregations, but in order that this
power be used with discretion and in a proper way, be ex-
ceeded or abused, to the detriment of others, the ministers
are to see to it. Consequently, these only were qualified
to prepare and direct affairs; but elections and taking
resolutions pertain exclusively to the congregation.
On discipline Henry Ainsworth wrote : (“Communion of
Saints,” chapters 18 and 22) ——‘‘chiefly this pertaineth to
the ministers and watchmen of the church '', -—to which,
however, precedes :—“the keeping of these rules belongeth
to all the saints, as the commandments directed of old to
the children of Israel and in the New Testament to all the
brethren and church do show.” Still more positively, he
defines it in his ‘‘Animadversion to Mr. Clyfton’s advertise-
ment, 1613 '':——for the people being kings we neither taught
nor do teach otherwise than as we always professed, namely:
that they are a royal priesthood, made by Christ unto God,
kings and priests, and that reign on the earth, not one over
another, but one with another. Every Christian is a king
and priest unto God, to spy out, censure and cut down sin,
as it ariseth, with that two-edged sword, that proceedeth
out of Christ's mouth . . . . . To the ministers it is given
to feed, govern and guide the Church, but not themselves
to be the Church and to challenge the power of the same in
things pertaining to the Kingdom of God . . . . Such
122 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
giving place to the ursupation of the ministers was the
means of Antichrist’s beginning and climbing to his pre-
eminence, which, had the people resisted at first and prac-
tised the Gospel in the order set by Christ, he could not
have prevailed . . . . If the holding otherwise in judg-
ment should let the true practice of the Gospel go, posterity
after us being brought into bondage, might justly blame
and curse us, that would not stand for the right of the peo-
ple in that, which we acknowledge to be their due.”
This was not Francis Johnson's opinion, nor that of his
elders Studley and Blackwell. Bradford (“Plymouth
Plantation '' page 39) says:—‘‘Blackwell declined from the
truth with Mr. Johnson and the rest and went with him,
when they parted asunder in that wofull manner, which
brought so great dishonour to God, scandall to the truth
and outward ruine to themselves in this world.’’
Johnson was too jealous of his authority, and had too
often been thwarted by the resolutions of the brotherhood—
we remember the difference with his brother George—to
submit to the established order. According to him, it was
a fruitful source of odd opinions and errors, of lamentable
discords and schism, of aversion and opposition to the Con-
sistory, of contention and dissension between the congrega-
tion.
Johnson's opinion displayed itself since 1608 : first before
John Smyth, and next before Henry Ainsworth, and is best
known by the remonstrance written by him in 16Io and
published in 1611, under the title of :—“A short treatise
concerning the exposition of these words of Christ :——‘‘ tell
it unto the Church '', etc. (Matthew XVIII, 17).
In the “Apology of the Brownists” (1604) he had
maintained that the church has the same power to cast out
as to admit and add members to it. Otherwise, the word
“Church'' of Christ, as used in Matthew XVII, 17, could
CONGREGATION OF FRANCIS JOHNSON 123
not be taken for the whole body of the church, but only for
Some of its members, viz: the elders or bishops. He had
now, however, come to the conclusion that this theory was
false and could not be proved from the Scriptures. Refer-
ring to various portions of the Old Testament, wherein the
“whole congregation of Israel ” clearly means the ‘‘ elders
or judges”, he said that Jesus' words, Matthew XVIII, 17:
Church '' had no other morning than :-tell it unto the
Consistory.
Here he followed John Calvin in his exegesis. To illus-
trate this view of his he shows how the sisters, if matters
of church-discipline were to be discussed in the public
assembly for worship, would be deprived of their right of
accusation, as according to I Corinthians XIV, 34 and 35,
they are to keep silence in the church. But he states “the
church, spoken of Matthew XVIII, 17, is such an assembly
where women may speak and be heard in their cases and
pleas, as well as men, whereas by the Apostle's doctrine
from the Law, it is not permitted to women to speak in the
churches of the saints, when the whole church cometh
together for the worship of God.”
Paget in his “Arrow against the Separation ” reproaches
the Brownists thus:– “You turn the Lord’s day into a
session or courtday, omitting and thrusting out in part
sometimes the administration of the Word and sacraments
by spending so much time in controversies and contentions.”
Francis Johnson, pointed out also the difficulties arising
when these matters could not all be finished on a Sunday,
as it was known by experience that on a week day, seldom
half of the congregation was present. He says:– “As our
estate is, we could hear no matters of controversy between
the brethren out on the Lord’s day, and we have done
amiss in that very practice, when we heard matters on the
week day, as we have been wont, at which time there was
seldom half the church together.’’
124 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Plenty of reasons, there were, he concludes, why the whole
church-discipline should be committed exclusively to the
Consistory.
This may not conform to the Confession of Faith, but
‘‘divers things, heretofore observed among us at first, we
have since altered and do from time to time alter and
amend, as God giveth us by his Word to discern better
therein.” Though apparently contrary to the letter of
Jesus' prescript, it would only be Anabaptistical slavery of
the letter to be kept from it on account thereof.”
In the preface to the aforesaid treatise, he speaks of the
Anabaptists pressing the letter and he spares no trouble to
‘‘discover the erroneous confused courses of the Ana-
baptists.” With the same sort of slavery of the letter, he
reproaches the Mennonites, because of their explanation of
Matthew XXVIII, I Q ; v. 34 and 39 ; and he thus con-
cludes:——‘‘so have many of us done likewise about these
words of Christ, Matthew XVIII, 17.”
According to Francis Johnson, the congregation or
brotherhood had consequently no power whatever over
matters of discipline. It belonged to it only to appoint and,
in case of vacancies, to supplement the Consistory. In
opposition to the whole congregation, the Consistory could
excommunicate a member, and never, not even if a mem-
ber of the Consistory is found to be heretical or absolutely
wicked and immoral, has the congregation a right to depose
him or reject him from the church.
Henry Ainsworth was flat against this innovation. This
is shown in his “An Animadversion to Mr. Clyfton's
Advertisement,” published in 1613. The controversy grew
worse and became quite personal when the well known elder
Daniel Studley was accused of immorality and fifteen
brethren insisted on his dismissal.
In an answer to the accusations and objections against
CONGREGATION OF FRANCIS JOHNSON 125
him, Studley owned that his conduct had been unseemly,
but denied that he was guilty of what had been laid to his
charge. Of the efforts to depose him, he says:—“here was
a beginning to tread the pathway unto popular government,
the very bane to all good order in church and commonweal.”
Yet Henry Ainsworth always cherished the hope of com-
ing to an understanding. He suggested at first that all
be forgiven and forgotten, provided the congregation’s
rights be not abridged in future. This proposal was
rejected. He next advised the separation of his followers
from them in peace, to organize a distinct church next to
theirs, but associated with them in brotherly love and con-
cord. -
This proposition was also rejected—unless they removed
permanently out of Amsterdam, but this on account of the
necessity of gaining their livelihood, was rather impractic-
able. Finally he said, let us refer to Robinson’s Church of
Leyden for a friendly council and intervention. This,
indeed, agrees with Article 38 of the Confession of Faith,
dictating :—‘‘in case of weighty matter or extreme diffi-
culties to assist the one the other in word and deed.’’
Francis Johnson, however, stated that this stipulation
should be void, as soon as disputes had arisen in a church.
In the present case, they had better ask the opinion of the
Dutch Reformed, or of the Walloon churches. No wonder
Both vested the power of discipline and excommunication
in the Consistory, while John Robinson and his church fol-
lowed the usages defended by Henry Ainsworth. At the
utmost, and only as an unavoidable evil, Francis Johnson
and his Consistory, they said, would admit the intervention
of the Leyden Church, if this one did so of its own accord,
or was privately asked for it.
Some thirty brethren, siding with Henry Ainsworth,
made the attempt. An official invitation, however, was
126 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
required. The Leyden Consistory wavered a long time in
coming to a decision. All that was effected was that Henry
Ainsworth, who had been dismissed, was restored to his
office, and finally, November 14, 1610, it was suggested
that henceforth church-discipline should be committed to
the Consistory, and in case of diversity of opinion only, to
lay the matter before the brotherhood and then decide the
concurrence of the Consistory.
It was all in vain. Francis Johnson rejected the idea.
He made the counter proposal that Henry Ainsworth and
his followers should transfer their membership to Robinson's
Church. For the sake of peace they were about to do so,
when Johnson stipulated that they must remove out of
Amsterdam forever and settle down in Leyden. Herein
they could not acquiesce.
As said before, to give up their livelihood here in Amster-
dam would mean total ruin to themselves and their families.
Still always hoping that Johnson might change his mind,
they, at the instance of Ainsworth, put on patience as a
garment and wore it for a great length of time.
The Leyden congregation praised them for the ‘‘peacable
inclination which they manifested,” but could not better
their condition. “What could we do else, exclaimed
Ainsworth wofully, than shake off the dust of our feet
towards these zealots for errors and peace breakers, though
we do not doubt whether we ourselves, in consequence of
ignorance and imperfectness, have done a good deal of
wrong during our great sufferings and troubles, for which
we have prayad God, and do still always pray, so that even
our hidden sins may be forgiven.” -
Though the sad dispute had started early in the spring of
1609, when John Robinson was prompted to depart from
Amsterdam, the attempts to come to an agreement lasted a
full year from December 1609. At last Henry Ainsworth’s
followers, Francis Johnson says, divided themselves from
CoNGREGATION OF FRANCIS JoBINSON 127
us, which they professed that day and parted the next,
December 15 and 16, 16Io.*
Now Francis Johnson dismissed Henry Ainsworth from
his office immediately. Both Lawne and Paget state this
conclusively. The latter says: “ you being deposed from
the office of a teacher by Mr. Johnson and his company for
your schism and rending from him. “Baillie in his “Dis-
suasive,’’ page 15, maintains that they excommunicated,
to and fro, each other with solemity. Yet Cotton, in his
‘‘ Way of Congregational Churches,’’ page 6, denies such
on the part of Henry Ainsworth. He says: “Mr. Ains-
worth and his Company did not excommunicate Mr.
Johnson and his, but only withdrew from them.”
* Dexter (“Congregationalism,” page 331, note 155) gathered,
from what Paget in his “Arrow against the separation ” says, that
the separating did not take place until the 25th of December, and
Johnson, consequently, adherred, in his statement, to the Old Style.
This strikes me as improbable, as the new style is always found
among the Brownists, residing in Holland. Indeed, Paget’s words
seem rather to refer to the first divine service held by Ainsworth after
the separation of December 25, 16IO ; being on a Monday : “a mem-
orable token at one time especially, the time of your rending from
Mr. Johnson, being on a Christmas day so called, unto which day
you had changed the ordinary time of your assembling in the week.”
CHAPTER XVII
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINsworth IANS
TEN days after their separation from Johnson’s Congre-
gation, it was on a second Christmas-day, the Ains-
worthians held their first divine service in a spacious room,
where once some Jews had assembled for worship, before
the first public synagogue was erected at Amsterdam in 1612.
Paget (“Arrow of Separation,” page 26) reproaches
them for this :—“you have not refused after your division
and rent from Mr. Johnson to meet together for the service
of God in the idol-temple of the Jews, where they had
exercised their idol-service before you.’’
Unfortunately, this room happened to be in a building
next door but one to the Johnsonians’ old meeting-place.
It was inevitable that the church-goers of Henry Ainsworth
and of Francis Johnson should meet one another. Now
those who used to present jointly their prayers to God, who
were closely connected to each other by sharing the hard-
ships of exile, who had become allied by marriage, or were,
far more still, joined by the most tender ties of blood—saw
the one the other go in at different doors to perform their
worship.
There were a good many, who wept bitter tears produced
by this separation. They could not stand the exclusion
from their circle of so large a number of pious persons, who
had been dear to them from childhood. Day and night
they prayed that conformity might be restored. Yet they
durst not show a friendly face to the beloved Separatists,
lest they might incur punishment. To avoid the congrega-
tion’s displeasure, anything was borne. Even Christian
Lawne, one of their most violent opponents, bears witness to
this, in his ‘‘Brownisme turned the Inside outward 1613.”
Before long there were even new reasons for provocation
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINSWORTHIANs 129
and affliction. In 1612 a libel was published, entitled :
‘‘C. Hutton, the prophane Schisme of the Brownists or
Separatists, with the impietie, dissensions, lewd and abom-
inable vices of that impure sect, discovered by C. Lawne,
J. Fowler, C. Saunders, R. Bulward, lately returned from
the companie of Mr. Johnson, that wicked brother, into the
bosome of the Church of England, their true Mother.’’
This screed represented matters and events in the most
malicious manner. It repeated the accusations against
Thomas White. Its chief purpose was to bring Francis
Johnson and his friend Studley into contempt. Nor did it
spare Henry Ainsworth. It was cunningly struck out by
four men, formerly members of Johnson’s church, but ex-
communicated July 25, 161 I, for having joined the Presby-
terians of Amsterdam.
Richard Clyfton argued against this libel in his book,
“An advertisement concerning a Book lately published by
Christian Lawne and others, 1612 ''. This pamphlet con-
tained for the greater part Johnson and Studley’s argu-
Inell tS.
After Ainsworth's departure, Richard Clyfton became
teacher in Johnson’s congregation. To him Johnson refers
when saying : ‘‘ one that was minister in the Church of
England and since chosen teacher of this church and
received among us without any new imposition of hands.”
The Ainsworthians answered Johnson, in regard to this
innovation, which the latter defended by saying, there had
already been imposition of hands when Clyfton was ordained
minister of the State-church, and that there was no more
ground for repeating it than to rebaptize a person who had
been baptized in the Church of England.” According to
Hunter, Clyfton had been minister at Babworth.
Clyfton's defence provoked a new, equally unworthy, and
still fiercer attack, by the same four persons, under the
title : “Brownisme turned the Inside outward, being a
130 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Parallel between the Profession and the Practice of the
Brownists Religion.” It came forth in 1613, and not in
I 603, as Hanbury, though generally correct, misstates, in
his “Memorials,’’ page IOO, and in consequence thereof
ranges it in an entirely wrong chronological order.
Another attempt to refute Ainsworth’s assertions concern-
ing the splitting up of the congregation is entitled : “An
animadversion to Mr. Richard Clyfton's advertisement,
1613.”
All these investigations of the controversy between the
Johnsonians or Franciseans and the Ainsworthians,—as the
separated congregations are now called : Christian Lawne
speaks of the “Franciscan side, were of course fatal to a
reconciliation. The breach, daily widened by the quarrel
which sprang up over the property in the church building.
During this difficulty and in persuading his followers to
acquiesce in the loss and not carry the case before the mag-
istrate. But at last, in 1612, three members, two brethren
and one sister, who at the time had contributed the largest
amount to the building of the church desired to submit
their claim to the judgment of impartial arbitrators.
When Johnson was not prepared to agree to this course,
to call forth a verdict of the government, Ainsworth's con-
gregation, though averse from going to law, considered
itself disqualified to forbid some of its members from so
doing.
They appointed beforehand a committee, in case the mag-
istrate might require them to produce evidence of their
rights against those of Francis Johnson's congregation.
First, the burgomasters, and then aldermen proposed a
friendly arbitration. But Johnson and his people disagreed
with this view and maintained their right of property to the
church building, saying the ground belonged to one of their
members, and accordingly everything upon it fell to them.
The proposition was dropped, and the aforesaid committee
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINsworth IANs 131
saw itself compelled to plead the rights of Ainsworth's
congregation.
It was then argued that Johnson's congregation had acted
contrary to the Confession of Faith (Art. 23, 24, 29, 31, 32,
33 and 38) by abridging the power of the brotherhood in
favor of that of the Consistory; by using in Clyfton's
instalment no further imposition of hands; by considering
the Church of England, nay, even the Church of Rome as
the true Church of God, and finally by rejecting the advice
and assistance of a congregation of fellow believers, like
the one of Leyden.
To this document, sent to aldermen and inserted in
Lawne’s “Prophane schisme,” I could find no allusion in
the Amsterdam records.
John Robinson's refutation of Richard Bernard, published
in 16IO and entitled : “A justification of separation from
the Church of England,’’ raised once more among the
Brownists the question about the ‘‘true church.”
Francis Johnson, who used to be of a quite different
opinion, affirmed now in his only ‘‘A Christian plea,” 16 ſ 7,
page 137, ‘‘that even the Church of Rome is the Church
and temple of God, as Judah likewise and Israel of old were
in the time of their apostacies: how much more then should
we so esteem of the Church of England.” He made a
sharp distinction between the Church itself, which he still
considered as divine, and the church-order, which he
considered as entirely corrupted.
Henry Ainsworth, however, persisted in his former
opinion, while John Robinson suggested a middle course.
John Paget, in his “An arrow against the separation, 1618, ''
states: ‘‘some separate from the Church of England for
corruptions and yet confess both it and Rome also to be a
true church as the followers of Mr. Johnson. Some re-
nounce the Church of England as a false church, and yet
allow private communion with the godly therein, as Mr.
132 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Robinson and his followers. Some renounce all religious
communion, both public and private, with any members of
that Church whosoever, as Mr. Ainsworth and such as
hearken unto him, being deepest and stiffest in their
schism.”
Perhaps foreseeing the possibility that the aldermen were
to apply for particulars to some of the friends in England,
who had contributed to the costs of the construction of the
Church, the committee also sent the necessary information
thither. I infer this from Clyfton's complaint, in his
“Advertisement : ’’ ‘‘they have given out the like, (viz.
the communicated articles of difference) in letters sent unto
England. Seeing that therein they have not as they ought
handled and justified the causes, for which they separated
from us, but do infinite blame unto our doctrine, as if we
maintained opinions contrary to the truth, and that others
also in our own country prejudiced with these matters and
sinisterly professed with some of their writings against us
and our cause are likewise corrupted, we have thought it
good not to keep these things any longer private by us.”
The decision was as might be expected. Francis Johnson
had, in 1612, to give up the Church edifice with the an-
nexed dwellings and pass them over to Ainsworth and his
people. Paget affirms in his ‘‘Heresiography,’’ page 58,
that the magistrate found for the plaintiffs, who this time
again were not treated as a congregation, but as private
persons.
Being now without dwellings, Francis Johnson went with
some of his people to Emden, upon mere hope. But they
did not prosper and after some time returned.
Robert Cushman imputed their failure chiefly to Black-
well. When quoting from Baillie, ‘‘ Dissuasive”, page I 5
he says :-‘‘Johnson with his side of the house got away to
Emden,” the Dutch theologian Johannes Hoornbeck and
the Dutch historian George Horn, or Hornius, add that
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINSWORTHIANS 133
Henry Ainsworth repaired to Ireland and shortly afterwards
returned to Amsterdam. Neal, in his “Puritans,” I, page
42 I repeats this information. It is probably a misrepre-
sentation. Indeed, Henry Ainsworth had visited Ireland,
and even gained there some adherents, but it was in 1593.
At his return Francis Johnson resumed his office, which
he filled till his death, January 7, 1618. Bradford (“Dia-
logue by Young,’’ page 445) states :-‘‘ he died at Amster-
dam after his return from Emden.’’
The burial of Johnson took place on January Io, accord-
ing to a note by Slade, and communicated by Waddington
in his “Congregational History,’’ page 192. From these
authors we gather that Francis Johnson, shortly before his
death sent a petition to England to be allowed to repatriate ;
which request, however, was refused.
Towards the end of his life, Johnson once more attacked
the defenders of baptism on profession of faith, and also the
Remonstrants or Arminians with their five articles. This
treatise was entitled : “A christian plea containing three
treatises : the first touching the Anabaptists and others
maintaining some like errors with them : the second touch-
ing such Christians as now are here commonly called Re-
monstrants or Arminians; the third touching the Reformed
Churches with whom myself do agree in the faith of the
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
He styles himself on the title page:—“pastor of the
ancient English church now sojourning at Amsterdam ''',
which proves also that, after his return from Emden he had
a congregation of his own at Amsterdam. The treatise was
apparently written on purpose to refute Henry Ainsworth,
John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, and at the same time
to hold a closer communion with the Dutch Reformed
church. It is, therefore, very probable that most of his
followers, whose pastor Clyfton had already died two years
earlier, May 20, 1616, and not September 3, 1613, as Wad-
134 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
dington in his “Congregational History,’’ page I 59, mis-
states—transferred their membership to that church after
Francis Johnson’s death. Besides, few joined the emi-
grants accompanying their elder Blackwell when going at
haphazard to Virginia, in the autumn of 1618. About that
voyage Bradford in his “History of Plymouth Plantation ”
says:—
“Captaine Argoll, the first treasurer and governor of the
Virginia Company, is come home this weeke (he upon
notice of ye intente of ye Counsell, came away before Sr.
George Yeardly came ther, and so ther is no small dissen-
tion.) But his tidings are ill, though his person be wel-
come. He said Mr. Blackwells shipe came not ther till
March 1619, but going towards winter, they had still nor-
west winds, which carried them to the southward beyond
their course. And ye Mr of ye ship & some 6 of ye marin-
ers dieing, it seemed they could not find ye bay, till after
long seeking & beating aboute. Mr. Blackwell is dead &
Mr. Maggner, ye captain ; yea, ther are dead, he said, I 30
persons, one & other in ye ship ; it is said ther was in all
an 180 persons in ye ship, so as they were packed together
like herings. They had amongst them ye fluxe, and allso
wante of fresh water ; so as it is hear rather wondred at yt
so many are alive, then that so many are dead. The mar-
chants hear say it was Mr. Blackwells faulte to pack so
many in ye ship ; yea, & ther were great mutterings &
repinings amongst them, and upbraiding of Mr. Blackwell,
for his dealing and disposing of them, when they saw how
he had dispossed of them & how he insulted over them.
Yea, ye streets of Gravesend runge of their extreame quar-
relings, crying out one of another, Thou hast brought me
to this, and, I may thanke the for this. Heavie newes it
is, and I would be glad to heare how farr it will discourage
I see none hear discouraged much, but rather desire to larne
to beware by other mens harmes, and to amend that wherin
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINSWORTHIANS 135
they have failed. As we desire to serve one another in
love, so take heed of being inthraled by any imperious per-
Sone, espetially if they be discerned to have an eye to them
selves. It doth often trouble me to thinke that in this
bussines we are all to learne and none to teach ; but better
So, then to depend upon such teachers as Mr. Blackwell was.
Such a strategene he once made for Mr. Johnson & his
people at Emden, with was their subversion. But though
he ther clenlily (yet unhoustly) plucked his neck out of ye
collar, yet at last his foote is caught. Hear are no letters
come, ye ship Captain Argole came in is yet in ye west
parts all yt we hear is but his report ; it seemeth he came
away secretly. The ship yt Mr. Blackwell went in will be
hear shortly. It is as Mr. Robinson once said, he thought
we should hear no good of them.
Mr. B(lackwell) is not well at this time; whether he will
come back to you or goe into ye north, I yet know not.
For my selfe, I hope to see an end of this business ere I
come, though I am sorie to be thus from you, if things had
gone soundly forward, I should have been with you within
these 14 days. I pray God directe us, and give us that
spirite which is fitting for such a business. Thus having
sumarily pointed at things Mr. Brewster (I thinke) hath
more largely write of to Mr. Robinson, I leave you to the
Lord’s protection.’’
Signed and dated :
ROBERT CUSHMAN
London, May 8, An° 1619.
William Bradford continues :
“A word or tow by way of digression touching this Mr.
Black well ; he was an elder of ye church at Amsterdam, a
man well known of most of them. He declined from ye
truth with Mr. Johnson & ye rest, and went with him when
yey parted asunder in yt wofull maner, wth brought so
great dishonour to God, scandall to ye trueth, & outward
136 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
ruine to them selves in this world. But I hope, notwith-
standing, though ye mercies of ye Lord, their Souls are now
et rest with him in ye heavens, and yt they are arrived in
ye Haven of hapiness ; though some of their bodies were
thus buried in ye terrable seas, and others sunke under ye
burthen of bitter afflictions. He with some others had pre-
pared for to goe to Virginia. And he, with Sundrie godly
citizens, being at a private meting (I take it a fast) in
London, being discovered, many of them were apprehended,
wherof Mr. Blackwell was one ; but he so glosed with ye
bps, and dissembled or flatly denyed ye trueth which for-
merly he had maintained ; and not only so, but very un-
worthily betrayed and accused another godly man who had
escaped, but so he might slip his own neck out of, ye collar,
& to obtaine his owne freedome brought others into bonds.
Wherupon he so wone ye bps favour (but lost ye Lord's)
as he was not only dismiste, but in open courte ye arch-
bishop gave him great applause and his Sollemme blessing
to proceed in his vioage. But if such events follow ye
bps blessings, happie are they yt misse ye same ; it is much
better to keepe a good conscience and ye Lords blessing,
whether in life or death.’’ -
“But at last, after all these things, and their long attend-
ance, they had a patent granted them, and confirmed under
ye companies seale ; but these decissions and distractions
had shaken of many of ther pretended friends, and dis-
appointed them of much of their hoped for & proffered
means. By the advice of some friends this pattente was
not taken in ye name of any of their owne, but in ye name
of Mr. John Wincob (a religous gentleman then belonging
to ye Countess of Lincoline), who intended to goe with
them. But God so disposed as he never went, nor they
ever made use of this patente, which has cost them soº
It is supposed to have embraced a tract of territory near the mouth
of the Hudson River. Terms, conditions, and date of issue are
unknown.
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINSWORTHIANs 137
much labour and charge, as by ye sequell will appeare.
This patente being sent over for them to view & consider,
as also the passages aboute & ye propossitions between
them & such marchants & friends as should either goe or
adventure with them, and espetially with those on whom
yey did cheefly depend for shipping and means, whose
proffers had been large, they were requested to fitt and pre-
pare themselves with all speed. A right emblime, it may
be, of ye uncertine things of this world ; yt when men
have toyld themselves for them, they vanish into smoke.”
A better lot was assigned to Ainsworth’s congregation.
Now owning the building and under supervision of the
elders Jean de l’Ecluse.” Mays and Gillis Thorpe, it
witnessed comparatively quiet times.
No wonder, when headed by Ainsworth, a peaceful man,
who prevented and avoided all quarrels as far as possible.
Surely, he saw himself compelled to reply to Francis John-
son’s last attack in 1617, but he waited first for Johnson's
death, and then further postponed it for nearly two years.
In 1620, and not in 1618, as Hanbury (“Memorials,” page
32O) misstates, he issued “A reply to a pretended Christian
plea for the Antichristian Church of Rome'', 4", p. iv and
I84. w
From July 12, 1617, he had, indeed, all the year round,
to refute all sorts of reproaches and accusations of John
Paget, preacher in the Amsterdam Presbyterian Church,
** Jean de l’E’cluse (mentioned before), brother-in-law of William
Bradford, perhaps also of his co-elder Maye, is in 1609 called a printer
and in 1616 a schoolmaster. He seems to have printed T. Bright-
man’s “Apocalypsis apocalypseos, 1609,” a quarto of fully 730 pages,
as, though the book is said to have been published at Frankfort,
Paget in his “Heresiography,” page 193, reproaches him thus: ‘‘ of
John de Cluse, your elder, his injurious and false dealing in the print-
ing of Mr. Brightman's book is a public schandal.”
In 16II de l’Ecluse himself issued an advertisement against this
book. &
Gillis Thorpe, too, was a printer. In 1612 (C. Larone, “Prophane
Schism,” page II ) he was still a deacon, but in 1618 John Paget calls
him “an elder with Ainsworth.”
138 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
who was irritated because a member of his congregation
attended the Brownist Church. Ainsworth even filled
three hundred quarto pages about that question, but the
thought of publication never crossed his mind. In fact he
was sorry for his opponent’s action.
From a series of letters, written by him, from September
4, 1609 to June 1614, to a John Ainsworth, a Roman Cath-
olic, imprisoned in London, who wished to convert Henry
to the Church of Rome, we know, that he always continued
to advocate Brownism. These letters, together with the
answers were published, without his consent, by one E. P.,
under the title of :-‘‘The trying out of the truth,’’ 4”,
I90 pages.
Hanbury in his “Memorials”, page 288, takes Ephriam
Pagitt for the publisher, but confounds him with John
Paget, the minister of the Amsterdam Presbyterians. This
controversey with John Ainsworth probably led Henry
Ainsworth to compose a small writing against the Roman
Catholic Church, entitled :--‘‘An arrow against idolatry,”
published in 161 I.
Throughout all, Henry Ainsworth devoted his time to
his favourite studies. In 1612 he made a metrical transla-
tion of the Psalms. From 1616 to 1619, he prepared for
the press his annotations on the Pentatench, compared with
the Greek translation and the Chaldean paraphrase. Every
year he published one quarto volume of nearly three hun-
dred pages, and the last year two volumes. In 1623 he
intended to add a commentary upon the song of Solomon
and a treatise on predestination. :
Death surprised him at his work, in 1622, at the age of
fifty-two. After cyntinued infirmity of body, he died of
kidney-disorder. -
William Bradford (“Dialogue by Young '' p. 448) tells
us :—“a very learned man he was and a close student,
which much impaired his health.” In 1630, annotations
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINSWORTHIANS 139
on his last sermon, from I Peter II 4, 5, were published by
Sabin Keresmore.
Perhaps, because of his continual intercourse with rabbins
and learned Jews, whom he often consulted for his Hebrew
studies, it was rumored abroad he had been poisoned by the
Jews. It is said that he once found on the street a valu-
able diamond, but when the owner came to him offering a
large reward, he asked nothing else but the favor of a dis-
course with the most learned men of their nation on the
prophecies respecting the Messiah. When either their men
could not venture an opinion of their own or refute his
clever arguments, the atrocious crime was then committed.
This story is retold by Neal in his “Puritans”, page 491
and proves once more what sort of artful fables a spirit of
animosity towards the Jews can invent.
Happily, the slander was contradicted by the decisive
testimony of a man like doctor Nicolaas Tulp, * who dis-
sected the corpse of the deceased and who informs us how
the death was occasioned in his ‘‘Observationes medica.”
The death of Henry Ainsworth was an irretrievable loss
to the Ainsworthians' church. The two elders, de l’Ecluse
and May could not fill up the need of a pastor which lasted
for years, before another teacher was appointed. It was
still destitute of pastoral aid, when John Robinson, in a
letter, dated September 1624, reproached it –“ our and all
other churches advice you reject, in confidence of your own
unerring judgment and proceeding in this matter. In vain
we speak unto you whose ears prejudice hath stopped.” . A
member had been excommunicated for his having attended
the Presbyterian church, and when Leyden insisted on revi-
sion of the sentence, they persisted in the “non bis in
idem ’’ to the utmost.
* With the lineaments and work of this famous physician and sur-
geon we are familiar through the renowned painting of Rembrandt—
“The Anatomy Lesson.”—ED.
140 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
At last, after long disputes, John Canne entered upon the
office of pastor. He was an exceptionally accomplished
man, a bookseller who enriched his edition of the bible
with references to corresponding passages. He afterwards,
won renown through his writing against William Ames.
This learned scholar was born, about 1577,” either in
England or Scotland, first Chaplain to Sir Horace Vere,
next professor of Divinity at Franeker, and for a very short
time, till his death, November I, I 633, at a college of the-
ology founded by some Englishmen at Rotterdam. The
book is entitled :-‘‘A necessitie of separation from the
Church of England, specially opposed unto dr. Ames his
Fresh suit,” I 634, 4", 264 pages.
John Canne succeeded in restoring peace in the congrega-
tion. This he commemorated by an oration entitled:—
“The way to peace or good counsel for it. Peracted upon
the 15th day of the 2d month 1632 at the reconciliation of
certain brethren, between whom there had been former
differences.’’ .
Peace, however, did not endure very long. The elder
Jean de l’Ecluse, being of the opinion that the congregation
should be without any corruption or dark spot whatever,
taught accordingly that the smallest blemish, the slightest
corruption was a sufficient reason to separate from it.
Paget in his “Heresiography ’’ page 63, citing the com-
plaint of one Mr. Simpson, especially of the prophets in
Ainsworth Church, says: ‘‘ our beloved Mr. de Cluse in his
prophesie laboured to prove separation from a true church
for any corruption, obstinately stood in this doctrine, was
by another in prophecying then shewed to be absolutely
contrary to the passage Revelation II:24 how unsoundly
* In “John Robinson, the Pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers,” by
Waltler N. Burgess, London and New York, 1920, Imuch is told of
Ames (1576-1633) who died in Rotterdam, just before his expected
voyage to America. The editor was told by Dutch professors of the-
ology that the works of Dr. Ames (Amesius) translated into the
language of the Netherlands, were still read and appreciated by pious
peasants, especially in Friesland.—Eſ.
THE JOHNSONIANS AND THE AINSWORTHIANS 141
it was concluded by our teacher was then observed by
many : also it was since by another delivered in the way of
prophesie that even among ourselves did reigne many
sinners, as namely fulnesse of bread, pride and idlenesse
if these things be so and be not redressed by the
admonition of this prophesie, we must, according to Mr.
de Cluse his doctrine, make a new separation.’’
John Canne's weak refutation of Jean de l’Ecluse's argu-
ments led again to separation. According to Paget (“A
defence of church government,’’ 1641, page 32) one party
sided with de l’Ecluse, the other with Cannes. Less accu-
rate is Underhill’s statement (“Tracts,’’ page 156 note)
that de l’Ecluse had been the head of the congregation prior
to John Canne's arrival.
The dispute was not settled until Canne repaired, about
I640, to England to join the Baptists, and de l’Ecluse pro-
bably had died. Had Mr. Eton, mentioned in the records
of the Amsterdam English Reformed Church as being,
January 17 and June 15, 1636, leader of a congregation,
actually been a Brownist, it would prove that then already
John Canne had left his congregation.
Anyway, the reconciliation proved to be sincere and dur-
able. Still in 1645, Baillie, in his ‘‘Dissuasive, ’’ page
77, speaks of “an union so cordial as that of the two lately
divided and now reunited churches.” The reason of this
may perhaps be in the fact that the Church was now left to
itself. In 1645 Baillie tells us : ‘‘ even yet they lived
without an eldership.” Chiefs were wanting.
Though the congregation was steadily decreasing in
number and very much discredited, yet this small body of
people had sufficient zeal and the necessary funds to rebuild
the Church of the Barndesteegº (Lane), six years after it
* Little Street of the Burned, i.e., of martyrs before the Refor-
mation and near the Brownisten Gang, or Brownists’ Alley often
visited by Americans, under the impression that here the “Pilgrim
Fathers” had their place of worship, yet the buildings at the entrance
and at the rear end by the canal had no association with those who
left Amsterdam for Leyden.—ED.
142 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
had been destroyed by fire. From their old place of wor-
ship (Groeneburgwal), they had removed long before.
For about forty years they still occupied the new building.
Then, in 1701, when some five members only were left : an
elder, a deacon and three ordinary members. These five
sought communion with the English Reformed Church.*
All, except one, owing to charges against his conduct, were
admitted to that congregation, October 17O I. According
to the records of the Amsterdam English Reformed Church,
their edifice became the property of the Dutch Reformed
Congregation. * ,
Today, the Bruinisten gang (Brownists' Alley) is the
sole memorial to them in that part of the city of Amsterdam.
* The Scotch or English Reformed Church in the Begyn Hof. off
from the Kalvar Straat, where in 1909 was unveiled the memorial
bronze tablet erected by the Congregational Club of Chicago, and in
which in the enlarged and modernized auditorium, one of three
stained glass windows in honor of the Pilgrims was dedicated ;
Rev. B. Nightingale co-author of “New Light on the Pilgrim Story,”
preached the sermon on Idealism on a True Foundation, from
Hebrews XI: I4, the editor unveiling the unfinished window and
making the dedicatory address.-E.D.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE BAKERIOUSE OF JAN MUNTER
HUS vanished the original church of Henry Ainsworth
and Francis Johnson, after a period of over a century.
Long before this, the congregation which under John
Smyth seceded from it in October 1608, had been dissolved.
Nevertheless John Smyth's principles survived and were
still at work centuries after the fall of Brownism, the
Baptists forming now the largest of Protestant denomina-
tions.
Unity and conformity reigned but a short time in that
congregation after its separation from the Brownists. They
were anxious to have a meeting-house at no great distance
from the quarter where most of the members were living :
Binnen-Amstel (Inner-Amstel), or Koningsgracht (King's
Canal), as then called, between Muntsluis (Mint’s Bridge)
and Blauwebrug (Blue Bridge). Such a place they were,
before long, so fortunate as to find.
The East India Company formed in 1595, or Company
Van Verre, (to distant Lands), was prospering. As it fitted
out many ships, it needed a large bakery, in order to pro-
vide these needed vessels with biscuit for their long voyages.
In the newest part or later enlargement of the town, com-
prised since about I 593 within municipal boundaries, the
company erected its bakery on one of the many still vacant
lots on the Amstel river.
The facade of this structure had three top or stepped
gables, under each of which were two stories. There were
thus three buildings adjoining each other and fronting on a
large open space enclosed by a high wall.
Behind the building ran a street, now called Amstelstraat.
Over the way, at the foot of the town’s bulwark, stood a
shed, probably designed to be used for a granary. The
144 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
peculiar appearance of the structure arises from the sixteen
chimneys, in the form of towers, to be seen at either side of
the central roof and the double rows of fourteen windows
in the exterior side-walls. It is thus represented in the
extremely rare map of Amsterdam by Petrus Bastius, pub-
lished and dated October 1, 1599. (See Frontispiece).
The East-India Company occupied this building but a
few years. In 1603 it was rented out as the City Arsenal
and then, perhaps, the bakery was removed thither. At
least a couple of years after, houses were built around it
and from this, the neighboring Bakhuisstraat (Bakehouse-
street) now Bakkerstraat (Baker's street) was named, and
the property came into the hands of Jan Munter. It was
seldom after that time called the East-Indian bakehouse,
but, as a rule, plainly ‘‘the bakehouse, or ‘‘the bakehouse
of Munter.” So it is generally termed in the records of the
Consistory of the Amsterdam Mennonite Congregation.*
It appears that Jan Munter, by altering the interior of
the houses, added several lodgings to those formerly occu-
pied by the baker's men. The front part, skirting the
Amstel, (now the houses numbered 122 and I 24, ) he did not
buy, or he sold again, but a large space in the rear, entered
by a small Square, now a repository of grain and seed, once
a stable for horses, still continued his property.
The letters of acquirement of that time, for No. 122, I
could not find, but the present owner kindly permitted me
to examine his title-deeds, which show that the hinder part,
or the so-called bakehouse was still, January 31, 1639, in
* Mr. H. M. Dexter, who got from me his first information of the
existence of the bakehouse, rightly called it : “the bakehouse of the
East India Company ;” but, misled by a misprint in B. Evans “Early
English Baptists,” I, page 220, thought that it was afterwards styled :
“the cake-house of John Munter.” (“Congregationalism '', page
33S note 174.) Had he been acquainted with my transcripts from the
Burial Books of the New Church at Amsterdam, placed at the disposal
of Robert Barclay (see his “Religious Societies of the Common-
wealth,’’ page 95) he would not have fallen into this error.
THE BAKEHOUSE OF JAN MUNTER 145
the hands of the heirs of Jan Munter; that in 1627 his
house came into possession of Cornelis Wybrands and after-
wards frequently changed hands, until it was bought with
the adjacent No. 124, this time the rear buildings included,
by John Jordan, usually called Jan Jurriaans, the English-
11) all] .
The latter, in 1755, converted the two houses into ware-
houses which were still named the Englishman’s ware-
houses. John Jordan lived next-door, to the east-side, in
a strong, well-built house, now No. 126. He was also
owner of the houses and sites on which now still stands the
Scotch Zendings Kerk (Mission-Church), and erected
between Doelen-Bridge and Mint-Bridge, formerly the
Schapenplein (Sheep-square) five houses, since called the
English houses, the last wall of which houses was pulled
down October 15, 1877.
As John Smyth and a great many of his party were living
in the houses surrounding the former bakehouse, he very
soon fixed his eye upon that large space for a place of wor-
ship. The negotiation was successful and before long the
new congregation met there.
CHAPTER XIX
JOHN SMYTH's REPENTANCE AND REQUEST TO
JOIN THE MENONNITES
HE suceessful negotiation for a house of meeting had
still other results.
Jan Munter, progenitor of a line of burgomasters, was
born in 1570 and married, 1596, Saartje van Tongerloo,
born 1578. Both he and his wife were members of the
United Waterlander and High German Mennonite Churches,
which, in 1605, erected a new building at the Singel between
Bergstraat (Hill Street) and Torenslnis (Tower-bridge) in
Amsterdam.
This congregation had a most excellent pastor, named
Lubbert Gerrits, and was most closely allied to Hans de Ries,
pastor of its fellow-believers at Alkmaar. This congrega-
tion was, to its great advantage distinguished from the
other Amsterdam Mennonite Congregations; the surly
Frisions and the rigid Flemish, by great toleration, love of
peace, abstinence from all exaggeration in matters of church
discipline, and by views on the doctrines of original sin and
predestination, coinciding with John Smyth's own opinions.
Upon closer acquaintance, he found Jan Munter quite
different from the other Mennonites, Frisians or Flemish,
whom he might have met formerly. How glad and willing
he was to join the circle of friends, to which Jan Munter
introduced him -
But not gladness and willingness on his part only.
True, John Smyth then still held the opinion, the so-called
‘‘successio apostolica ’’ to be a chimera, and that two or
three private persons, assembled in the name of the Lord,
may gather a new church, nay, even may administer the
sacraments, always provided there be no true church for
them to join with a good conscience.
JOHN SMYTH'S REPENTANCE 147
On that ground he had once performed baptism on him-
self and his followers. But now having become acquainted
with a community of believers whom he must admit to be a
Church of Christ he repented of his rashness and want of
consideration which he condemned as constituting confusion
and disorder. In his ‘‘Retraction of Errors” he says :—
“it is not the truth that two or three private persons may
baptize, when there is a true church and ministers estab-
lished, whence baptism may orderly be had, for if Christ
himself did fetch his baptism from John and the Gentiles
from the Jews baptized, and if God be the God of order and
not of Confusion, then surely we must observe this order
now, or else disorder is order and God alloweth disorder.’’
I infer from a letter, dated March 12, 1609, that John
Smyth and his friends repented of their baptism, and for
that reason had been expelled from their church by the
writers of that letter, and that John Smyth confessed his
error, in January or February 1609, as it usually took some
weeks before a sentence of excommunication was pronounced.
Internperately zealous, as was John Smyth under stress of
conviction, he was ready to . confess his error, were it ever
so humbling to him, and this he did openly before his
congregation. Then he tried to persuade his party to repair
that fault as much as possible, by seeking communion with
the United Mennonite Church, .
It was therefore, required for these, first to manifest
repentence of their improper baptism and next to draw up a
short confession of faith, in order to justify their request to
be admitted as members of that congregation.
John Smyth did both. He arranged a list headed :—
‘‘Nomina Anglorum qui hunc errorem suum agnoscunt
eiusque poenitentiam agunt vid. Quod incoeperint Seipsos
baptizare contra ordinem a Christo Constitum quique iam
cupiunt huic verae Christi Ecclesiae uniri ea qua fieri possit
expeditione.”
148 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
This was undersigned by himself and fourteen other men
and seventeen women. The names of the men are : Hugh
Bromhead, Jarvase Nevill, Thomas Canadyne, Edward
Hankin, John Hardy, Thomas Pygott, Francis Pygott,
Robert Stanley, Alexander Fleming, Alexander Hodgkins,
John Grindall, Solomon Thomson, Samuel Halton and
Thomas Dolphin. The names of the women are : Ann
Bromhead, Jane Southworth, Mary Smyth, Joane Halton,
Alis Arnfield, Isabell Thomson, Margaret Stanly, Mary
Grindall, Mother Pygott, Alis Pygott, Margaret Pygott,
Betteiis Dickinson, Mary Dickinson, Ellyn Paynter, Alis
Parsons, Joane Briggs, Jane Argan.
John Smyth added to this list a confession of faith, of
twenty short articles in Latin. (See Appendix D).
The originals of the list and Confession of Faith, in
Smyth's own handwriting, are preserved in the archives of
the Amsterdam Mennonite Church.
The Confession of Faith in the articles concerning the
Trinity, the Godhead and manhood of Christ, Resurrection
and Judgment day does not disagree with the common Pro-
testant view. It contains only a very few dogmatic formu-
las, and is rather incomplete as to some doctrines, e.g. that
of reconciliation.
Not all members of John Smyth's Church offered them-
selves to the fellowship of the Mennonites. Far from it.
Nearly ten of them were seriously opposed to it. “ Not
above ten persons,” is noted down º on the margin of
Clyfton's answer to Mr. Smyth's epistle to the reader in his
“Plea for infants.” Among these ten were Thomas
Helwys, William Pygott, Thomas Seamer and John Murton.
They had no objection to the Mennonites. They regarded
* H. M. Dexter overlooked this and unjustly thinks that Helwys'
followers formed the majority, in consequence of which he falls into
another error, that Smyth's congregation originally, before the sepa-
ration, numbered from seventy-five to one hundred members. See
“Congregationalism,” page 313, note 83 and page 32 I).
JOHN SMYTH's REPENTANCE 149
these as very dear and beloved brethren in the faith. They
were even inclined to enter into close relations with them.
But for all the world, they would not acknowledge that
they had erred in the mode of baptism which they had
practised. To do so would be to disown the lawfulness of
their Church’s existence. Helwys did not allow of Smyth's
exception, that such a practise was only lawful if there be
no true church. In fact, he considered it as always per-
mitted, nay, according to one's duty. He called John
Smyth's acknowledgement a sin against the Holy Ghost.
Smyth, indeed, opposed God’s truth, not from ignorance,
but from intention, after having formerly known and
professed that truth. -
To be true to their views on church discipline, Helwys
and his friends saw themselves compelled to expel Smyth
and all his followers. It hung heavy on their hands,
heavier than any one can conceive. Two years after, in the
preface of his books “A declaration of the faith of English
people,” Helwys signed and wrote : “What would we not
have borne or done, how willingly had we given up all we
have, nay more, dug out our eyes, Sacrificed our lives, if we
might have continued with a good conscience to profit by
his teachings | God knows it ! Do not men know it too
Does he himself not know it 2 Have we not disregarded
ourselves, our wives and children, and all what is ours, in
order to honor him 2 We own to have had all reasons for
doing so, because of the excellent gifts God of his grace
has so overflowingly given him. All our love was still too
poor and unworthy of him. Let, therefore, every one and
himself not think otherwise than that the loss of such a
man we most sadly have taken and still do take to heart.
But he has denied the Lord’s truth, he is fallen from grace,
and, though the fowler laid the snares, the knot was
broken, and we are liberated. God be praised and
thanked 1 ''
150 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Indeed, according to their opinion, truth had been So
denied, that they might not shrink even from proceeding to
the very extreme. -
Besides, they considered it their duty to address a fra-
ternal warning to the Mennonites, as soon as they learned
that John Smyth, for himself and his company, had
requested to be admitted into fellowship. This remarkable
letter, preserved in the archives of the Mennonites Church,
and which has not hitherto appeared, will be found in the
Appendix E.
This warning led to further negotiations between the
Mennonite Consistory and Thomas Helwys and his party.
To begin with, the Consistory asked them for a short account
of their Confession of Faith, so as to learn their points of
difference with Smyth's followers, and their reason for ex-
communicating those. In concert with this desire, a
“Synopsis fidèi ’’ was drawn up, containing nineteen
articles. It was written in the same hand as that of the
fraternal warning. * -
This, I hold, called forth Helwy’s Confession of Faith,
Of course, Helwys and his company did not, like John
Smyth, seek a union with the Mennonites, and, conse-
quently, the dissolution of their own congregation. On
the contrary, they worked to maintain strictly their inde-
pendency, though acknowledging the Mennonites as their
fellow believers, as a sister-church.
Except some very remarkable deviations, there is a great
conformity between this and Smyth's aforesaid Confession.
The sequence of the articles and even some expressions are
nearly identical. No doubt the composer of the one confes.
sion had the other before him, and followed it. John
Smyth excelled in the usage of Latin ; Helwys in Biblical
language and in avoiding the excessive use of scholastic
terms. Helwys' aversion to these is shown by his “Short
*Reprinted in Appendix F.
JOHN SMYTH's REPENTANCE 151
and plaine proofe, 161 I,’’ page 138, where he reproaches
John Robinson with his “ logic and philosophy, as being
none of the gifts, where with Christ endued his apostles,”
and with his “ terms of art,” in reply to which Robinson
(Works, III page 181) says: ‘‘they are neither many nor
without cause, nor yet so dark, but an ordinary reader may,
as they are explained by me, understand them.”
On account of Helwy’s relations with the Baptists of a
later period, his confession of faith should be regarded as
the earliest Baptist confession. I have therefore, thought
it of sufficient importance to reprint (see Appendix F.) the
original from the archives of the Amsterdam Mennonite
congregation, the more so as it has not hitherto been
published.
The apparently slight deviations between both confessions
are not without signification. They all relate to what John
Smyth either acknowledged or passed over in silence, be-
cause of his strong tendency to a fusion with the Mennonites.
For instance, he does not speak of a strict observing of the
Sabbath, nor of a weekly celebration of the Holy Com-
munion on every Sunday. He concedes their view on
justification and conforms himself to their custom to speak
of the incarnation, or rather of the origin of Christ's flesh,
in somewhat vague language. It is known that Melchior
Hoffman, and Menno Simons afterwards, advocated the
ancient opinion, that at the incarnation God’s Son took not
his flesh from his mother, but owed his body to a special
act of God's creating : “quieum creavit in utero Mariae.”
The Frisians and Flemish Mennonites had occupied this
point of view for a long time.
But it is known, too, that in 1555, the High German and
Waterlander Mennonites, at a gathering of brethren and
elders at Strasburg, agreed to consider this dogma as not
important (adiaphorous), and declared that all were at
liberty to think of it as they pleased. Most of them did
152 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
not touch upon the subject, and whenever it was discussed,
they used very vague words. John Smyth now followed
this course.
Helwys opposed this ambiguity intentionally. In his
book, “An animadvertisement or admonition, 16I I,’’ the
first two refutations are :—‘‘ that Christ took his flesh of
Maria, having a true earthlie, naturall bodie ; that a
Sabbath or day of rest is to be kept holy everie first day of
the weeke.’’
To this John Smyth in his “Retraction of errors,’’ page
VI replies —“Another imputation of Mr. Helwys is con-
cerning the flesh of Christ. Whereto I say, that he that
knoweth not that the first and second flesh of an infant in
the mother’s womb are to be distinguished, knowth not yet
the grounds of nature and natural reason. I affirmed con-
cerning Christ that his second flesh, that is his nourish-
ment, he had from his mother and that the Scriptures are
plain for it, but concerning the first matter of Christ's flesh,
whence it was, I said thus much : that although I yield it
to be a truth in nature, that he had it of his mother Mary,
yet I dare not make it such an article of faith as that if any
man will not consent unto it, I should therefore refuse
brotherhood with him, and that the Scriptures do not lead
us (as far as I conceive) to the searching of that point,
where of Christ's natural flesh was made ; but that we
should search into Christ's spiritual flesh, to be made flesh
of that his flesh, and bone of his bone, in the communion
and fellowship of the same spirit.”
Helwys, no doubt, also purposely called the weekly cele-
bration of the Holy Communion a remnant of Brownism,
which Smyth did not incorporate in his confession, because
the Mennonites were not pleased with it.
It should not be wondered at that the Mennonite Con-
sistory, after having been informed of these comparatively
slight differences of opinion, still always cherished hopes
JOHN SMYTH's REPENTANCE 153
that Helwys would before long consider these matters of
dispute as adiaphorous for which he himself claimed
‘‘Christiana libertas.” They trusted also that the difficul-
ties between him and John Smyth once being removed,
their reconciliation might lead to a cordial union and fusion
with the Mennonite Church.
Helwys, William Pigott, Seamer and Murton now were
invited to a discourse. In a postscript to a letter, pre-
served in the Archives of the Mennonite congregation and
dated March I 2, 1609–not 16 Io as Evans, Early Baptists,
I, page 2 IO misstates—these four wrote :-‘‘We have bene
much greeved, since our last conference with you, because
wee dishonored the truth of God, much for want of speach
in that we were not able to utter that poore measure of
knowledg, which God of his grace hath given us.’’;
After all, at that consultation, the true reason of their
division was sufficiently revealed. Should there still have
been some question about it, the letter of Helwys, and the
rest, dissipated every doubt. The cause of which being :
their controversy respecting the lawfulness of their congre-
gation’s existence ; their mode of commencing baptism ;
and the ordination of their elders. John Smyth in chang-
ing his previous view had denied all, while Helwys
defended all strenously.
Sharply and bitterly these four expressed themselves in
their letter about their opponents, who—they say—‘‘are
justlie for their sinnes cast from us, and should be looked
upon as heathen and publicans;” and after their warning
not to company with them :-“if you shall publish or
practice unie thinge against this ground in the 18 of
Matthew.’’
From that letter, too, appears their constant ties of
cordial brotherhood with the Mennonites. As a sample
take the following lines :—“Your approved care, diligence
and faithfulnes in the advancement of Gods holie truth,
154 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
being by good experience (to God be given all glorie) well
knowne unto us.”—“You will take wise councell and that
from Gods word, how you deale in this cause betwixt us
and these.”—“According to the great love and kindnes,
that you have shewed unto us,” etc.
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the
Mennonite Consistory did not forth with accede to the
demand of John Smyth and his companions, but put off the
decision for some months. Perhaps Helwys might mean-
while repeal the excommunication, and thus cause a recon-
ciliation, which for the moment was impossible.
John Smyth's followers reiterated their desire to unite
with the Mennonite Church, and insisted on it the more so
as knowing that the teachers or elders Lubbert Gerrits and
Hans de Ries were inclined to consent. In a letter to the
elders and teachers of sister-congregations they had praised
these as wise men, who distinguished themselves by their
godly walks.’’
From a note by Claas Claaszoon Anslo on the death of
Lubbert Gerrits, dated January 1612, which manuscript-
document is preserved in the archives of the Mennonite
congregation, it appears that on his death-bed Lubbert
Gerrits, still seriously desired not to forget the affair with
the English, but to settle it as soon as possible. He further
declared that he had some objections to the baptism of Mr.
Smyth, as not being warranted by Scriptures, but that the
other English, without being baptized again, should be
accepted.”
Hans de Ries writes in a letter—the Ms. is in aforesaid:
archives—to Reinier Wybrands :——‘‘I will thank God and
hope to hear the English affair to have ended well.” Before
finishing the letter, he exhorts them again :--‘‘Dear men,
pray do require that the English affair be brought to a
close.”
Now the concise form and incompleteness of the articles
JOHN SMYTH's REPENTANCE 155
of faith, delivered by the English, were points of objection
to their union. On account of this, they requested Hans
de Ries to draw up a confession for them ; which he readily
did. This confession contained at first thirty-eight articles,
to which Hans de Ries added afterwards two more, the
nineteenth and twenty-second, thus forty articles altogether.
In the preface to the edition of 1610 (?) he says —“This
short confession of faith, I first wrote on entreaty and on
behalf of several Englishmen fled from England for con-
science' sake, I have afterwards somewhat augmented.”
This confession, termed later on, the confession of Hans
de Ries and Lubbert Gerrits, never had any binding
authority with the Mennonites, though it was approved by
many of them. It was translated into English, after having
been signed, without any reserve, by the thirty-one of John
Smyth's above-mentioned list, besides ten more : three men
and seven women. (See Appendix G.)
At the end of I609 the negotiations had so far progressed
that the Mennonite Consistory thought they could not with
a good conscience, shut their ears any longer to the English,
but must present the affair to the whole brotherhood. The
brotherhood then desired that the English should, first of
all, again be most perfectly examined, as regards the doc-
trine of salvation and the government of their church, and
also be interrogated as to the foundation and form of their
baptism.
The Consistory did not find any difference, either in the
one or the other thing between the English and the Men-
nonites, and said that, according to their opinion, the Eng-
lish, without being baptized again, must be admitted, as
their baptism is valid and lawful. A few weeks afterwards
the Consistory put the question to the vote among the
brethren. It then appeared that most of them were of the
same opinion as the Consistory. The latter, however,
thought it advisable to consult the neighbouring fellow-
156 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
servants, i.e.: the elders and teachers of the surrounding
United Waterland and High German Churches on this
matter before taking action.
By an epistle, dated May 6, 1610—date stated in the reply
of Dirk Pietinz, of Hoorn—the Consistory convened in
Amsterdam, May 23, to hold converse with the English-
men, and at the same time to instruct and bring the Amster-
dam brethren into the right way, if they were of a different
opinion. For the sake of the Englishmen, the Latin lan-
guage was to be used in the conference, as appears from the
reply of Willem Janszoon, teacher at Rynsburg. They
further prayed to notice most particularly, that they only
mean the baptism of those who are baptized by their minis-
ter himself, for we ourselves do distinguish the act of
baptizing by which he has baptized himself; this is an
affair quite different.
These particulars as here stated were derived from a
manuscript of the Consistory’s circular in the archives of
the Amsterdam Mennonite congregation. -
Only four replies to that circular are extant, three of
which are unpropitious. Five teachers of Friesland de-
clared, May 15, that they were not inclined to come, or to
give advice without consulting their congregations, so long
as they had no knowledge of the Englishmen’s confession.
Dirk Pietinz of Hoorn exhorts, May 21, to great prudence,
as the admission of the English might easily lead to separa-
tion and to others leaving them. Willem Jansz of Ryns-
burg was the only one who, May 18, answered in the
affirmative. His letter enclosed one of Yeme de Rynck,
teacher at Harlingen, one of the subscribers to the Frisian
epistle, saying that he regretted his fellow elders had
refused to come, but that he still entertained hopes that all
would end well. The Amsterdam Consistory complied at
once with the desire of the Frisians and sent the confession
of thirty-eight articles, since published in print, but not yet
JOHN SMYTH'S REPENTANCE 157
supplemented by the two additional articles. The Frisian
reply informs us —“ as regards the request for our advice
and examination which you desire about the thirty-eight
articles of creed presented to us, this is all in vain,” etc.
The Frisian brethren kept silent at first and when, in a
letter of the 16th of July, an answer was required from
them within a fortnight, they, July 28, bitterly disapproved
this rashness, desired that all the Mennonite churches in
Germany and at the East-sea should also be acquainted with
it, referred to controversies among themselves, declared
they had not yet had time to read the confession, and said
of the Englishmen :-‘‘this people with their absurd labour
and service,” and of their baptism —“an affair never
heard of, therefore we will leave it as it is and we shall be-
have ourselves according to the instruction given us in the
word of God.”
In this situation of things the Amsterdam Consistory
however anxious to accept the Englishmen as members pre-
ferred to defer it still a little longer. Whether this delay,
—the desire having already been expressed one year and a
half previously, led the English at last to withdraw them-
selves; or, if it was in consequence of the refusal to admit
their venerated teacher John Smyth, whose baptism the
Consistory did not regard as valid, though not objecting to
that of the other ones, we do not know.
It is shown, however, that John Smyth and thirteen
others obliterated their signatures on the confession and
that during the first years no union was concluded. Yet
the friendly relations with the Mennonites continued.
Smyth even defended Hans de Ries and Lubbert Gerrits
when these, after having added two articles to the confes-
sion and republished it, were attacked on the side of the
Reformed. The manuscript of this copious defence, written
in Latin and with a Dutch translation by the Mennonite
158 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
pastor Reinier Wybrands, is still preserved in the Archives
of the Amsterdam Mennonite Church.
Smyth's approval of the inserted article XIX which the
opponents called “Schwenckfeldian,”* is shown by his
‘‘Retraction of Errors ’’, page VII:——‘‘another imputation
is of some moment, that I should affirm Christ in the flesh
to be a figure of himself in the spirit, and that men are not
so much to strive about the natural flesh of Christ as about
his spiritual flesh, and that the contention concerning the
natural flesh of Christ is like the contention of the soldiers
for Christ's coat. . . It is the spirit that quickeneth, the
flesh profiteth nothing.”
* The works of Schwenkfeld were translated into English by the
late Rev. Dr. Chester D. Hartranft and published. The Schwench-
felders have their schools at Pennsburg, and their churches and chief
congregations in Montgomery County in Pennsylvania. —ED.
CHAPTER XX
JOHN SMYTH's PARTING WORD
OHN SMYTH now carefully avoided all controversy,
J except the short reply he published in 1610 to Clyfton's
book. It is entitled : “A reply to Mr. R. Clyfton's Chris-
tian plea.” Otherwise, there had been every reason for
John Smyth to do so. No fewer than five pamphlets were
written against him : Henry Ainsworth, a defence of the
Holy Scriptures, Worship and Ministry used in the Chris-
tian churches separated from Antichrist, 1609; R. Clyfton,
A plea for infants and elder people concerning their baptism,
or a processe of the passages between Mr. John Smyth and
Richard Clyfton, Amsterdam, 161 O, 4°, pp. 226 ; Francis
Johnson, A brief treatise containing some grounds and
reasons against two errors of the Anabaptists, I 609 or I6 IO ;
R. Bernard, Plaine Evidences: the Church of England is
apostolical ; the separation schismaticall, directed against
Mr. Ainsworth the Separtist and Mr. Smyth the Se-baptist,
16Io; J. H., A Description of the Church of Christ against
certaine Anabaptisticall and erronious opinions maintained
and practised by one Master John Smyth, 1610.
But John Smyth supported this all and imposed Silence
upon himself.
A couple of years before his death, Smyth, in a parting
word, published posthumously wrote, “if any man say,
why then do you not answer the books, written in opposi-
tion ? My answer is, my desire is to end all controversies
among Christians rather than to make and maintain them,
especially in matters of the outward church and ceremonies;
and it is the grief of my heart that I have so long cumbered
myself and spent my time therein, and I profess that differ-
ence in judgment for matter of circumstance, as are all
things of the outward Church, shall not cause me to refuse
160 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
the brotherhood of any penitent and faithful Christian
whatsoever. And now from this day forward do I put an
end to all controversies and questions about the outward
church and ceremonies with all men, and resolve to spend
my time in the main matters wherein consistheth salvation.
Without repentence, faith, remission of sin, and the new
creature, there is no salvation, but there is salvation with-
out the truth of all outward ceremonies of the outward
church. If any man say you answer not because you cannot,
I say to him, that I am accounted one that cannot answer is
not my fame, but to spend my time in a full answer of these
things of the outward church which I am bound to employ
better (necessity calling upon me) would be my sin, and so
I had rather be accounted unable to answer, than to be
bound in sin against my conscience. Again, if I should
answer, it would breed further strife among Christians.”
Yet one attack put his meekness to a rather too severe
test. It was from the first person he baptized, his old
friend Thomas Helwys, who, not yet satisfied with having
excommunicated John Smyth, issued, two years after, in
16I I, a writing mingled with gall and bitterness, which he
addressed to Hans de Ries, Renier Wybrands and their con-
gregatious. We here quote only page 35 :-‘‘Mr. John
Smyth is fallen, denying the words of our Saviour, Matthew
XVII:2O. And this man, like Balaam, hath consulted with
you and hath put a stumblingblock before the people of
God who were also enlightened ; and SO are many, as you
know, fallen with him to the same sin and under the same
condemnation.’’
That was going too far. John Smyth could not keep
silence any longer. But how different was his manner of
writing from his former censorious course ! He says : “In
the days of my blind zeal and preposterous imitation of
Christ I was somewhat lavish in censuring and judging
others, and namely in the way of separation, called Brownism.
JOHN SMYTH's PARTING WORD 161
Generally, all those biting and bitter words, phrases and
speeches, used against the professors of the land, I utterly
retract and revoke, as not being of the spirit of Christ, but
of the disciples, who would have called for fire and brimstone
from heaven, which Christ rebuketh. The contention hath
broken the rules of love and charity, which is the superior
law. For my part, the Lord hath taught me, for hereafter
shall I set a watch before my mouth, that I sin not again in
that kind and degree . . . . The Articles of Religion
which are the ground of my Salvation are these, wherein I
differ from no good Christian : That Jesus Christ, the son
of God and the son of Mary, is the anointed King, Priest
and Prophet of the Church, the only mediator of the new
Testament, and that through true repentance and faith in
Him, who alone is our Saviour, we receive remission of sins
and the Holy Ghost in this life, and there with all the re-
demption of our bodies, and everlasting life in the resurrec-
tion of the body ; and whosoever walketh according to this
rule, I must needs acknowledge him my brother ; yea,
although he differ from me in divers other particulars.”
It is urue, that he still strenuously defended his opinion
against that of Helwys ; and, indeed, refutes all imputations
cast upon him by the latter ; but, when remembering the
cause of their estrangement ; the lawfulness to form a church
and to baptize, he exclaims —“In these outward matters,
I dare not any more contend with any man, but desire that
we may follow the truth of repentance, faith and regenera-
tion, and lay aside dissension for mint, comine and anis
Seed.’’
In this manner, John Smyth wrote during the last seven
weeks of his life, while he felt his strength daily decreasing
and death approaching.
Bradford (“Dialogue by Young.” page 451) tells us :
“Mr. Smyth lived not many years after, but died there
of a consumption, to which he was inclined, before he came
out of England.”
162 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Two days before his death, John Smyth answered to one
asking him a question, which tended to strife –“I desire
to hear no contention now.’’
Not only in this respect ; not only in his gentleness, but
also in his discourses with his wife and children, in his ex-
hortations to the members of his church who visited him,
and especially by his most perfect trust in God, to whom he
devoted himself with all his heart, and whose name he still
praised in the hour of death, –his dying was for his congre-
gation a more edifying, sanctifying and certainly more
touching preaching of the Gospel, than in the course of his
life he had ever set forth.
In “Life and death of John Smyth '' we read :-‘‘It
pleased the Lord at the length to visit him with sickness
and with a disease whereby he perceived, that his life should
not long continue, yet remaining about seven weeks, during
the which space he behaved himself Christianlike, examining
his life, confessing his sins, praying for patience, having
always confidence in the mercy and favour of the Lord
toward him in the end.’’
CHAPTER XXI
FUSION WITH THE MENNONITES
HE burial registers state that John Smyth's body was
interred on the 1st of September 1612, in the New
Church at Amsterdam. His congregation kept faithfully
together.
Joseph Ivimey, who as customary, copies Crosby, mis-
states in his “History of the English Baptists,” vol. II
page 505 :—‘‘ on the death of Mr. Smyth the care of the
church was committed to Mr. Helwisse and soon after they
returned to London, from an idea that they had done wrong
to fly from persecution.”
Thomas Pigott was now the next pastor, who did homage
to John Smyth's memory by publishing his last work :
‘‘Retraction of errors and confirmation of the truth,’’ to
which he added a preface, a short memoir and a confession
of faith of John Smyth. The confession is entitled :--
‘‘ Propositions and conclusions concerning true christian
religion, containing a confession of faith of certain English
people, living at Amsterdam,” sometimes simply termed
“confession of the remainder of Mr. Smyth's Company.”
Thomas Crosby (“The History of the English Baptists,”
page 27 1) confounds this confession with that of Helwys,
entitled : “A declaration of the faith of English people
remaining at Amsterdam in Holland,” which led to the
errors of many subsequent authors; 29, Underhill
(“Tracts,” 179 note), Hanbury (“Memorials,’’ page 179),
etc. Even Robert Barclay (“The Inner-life of the Relig-
ious Societies,’’ page 96 note) misstates that the church
which published John Smyth's confession, was another one
than that which united with the Mennonites.
This confession does not, as to the main points, differ
from that which Smyth delivered when applying for union
164 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
with the Mennonites, and accordingly does agree with the
confession of Hans de Ries and Lubbert Gerrits, which he
had undersigned. It is particularly characteristic, because
of its sharp expressions of the doctrine of predestination : .
(article XXV and XXVI) “That God before the founda-
tion of the world hath determined the way of life and salva-
tion to consist in Christ and that he hath foreseen who
would follow it ; on the contrary he hath determined the
way of perdition to consist in impenitency and infidelity,
and that he hath also foreseen, who would follow after it.
That as no man begotteth his child to the gallows, nor no
potter maketh a pot to break it, so God doth not create and
predestinate any man to destruction.’”
Not only in that respect, did Thomas Pigott and his com-
pany vindicate John Smyth's memory. They, too, main-
tained very friendly relations with the Mennonites. They
did not reply to Helwys' imputations in his “Mistery of
Iniquity,” and they silenced Robinson's harsh, sometimes
bitter refutations. Ridiculing their venerated John Smyth,
Robinson in his book ‘‘ of religious communion private and
public—as also a survey of the confession of faith, published
in certain conclusions by the remainders of Mr. Smyth's
company, 1614,” breaks out :—‘‘ but lo! here another mis-
chief; the persuasion of perfection in holiness, which these
men would also have us think Mr. Smyth had attained, a
little before his death. And it made well for the credit of
the doctrine, that he did not survive : for then the imper-
fections of his life would have discovered the error of the
doctrine. Yea, verily, if this were his faith here published,
it is too evident how far he was from perfection.”
In no long time their friendship with the Mennonites led
them to make another application for fellowship with that
community. The only objection to this on the part of the
* An English translation from the Dutch text preserved in the
Archives of the Amsterdam Mennonite Church, see Appendix H.
FUSION WITH THE MENNONITES 165
Mennonites, was that Smyth's se-baptism, had been neu-
tralized by his death. Indeed, the request of the English
was this time, November 6, 1614, readily submitted to by
the Mennonite Consistory. On the following Sunday,
November 9, it was brought before the brethren, ‘‘so that
any one, having serious reasons to oppose against it, might
communicate, within three weeks, to the servants his objec-
tions to it.”
No one then made objection, nor again, when the Con-
sistory, January 18, 1615, called them up again, announcing
at the same time that, unless there were hindrance, the
union would be consumated Wednesday the 21st, on the
occasion of the baptism by Hans de Ries of some new mem-
bers.
In the Memorial, or records of the proceedings of the
church, marked A, and in those of its servants, of the year
1612, marked B, both written by Reinier Wybrands, an
eye-witness and teacher of the United Mennonite Church at
Amsterdam, we read : ‘‘ On the 20th of January, of the
year 1615, the English of the bake-house, both men and
women, about 30 persons were convened by us servants in
our spycker,” and having come, asked : Ist if they still
persisted in their intention to unite with our congregation ?
they answered yes. 2nd, if in the tenets and confession of
faith, which they had signed in their own handwriting, all
of them were still one in sentiment with us? whereupon
they declared such to be the case, except a few, about 4,
who did not agree in Some points, but were of a different
opinion, principally respecting magistry and taking an oath,
which both points were mentioned, but would, with the
others, behave themselves peaceably and make no opposi-
tion. It was proposed by us: to admit all those who were
the same with us and to reject the others, till they had
changed their minds and could agree with us. They then
* Name of their meeting-house.
166 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
deliberated amongst themselves and answered, that they
could not separate from each other, and either to be
admitted all of them, or rejected,” as their brethren,
though somewhat differing from them, tolerated them from
love. Then we consulted together on it, and returned for
answer, that we propose, as before, to admit all those who
agree with us in the points of the tenet, but that to admit
them all, who agree, and who disagree with us, we Scrupple
to do and dare not do, but will consult our brethren, and
inform them of it, as we have nothing told our brethren,
but that all of them agreed with us in the tenets, as they
had signed the confession of faith in their own handwriting.
And thereupon, to the regret of many of them, we took
leave that night. Next day, being the 21st of January,
they came to us, early in the morning, to say that, after
having, during the night, discussed the matter among them
all, it was agreed that those, who were found to be one in
sentiment with us, should proceed to join our community,
as they got to know that the others would not grieve them-
selves at it, but adviced to the union, for which they had
been a hindrance. Such was accordingly done, after the
baptism of those who were to be baptized, and they were,
without baptism, in public assembly, admitted to our fel-
lowship. May God retain them therein to their salvation
Amen.’’
Even after this fusion, the English continued their dis-
tinct worship in the “Bakehouse,” where the preaching
was in English, and which, after Jan Munter’s death, his
widow let to them. Still June 8, 162o, their teacher was
Thomas Pigott—and not Thomas Denys, as Evans (“Early
Baptists,” II, page 25 note) supposes—[assisted by] Reinier
Wybrands and his co-elder Pieter Andriesz. Herseling
Ordained to the full service, that is, admitted to administer
baptism and the Lord's Supper. Formerly Pigott used
only to preach.
FUSION WITH THE MENNONITES 167
Down to 1637, instances occur of baptisms administered
in their place of worship. Accordingly, the congregation
had in some respects a distinct existence, though being
closely connected with the Mennonites. The baptized and
newly received persons were at once looked upon as members
of the head church, which church distributed the alms,
disciplined offenders, and even kept the meeting house in
repair. In the Administration Books of the Amsterdam
Mennonite Church is entered, September 26, 1619 : “By
Wages for the Bake-house.’’
Yet when Thomas Pigott had died in 1639 + the Consistory
found it unnecessary to have a distinct place of meeting
any longer, and resolved on abolishing the preaching in the
English tongue. The English and their children now un-
derstood the Dutch language sufficiently to attend to the
Church of the Mennonites. In the course of the last three
years, eight of English origin had applied for baptism to
the Dutch teachers against one to Pigott. Consequently,
the English section ceased.
Nevertheless, the Consistory had, July 8, 1640, appointed
a teacher one of its most eminent members, dr. Joseph
Drewe, perhaps a son of John Drewe, who, together with
Thomas Jessop and Thomas Helwys’ wife, had been prose-
cuted in England before the Court of a Brownist, July 26,
1607, and whose daughter, Febe was baptized, 1639, here in
Amsterdam. But Joseph Drewe “feared his speech, that
is, his language, will be an impediment, as he was used to
the English.’’
The dwellings surrounding the place of meeting continued
* Probably, as according to any Account-Book of the Amsterdam
Mennonite Church, Sara van Tongerloo, Jan Muliter’s widow, re-
deemed in 1639 the mortgage, for which the Bakehouse was pledged
as security for a still unpaid legacy of four thousand Dutch guilders,
bequeathed by Jan Munter to the Amsterdam Mennonite Church, by
a four per-cent obligation on the part of Thomas Pigott, and, August
16 of the same year, Pigott’s wife, Aaltje (alice) was termed : widow,
in a deed of transfer of a house of which she was a joint-proprietor.
168 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
to be occupied by the Pigotts, the Armfields, the Drewes,
the Dragons, the Hodgkins, but came, the one after the
other, eleven houses containing twenty-three dwellings,
still always called the “Bakehouse ’’—into the possession
of the Mennonite Church, till they were at last sold in 1709
for 602O guilders, 15 strivers, 4 penningen, Dutch currency,
equal to fully 4, 5oo.
These buildings are still always to be found in one of the
most curious and narrow alleys of Amsterdam, partly
vaulted, and winding with five acute angles along and across
the space, above referred to, between Rembrandts-Square
and Paarden-street. This alley is, after former inhabitants,
rightly called the English alley.
Half a century ago, the popular local tradition still per-
sisted—what all writers who described Amsterdam, had
long before forgotten, viz.: that an English Church formerly
existed there. It had been the meeting-place of the mother
church of the Baptists, and not of the Quakers, as the
Dutch writer on Amsterdam, J. ter Gouw, misstates.
CHAPTER XXII
THOMAS HELwys AND HIs NINE ADHERENTS
EAN WEHILE what had become of Thomas Helwys
| and his nine adherents 2 -
They had never revoked the excommunication of John
Smyth and his company. Consequently they were shut out
of their former place of meeting, the “Bakehouse,” which
remained the property of the majority, their opponents.
From March 1609, until some time in 16II, or about two
years and a half, they assembled and partook of the Lord's
Supper every Sunday, probably in the house of one of their
members. . Thomas Helwys occupied a prominent position
among them. He also showed himself an author. First, I
suppose, by an Advertisement and Admonition to the Men-
nonite congregation ; next, by a confession of faith ; and
then, by a short and clear proof from God’s Word, that
God’s decree is not the cause of sin and condemnation.
The said Advertisement dated July 2, 161 I, containing 94
I6 mo. pages, was originally written in Dutch for the con-
gregations of Hans de Ries and Reinier Wybrands, but pub-
1ished in English. Its full title runs :—“An advertisement or
admonitions unto the congregations which men call the New
Fryelers (Freewillers?) in the Low Countries. Written in
Dutch and published in English. Wherein is handled four
Principal Points of Religion, etc. After these followes
certain Demandes concerning God's Decree of Salvation
and Condemnation. Prov. IX:8, XXIX: I. Printed I6 II.”
The book is dedicated to ‘‘Hans de Ries, Reynier
Wybrantsen and the congregations whereof thy are.”
This dedication is signed : Thomas Helwys.
He tries to argue therein his view of his four points of
difference with the Mennonites. The sub-divisions are
headed :
170 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
I. that Christ took his flesh of Marie, having a true
earthlie, naturall bodie.
II. that a Sabbath or day of rest is to be kept holy everie
first day of the weeke.
III. That ther is no succession or privilege to persons in
the holie thinges.
IV. that magistracie, being an holy ordinance of God,
debarreth not any from being of the Church of Christ.
This last assertion concerning magistracy is repeated
verbatim, in article 24 of the new edition of his book.’’ A
declaration of the faith of English people remaining at Am-
sterdam,” which was probably added to aforesaid writing.
It now contained twenty-seven articles and had some not-
able omissions, augmentations and alterations. The earliest
version of this confession is printed in Appendix F.
Instead of the positive denial of original sin, Article IV
of the new edition declares that : “men are by nature the
children of wrath, born in iniquitie and in sin conceived,
wise to all evil, but to good they have no knowledge.”
Freedom of will, afonement for the sins of all-mankind,
that the saints might fall from grace, all this was, however,
maintained.
Article XVII, concerning church discipline, wherein the
previous customary admonition of the congregation is
mentioned, has the notable addition : —‘‘ and therefore not
the committing of sin doth cut off any from the church to
reformation.’’ g
We look here in vain for the large article XVII, of the
early Confession, concerning the adiaphora. On the other
hand, we find here quite new declarations with regard to
the power to form a church and administer the seals (XI),
to the mutual relations between distinct congregations and
its servants (XI, XIX, XXI, XXII), to the Bible as a
standard of faith (XXII); besides an intentional defense
that it is lawful for a Christian to fulfill the office of a mag-
THOMAS HELwys AND HIs NINE ADHERENTs 171
istrate and to take an oath by the name of the Lord, –this
last of course in opposition to the principles of the
Mennonites.
The fifth article of the confession dealing with election
and condemnation, led to the refutations, against which
Helwys tried to argue in his third mentioned writing. It is
entitled : “A short and plaine proofe by the Word and
works of God, that God’s decree is not the cause off anye
Manns sinne or condemnation, and that all Men are re-
deemed by Christ. As also that no infants are condemned.
Col. II 8, Psalm (XIX: 1 13. Printed 16I I, 8", 288 pages.”
According to professor W. H. Whitsitt of the Baptist
Seminary, of Louisville, Kentucky, there is such an affinity
in type with Helwys' subsequent Work : “Mistery of
iniquity,” published at London in 1612, that he thinks this
book to be from the same press. Yet to argue from it, that
Helwys had already in June 161 I left Amsterdam, is, I
think, somewhat rash, as the English people, though living
here in Holland, had continually printed their books in
London, through the medium of their friends there.
A letter inserted in Chr. Lawne’s “Prophane schism,”
page 56, shows, that Thomas Helwys was, with his nine
associates, still July 8, 16 II, in Amsterdam. It is therein
stated that three congregations of English Mennonites were
at that time in Amsterdam : Mr. Smyth, an Anabaptist of
one sort, and Mr. Helwise of another, and Mr. Busher of
another.’’
Thomas Helwys dedicated, June 2, 16I I, his book to
Lady Bowes. In that dedication we read :--‘‘ that God
giveing Adam freewil and power in himself not to eate of
the forbidden fruit and live, or to eate and dye, could not
in his eternal decree ordayne or appoint him to life or death,
for then had his freewil bene overthrowne ; and if Adam
had not eaten and sinned (which was in his owne power)
then had not death entred. Therefore God did not decree
172 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
that death should enter and then God’s decree is not the
cause of anie man’s condemnation.’’
In the last part of the year 1611, rumors from England
gave rise to another question than that of the profound
doctrine of predestination exercised still more the minds of
Thomas Helwys and his companions. It was this ; whether
flight in persecution were permitted 2
The rulers of the Church of England, inflamed with rage
towards those holding a different opinion, siezed Bartholo-
mew Legate and Edward Wightman and sentenced them to
death. After a long imprisonment both these men were
burnt at the stake, the first on March 18 and the second on
April II, 1612.
Whether or not persecution in England influenced their
minds or not the question was : can we, with a good con-
science, justify our residence here in Holland 2 In his
book, “A short declaration of the mistery of iniquity,”
Helwys says:––“Furthermore if Christ gave this for a rule
or precept to his disciples to flee persecution to save them-
selves then was it an absolute commandement and so did al
the apostles and disciples of Christ breake his commande-
ment and sinne, in that they did not flee to save themselves
alwaies when they were persecuted and hereby do these men
condemne all their brethren that flee not as they do, except
they wil and [add PJ error to error and affirme as some of
them do, that it is indifferent to flee or not to flee, making
hereby this precept of Christ indifferent to be obeyed or
not to be obeyed, which can not be affirmed of anie one
precept of Christ : for nothing can bee both commanded
and indifferent to be obeyed or done, and those words of
Christ wil no way permit such indifferenci, for they are an
absolute precept for that and for the which they are given
which is not to flee to save themselves but to flee or go to
another citie to preach the gospel. And we put these
seducers in remembrance that our Saviour Christ gives this
THOMAS HELWYS AND HIs NINE ADHERENTS 173
rule also unto his disciples, that if they shal enter into anie
house or citie that shal not receive them, 11o heare his words
when they depart thence they shal shake of the dust of
their feet for a witnes against that house or citie. But
when will these men according to this rule of Christ shake
of the dust of their feet for a witness against Amsterdam
and Leyden which cities neither receive them nor the word
they bring otherwise then they receive Turks and Jews and
all sorts who come onely to seek safety and profit. It
should seeme this rule of Christ, apperteynes not to these
men but let them and al men se, that this rule apperteynes
to whom so ever the other apperteynes, they being both
given at one time and upon one and the same occasion and
to one and the same persons: and when these great
deceivers have learned not to divide Christ they wil learne
also, not to divide his precepts and ordinances, taking what
is agreable to their corrupt mynds, and forsaking what is
contrary to them. We wil passe by the lamentable fruits
and iudgments that we have and doese with our eies fol-
lowes this damnable error when manie, yea, the most men
that had in a great measure forsake the love of the world
and begun to be zealous of some good thinges, being
drawne by this opinion and these seducers into foreyne
countries, not knowing which way to support their outward
estate have turned againe unto the world, and are fayne to
hunt too and froo, far and neare, after every occasion, and
al is too little to satisfy most of their wants and nothinge
wil satisfie some of their descries: al these things and manie
more, these hirelings, their shepheards, can wel bear
withall, so that they returne to the hive, that their portion
may not be reproved and those of best harts and some of
best quality that cannot runne and rove, and set their hearts
to seeke the world consume that they have and fal under
have conditions and by little and little loose . . . And let
none thinke that we are altogether ignorant what building,
174 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
and warfare we take in hand, and that we have not sitt
downe and in some measure throughly considered what the
cost and danger may be, and also let none thinke that we
are without sence and feeling of our owne inability to begin
and our weaknes to endure to the end, the weight and
danger of such a worke : but in al these things we hope and
waite for wisedome and strength, and helpe from the Lord,
who is able to establish us, that we may stand, and by
weake meanes to confound mighty thinges, I Cor. I. Let
none therefore despise the day of small things, Zach. IV, Io.
Nor bee grieved and say with that scorner Nehem IV, 24,
what wil these weake Jewes doe? Thus comending al our
poore endeavors to the best acceptance of every wel dis-
posed reader beseeching the Lord to make his grace to
abound to you al, for the glory of his name & the salvation
of every one of your soules. Amen.’’
Indeed, this resolution did not deserve John Robinson’s
scornful censure. He says (Works III, page I 59):—
“neither is it likely, if he (Helwys) and the people with
him at Amsterdam could have gone on comfortably, as they
desired, that the unlawfulness of flight would ever have
troubled him.’’
Nevertheless before the end of the year 161 I, Helwys
and his nine adherents had returned to England. Poor
small company, what could it do 2 Will it keep quiet, and
escape, if possible, the quick eyes of its persecutors 2
Far from it ! No sooner were they settled at Spittlefield
than Thomas Helwys published his book “A short declara-
tion of the mistery of iniquity,” a copious work of 212
pages 16". It discloses the deplorable state of the religious
life, applies the prophecy of the second Beast in the Revela-
tion to the Church of England, describes the king's duties
and rights and points out the errors, as well of the Puritans
as of the Brownists.
This was not all. Helwys even sent a copy of it, with a
THOMAS HELWYS AND HIS NINE ADHERENTS 175
letter, under his hand, to the King. Both book and letter
are still preserved in the British Museum.
The letter runs :
“Heare, o king, and dispise not ye counsell of ye poore,
and let their complaints come before thee.
“The king is a mortall-man, and not God, therefore hath
no power over ye immortall soules of his subjects, to make
lawes and ordinances for them, and to set spirituall lords
Over them.
“If the king have authority to make spirituall lords and
lawes, then he is an immortall God, and not a mortall man.
“O King, be not seduced by deceivers to sin so against
God, whome thou oughtest to obey, nor against they poore
subjects, who ought and will obey thee in all thinges, with
body, life and goods, or els let their lives be taken from ye
earth.
THOMAS HELWYS.
‘‘God save ye king.
“Spittlefield, neare London.”
It appeared again, that fortune favors the bold. At least,
no harm was done to Thomas Helwys. His little circle
widened. There were perhaps among them descendants of
the Netherlandres who advocated baptism on confession of
faith, who had fled to England to escape from the persecu-
tions during the reign of Charles V and Philips II. Many
a martyr these had already furnished to the fires of Smith-
field. However, true to their principles, they still con-
tinued to exist privately.
The list of Mennonite marty's in England opens, May 25,
I 535, with ten men and six women, all from Holland. In
1538 we find another six, again from Holland, who perhaps
came in together with Anne of Cleves. Sixteen men and
fifteen women, ‘‘coming out of outward ports into this
realm, were expelled in 1539. They returned to Delft,
where they suffered death as martyrs. Joris, from Paris, a
176 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Hollander, was burnt April 24, 1551.” A proclamation
issued by Queen Elizabeth in 1561, commanded ‘‘the Ana-
baptists and such like heretics, which had flocked to the
coast towns of England, from the parts beyond the sea, under
colour of shunning persecution, and had spread the poison
of their sects in England, to depart the realm within twenty
days, whether they were natural-born people of the land or
foreigners, upon pain of imprisonment and loss of goods.
‘‘A whole Congregation of Mennonites was, Easter, I 575,
discovered in Aldgate and destroyed.”
Again two years after, the Dutch Anabaptists held pri-
vate conventicles in London and ‘‘perverted ” a great
many. -
There may have been some Englishmen among the five
hundred Anabaptists in one English city, of whom Hugh
Latimer speaks in his Lent sermons preached before King
Edward VI, but for the rest, all of them, except Jane
Boucher of Kent, martyred May 2, 1550, and perhaps
Robert Cooke, were from the Netherlands. Consequently,
Fox rightly writes in his letter to Queen Elizabeth :—“there
are some Anabaptists here in England, though not English,
but come hither from Holland,-and we had great reason to
give God thanks on this account, that I hear not any
Englishman, that is inclined to this madness.”
The name “Anabaptist” became a usual one of reproach
for heretics, e.g. for Familists, and, in 1589 and 1608, even
for Brownists. The assertion of the Baptists, that there
were in England already advocates of baptism upon con-
fession of faith, prior to the arrival of Netherland
Mennonites, is utterly unfounded.
Leonard Busher, a Londoner, but for some time past, a
refugee from persecution, to Amsterdam, headed there a
party of Teleiobaptists, according to Chr. Lawne, “prophane
schism,’’ page 56. No other record of it occurs.
Leonard Busher, having now returned to London shared
THOMAS HELWYS AND HIS NINE ADHERENTS 177
Helwys' emotions. This is shown in his “Religious peace
or a plea for liberty of conscience,” which excellent treatise
was reprinted several times. First in 1646 (38 pages 4°)
by Henry Burton, who revealed the author’s name. Lastly,
in the “Tracts” (page 1 to 81) of the Hansard Knolly's
Society.
In 1614 Leonard Busher presented a copy of the work to
the King. In that same year Thomas Helwys had to endure
the attack, mentioned before, of John Robinson. From
that moment, Helwys' name is no more recorded, but
replaced by that of his partisan John Morton.* The suppo-
sition is obvious that Thomas Helwys died about that time.
But his spirit survives. Brooks (“Puritans,” II, page 282)
assigns for his death : —“most probably about the year
I62o ;” R. Ashton (Works of Robinson, II, page 156 note)
the year 1620. Crosby (History of the English Baptists,
page 275) says —‘‘how long Mr. Helwisse lived and con-
tinued the elder of this church of Baptists at London, I can
not find.” E. B. Underhill when speaking of writings
published in 1615, rightly says:– “it is a question whether
Mr. Helwys was living at their publication.” B. Evans
(Early English Baptists, I, page 226) states :–‘‘ of his
death we know nothing.”
*See also “John Robinson,” by Walter H. Burgess 1920.—ED.
CHAPTER XXIII
CONCLUSION
OHN MURTON, who replaced Thomas Helwys, exhib-
ited more than ordinary talents as an author. He
published in 1615 a tract bearing the title : ‘‘Persecution
for religion judgå and condemned, in a discourse between
an Antichristian and a Christian ; ‘‘ In 162o a writing on
predestination entitled : “A description of what God hath
predestinated concerning man,” 16", pages VIII and 176;
and next, an elaborate address to the King for liberty of
religion, headed : “A most humble supplication of many of
the kings Majesty's loyal subjects—who are persecuted only
for differing in religion.”
Long after his death, a paper from his hand was found
when a wall was taken down, at Colchester ; which MS.
was published by the Baptists under the title of : “Truth's
Champion.’’
Yet the authorship of all these tracts is questioned. At
all events, the production is of John Murton’s congregation.
It is shown by the references to Helwys’ Confession.
Underhill (“Tracts,” page 89) points out the affinity in
style and tendency of the tract on persecution for religion
and that on predestination. The former Dexter places on
his biographical list of John Murton's works, while John
Robinson (Works I, page 269) positively says that the
latter was written by John Murton.
Most of these tracts were reprinted several times; finally
in the “Tracts on Liberty of Conscience ’’ of the Hansard
Knolly’s Society. -
It is not surprising that a church, presided over by so
zealous a man as John Murton, numbered, about 1626,
already one hundred and fifty members, in spite of fierce
persecutions by the State-church and of intestine contro-
CONCLUSION 179
versies. Sixteen members, under Elias Tookey, were ex-
pelled on that occasion. Further particulars concerning
these controversies are found in the correspondence of 1624
and 1625 between them and the United Mennonite Congre-
gation at Amsterdam ; which letters are preserved in its
records. -
The pamphlet “Truth’s Victory,’’ page 19, informs us
that John Murton’s congregation assembled in 1645 at New-
gate : ‘‘some thirty years ago Mr. Murton, a teacher of a
church of Anabaptists in Newgate.”
About 1626 this congregation was in communication with
four other gatherings of kindred spirit at Lincoln, Sarum,
Coventry and Tiverton. On November 12, 1626, these five
congregations wrote a letter to the Amsterdam Mennonites
for a complete union with them. The letter was delivered
by two deputies. -
The proposed union was hindered by the old points of
difference respecting oaths, the office of a magistrate, the
bearing of arms, the weekly celebration of the Lord's Sup-
per, the right of any member to administer the sacraments,
in the pastor’s absence, and finally, also the opinion on
incarnation.
The answer to that letter is dated November 26, and in
relation to it, there is still a letter from Lincoln, September
5, 1630, and from Tiverton September, 13, 1630.
All these documents are preserved in the aforesaid
archives (in Amsterdam).
Among the members of one of these five churches was
one H. H., who, on May Io, 1622, stated in an elaborate
missive his objections against infant baptism. Indeed, two
years earlier, 1624, Dod and Cleaver had thought it neces-
sary to write a defense of infant baptism, so as to deter
their countrymen from secession. In vain The number
of advocates of adult baptism constantly increased. Even
of the old Independent Church of Henry Jacob, formed at
180 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
London in 1616, a great many approved it and separated
themselves, under their teacher John Spilsbury, from the
other Independents, September 12, 1633. Others again an
offset of Henry Jacob’s church, in 1640, under Henry
Jessey, followed their example.
Thus a numerous brotherhood, which held views entirely”
corresponding with those of the Mennonites of Holland
would have arisen in England, had not, eight years after,
the practice of immersion been successfully propagated
there. *
One of them, Edward Barber, came then to the convic-
tion that no baptism but dipping was valid. He circulated
his book “A treatise of baptism or dipping, wherein is
clearly shewed, that our Lord Christ ordained dipping and
that sprinkiing of children is not according to Christ's
institution ; and also the invalidity of those arguments, that
are commonly brought to justify that practice,” 1641.
This opinion readily entered his circle in 1643. Richard
Blount, one of their teachers, was immersed at Rynsburg
by the collegian Jan Batten, and thereupon he immersed
the members of his own church. The ties of fellowship
with the Dutch Mennonites, who, from that moment,
they regarded as unbaptised people, were cut off. This is
the origin of the brotherhood of the Baptists (in the
Netherlands).
To trace their [The English exiles in The Netherlands]
further events is not within our present design ; but I can-
not close the history of their forefathers : the Mennonites,
originating in Holland from Brownism, without pointing
* Both the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper and the right of
the brethren to administer the seals soon fell into disuse. The
opinion of most of the Mennonites on the incarnation was similar to
theirs; respecting the bearing of arms and the office of a magistrate
the Mennonites of a later period held the same views. Even as to
oaths there was no other difference than that the English considered
it as a merely invocation of God as witness, while the Mennonites
took it for self-cursing.
CONCLUSION 181
out one of their greatest merits. They, namely, have been
the first in England to draw a deep line between Church
and State, and consequently sounded complete freedom of
religion.
They had not lived in vain in parts where the spirit of the
great William of Orange, though not having triumphed,
had still a positive influence on many. They had not re-
sided in vain in the native country of Dirk Volkertsoon
Coornhert, the precursor of Arminius. They had not
associated in vain with Mennonites, who, strongly feeling
the difference between Christ’s empire and the earthly
empires, between Church and State, pressed the point that
the State should not concern itself with sects or heresies,
and that any measures of the magistrates to change a
person’s conviction must be highly disapproved.
As long as they were Brownists, they [these English
exiles] taught the following (39th preposition of their Con-
fession):—‘‘the State cannot make but must take ecclessi-
astical laws ; ’’ or to use the words of Barrowe, in his
‘‘Brief Discovery,’’ page 91, 92 :—“Policy must take and
not give laws to religion.” The same proposition continues :
“it is the duty of the magistrates to suppress and root out
by their authority all false ministeries, voluntary religions
and counterfeited worship of God, to enforce all their sub-
jects, whether ecclesiastical or civil, to do their duties to
God and men.’’
Francis Johnson, though acknowledging that no man was
allowed to coerce consciences, says in his “Answer to Mr.
Jacob his treatise, I600,’’ page 199:—“it is not in the power
of princes or any man whatsoever to persuade the conscience
and make members of the church, but this must be left to
God alone, who only can do it (Acts II, 47.) Princes may
and ought, within their dominions, to abolish all false wor-
ship and all false ministries whatsoever, and to establish the
182 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
true worship and ministry appointed by God in his Word,
commanding and compelling their subjects to come unto
and practice no other but this.”
Henry Jacob, in his book “An humble supplication for
tolerance and liberty to enjoy and observe the ordinances of
Jesus Christ, 1609,’’ page 13, says: —“we acknowledge no
other power and authority for the overseeing, ruling and
censuring of particular churches, how many so ever in
number, in the case of their misgovernment, than that
which is originally invested in your Royal Person,’’ and
page 20 :—“we do humbly beseech your majesty not to
think, that by our suit for the said toleration we make an
overture and way for toleration unto Papists, whose head is
Antichrist, whose worship is idolatry, whose doctrine is
heresy and a profession directly contrary to the lawful state
and government of free countries and kingdoms, as your
Majesty hath truly and judiciously observed.”
John Robinson, too, asserts (Works III, page 277):—
‘‘it proves not that the magistrate may not use his lawful
power lawfully for the furtherance of Christ's kingdom and
laws. It is true the magistrates have no power against the
laws, doctrines and religion of Christ, but for the same, if
their power be of God, they may use it lawfully and against
the contrary.”
Yet no sooner had John Smyth and Thomas Helwys taken
the decisive step, than they sang a different tune.
John Smyth then declares in his confession (proposition
LXXXVI, see Appendix H) : “that the magistrate is
not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion or matters
of conscience, to force and compel men to this or that form
of religion or doctrine, but to leave Christian religion free
to every man’s conscience and to handle only civil trans-
CONCLUSION 183
gressions, for Christ only is the King and lawgiver of the
church and conscience” “(James IV 12).
Then Thomas Helwys wrote to the king : ‘‘We bow our-
selves to the earth before our lord the king in greatest
humbleness, beseeching the king to judge righteous judg-
ment herein, whether there be so unjust a thing, and of so
great cruell tyranny, under the sunne, as to force mens
conscience in their religion to God, seeing that if they err,
they must pay the price of their transgression with the losse
of their soules. Oh let the king judg, is it not most equall,
that men should chuse their religion themselves, seeing
they only must stand themselves before the judgment-seat
of God to answere for themselves, when it shall be no ex-
cuse for them to say, wee were commanded or compelled to
be of this religion, by the King or by them that had
authority from him. And let our lord the king that is a
man of knowledg, , yet further consider that if the king
should by his power bring his people to the truth, and they
walke in the truth and dye in the profession of it, in
obedience to the kings power, either for feare or love, shall
they be saved 2 The king knowes they shal not, but they
that obey the truth and love, whome the love of God con-
strayneth, their obedience only shalbe acceptable to God.
I Cor. 13. Thus may our lord the king see, that by his
kingly power he cannot cause or make men bring an
acceptable sacrifice to God, and will the king make men
(whether they wil or no) bring an unacceptable Sacrifice to
God 2 and shal the king herein thinke he doth please God P
God forbid l’’
* “This is the first known expression of absolute liberty in any
confession of faith,” N. H. Marshall. . . . . “It was, in short,
from their dingy little meeting house [of Helwys and his followers]
. . . . . that there flashed out, first in England, the absolute
doctrine of Religious Liberty,’” Prof. Masson. Encyclopedia Brittan-
nica, article. Baptists.-E.D.
184 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
| Such language king James had never heard before. Such
words had as yet never been spoken in England. Leon-
hard Busher and John Murton, who, like Thomas Helwys
had come from Holland, would shortly repeat them in a
loud voice and with conclusive force.
Many of their principles* may have perished in the course
of centuries ; many forms, dear to them, may have lost
their significance for us now, - for this truth alone, pro-
fessed by them, though at the risk of imprisonment and
even of their lives, they are entitled to a place of honor
among the advocates of true progress, true toleration, and
true freedom. -
*The essential principle to the teachings of Dirk Volkertsoon
Coornhert (1522–1590) scholar, poet, “restorer of the Dutch lan-
guage” was this : “I hold as brethren all GCd-fearing people who
rest on the foundation of Christ, whether they be Papists, Monks,
Baptists, Reformed or Lutherans.—ED.
APPENDIX A
LIST OF MARRIAGES OF ENGLISH PEOPLE LIVING
AT AMSTERDAM, TAKEN FROM THE REGISTER-
BOOKS OF THAT TOWN FROM 1597 TO 1617.
[The names of those, who signed the deeds under their own hand,
are marked in this list with an asterisk ; where this sign is omitted
either the bridegroom, the bride, or both, who could not write, affixed
a cross, a monogram, or the like. In the latter case the misspelling
of the town clerks, who knew no English could not be corrected.
See, for instance, under No. 2 Benjamin Roit for Benjamin Wright;
under No. 8 Frederick Jaebergh, whose name, according to No. 9, was
Frederick Yearbury, etc. With one exception (No. 42), I have
excluded their places of abode as being of less importance; most of
thern were living in the neighborhood of the Binnel-Amstel (Inner-
Amstel).-In 1597 no marriage was recorded.]
I598
1. November 7. “Thomas Cockey from Stratford, chief
man-servant, widower of Lysbet Walram, and Anna Clerk.
from London, widow of Christ. Raphier.
. I599
2. December II. * Benjamin Wright from London,
engraver, 34 years, and Lysbet Martyn from London, 22
years. Witnesses : Joris and Catelyne Martyn, her parents.
I 600 -
3. January 22. *Thomas Marston from Harle (Harles-
ford 2) near Ipswich, mason, 26 years and Haesgen Abra-
hams, 16 years. Witness her father Abraham Heinricks.
4. April 22. Jan Huntley Thomassoon, from Bradford,
bombazine-weaver, 31 years, and Anne Heyes of Chissester
(Chichester) 21 years. Witness Janneken Heyes her
mother ; his mother being in England.
5. April 22. William Hantley from Bradford, bomba-
zine-weaver, 26 years. Witness his brother Jan, and Marie
Hil. Willemsd. from Oppen (Upton 2), 26 years.
6. September 16. Jean Clereq from Marvick (War-
186 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
wick 2) widower of Judeth N. and Lysbet Sodwell from
Kent, widow of Franchoys Teyler.
7. September 16. * William Latham from Chierbory
(Sherbourne 2), 36 years and Lysbet Janson from Richmond,
38 years. Witnesses her brother-in-law and sister Thomas
Bishop and Marie Johnson. -
8. December 16. Antoine Fetcher from Zelwordt
(Chelmsford 2), bombazine-weaver, 30 years and Jenneken
Richeman from Hilperton in Wiltshire, 18 years. Her
witnesses : Alexander Carpenter from Wrington, John
Stevenson from Bradford, and Frederick Jaebergh.
I6o I
9. March 24. *Frederyck Yearbury from Beckington,
tallow-chandler, 25 years and * Francis Hooms from London.
20 years. Her mother Anna Witachter witness.
Io. April 28. Jan Watley from Westbury in Wiltshire,
bombazine-weaver, 27 years. (Witness Antoine Fetcher)
and Anneke Thomas from Warminster near Selisbury, 25
years. -
II. April 28. Jelvis Zetwell from Nottinghamshire, box-
maker, 28 years, and Lysbet Williams from Essex.
12. June 16. * Dirck Barents from Lyndust (Lindhurst
near Southampton 2) skilled journeyman-Smith, 30 years,
and Saertje Jans from London, widow of Lucas Claasz.
I 3. August 18. *Moses Johnson from Leicester, bomba-
zine weaver, 34 years, and Margriete Sley from Ilperton in
Wiltshire, 22 years. Her witness John Stephenson. *
14. September 29. * Joseph Tatham from Lestershire
(Leicestershire), bombazine-weaver, 33 years and Juliane
Christoffels from London, widow of Claas Williams.
I6O2 -
15. June 29. Hans Hatmercer from Baxhire (Berkshire)
widower of Jannehe Keels and Sara Bellat from London
widow of Artur Billet.
16. July 13. * Richard Benet from Wolstershire (Wor-
APPENDIX A - - 187
cestershire), turner, 33 years, and Constance Kauwerde from
Weymaut (Weymouth, Dorsetsh) 27 years.
17. December 28, “ Christopher Bomay from London,
goldsmith, widower of Elizabet Dryerlandt and Janneke
Leuft Thomas from Hemstede (Hampstead) widow of Dirk
Klerck.
18. December 28. * Reys Howell from Kaermargenshire
(Caermarthensh.) bombazine-weaver, 28 years and Annetje
Heys from Glocestor, widow of Jan Huntley.
1603 -
19. April 12. * John Stevens from Wiltshire, bombazine-
weaver, and Margariete Eylen from Glocestershire, widow
of Benjamin Kennel. -
2O. May 17. * Henry Collgell from Hortstcastle, (Horn-
castle, Lincolnshire), tailor, 27 years and Sytgen Jansd.
from Bradford, 23 years. -
21. November 15. * Thomas Willasonne from Bever-
korts bombazine-weaver, 32 years and Jenneke Cras from
Essex, widow of Joris Marissen.
I6O4
22. February 14. * William Marie Johanssoon from
Wrentorn (Wrington 2), bombazine-weaver, 21 years and
Lysbet Jans from Stratwerd (Stratford) 21 years. Witness
her father, Jan Trout.
23. February 21. Edward Williams from Barington
(Barrington), wood-Sawyer, 23 years and Delke Johndochter
from Stradtfordt (Stratford) 23 years. Witness her father :
Jan Trout. -
24. April Io. * Thomas White from Sechtenfort (?) 26
years and * Rose Grempre from London, widow of John
Philips.
25. July 3. Dirck Witt from Brust (Brigg, Lincoln-
shire 2), sailor, 28 years and Tryn Claesdochter, 24 years.
26. August 7. * Jean de l’Ecluse from Rouen, France,
printer, widower of Catherine de l'Epine, and Els Luys
from Somersetshire, widow of Thomas Dickers.
188 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
27. August 14. * Thomas Porter from London, tallow-
chandler, 33 years, and Caterina Grienbergh from London,
25 years. Witness her sister Rosa Grienberch (Greenbury 2)
28. September 4. * William Hawkins from Wiltshire,
hodman, 26 years and Anna Elinat from Wiltshire, 30
years.
29. September 15. Johan Klerck from Newton, Cam-
bridgeshire, cobbler, widower of Isabel Serwell and Urzele
Drienwery from Kenninghall, Norfolk, widow of Jan Deyns,
30. November 20, Edward Hymes from Hadtfeld (Hat-
field), bombazine-weaver, 27 years and * Adgtje Paulusd.
from Geuns (Nieuwstad-Gödens) in Enderland, 23 years.
* 1605
31, January 15. * William Richardsonne from London
bombazine-weaver, 23 years and " Francies Home Jansd.
from London widow of Frederik Jarbnick (compare No. 9).
32. May 7. Jan Thomas from London, mason, 24 years
and Adaltje Spyker from Jarmuyen (Yarmouth) widow of
Jan Bockel. -
33. July 16. * Thomas Adams from Hemshire (Hamp-
shire), glover, widower of Margriete Optams, and Lysbet
Joisd. from Delberry (Dylesbury, Bucks 2) 33 years.
34. October 22. Jan Haecgens from Chipnom (Chippen-
ham) bombazine-weaver, 26 years and Mary Tomas from
Vroom (Frome, Somersetshire).
I6O6
35. January 14. Robert Jelisson from London and Mag-
dalene Jans from Ypswich (Ipswich).
36. January 28. Richard Ardivey from
weaver, 33 years and Judith Jans from
Wilhem Holder.
37. April 15. Thomas Michiels from Cambridge, turner,
widower of Marie Komdie, and Margriete Williams from
Leyster (Leicester) widow of Christoffel Wichin.
38. Augustus 19. * David Breston from London, widower
, bombazine-
widow of
APPENDIX A 189
of Margriete Welssing, and Jenne Smyth from London,
widow of Richard Watz.
39. September 5. * Johannes Simons from Baster (?),
school-master, widower of Denner Smeers, and Annetje
Lyfela from Sissester (Chichester) widow of Jois Caligaert.
40. November 11. * Rogier Payne from London, bom-
bazine-frizzler, 28 years and Aelken Wilkens from London,
William Herred.
41. December 16. Thomas Gillis from Hompton (Hamp-
ton 2), cutler, widower of Janneke Williams, and Anna
Aemsdochter from Chechestchester (Chichester) widow of
Richard Paris.
1607
42. March 29. * Henricus Ainsworth from Swanton,
teacher, 36 years, living on the Singel near the Heipoort
(gate) and * Margery Halie from Ipswich, widow of Richard
Appelbey. -
43. June 2. * John Osborne from Worcestershire, 23
years, casemaker, and Francis Cotten from Berchshire
(Berkshire) 19 years. *
44. June 30. * William Williams from Bedfordshire,
bombazine-weaver, and Deliane Christoffers from London,
widow of Joseph Taekom. -
45. July 28. Edward Scheys from Suffolkshire, tailor,
25 years and Anna Trevirayd from Berkshire, 29 years.
46. September 1. *Thomas Consadine from London,
embroiderer, widower of Mary Heys and Timothea Frekel-
thon from Standley (Stanley), 35 years.
47. September 1. * Edmund Webb from Berkshire, bom-
bazine-weaver, 21 years, and Alyt Goodfellow from North-
ampton.
48. December 15. * John Dericks from Nortwitz (Nor-
wich), bombazine-weaver, 25 years, and Aelken Martins
from Breyd (?) in Bartshire (Berkshire), 22 years,
49. December 15. * Thomas Norwayer from Chipnem
190 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
(Chippenham), bombazine-weaver, 26 years, and Janneke
Koolsson from Wysbyt Wisbeach, (Cambridgeshire) 24
years.
I 608
50. January 12. * Jean Beauchampe from Northampton-
shire, 40 years, and Susanna Sanders from Warx hire (War-
wickshire) 20 years.
51. January 20. * Hendrik Hendrickszoon from Stilten
(Stilton, Huntingdon), draper, 27 years, and * Martgen
Hendrickx from here (Amsterdam), 22 years.
52. July 5. * Henry Cullandt from Nottinghamshire,
bombazine-weaver, 20 years (producing a deed under the
hand of Richard Clyfton, pastor at Sutton, informing that
the bans of his marriage had been given there), and Mar-
garete Grymsdiche from Sutton (Long-Sutton Lincoln-
shire 2), 30 years.
53. August 23. * John Murton from Gueynsborch
(Gainsborough), furrier, 25 years, and * Jane Hodgkin
from Worchep (Worksop), 23 years.
54. August 30. Francis Pigett from Axen (Hexham P),
hodman, 32 years, and Margriet Struts from Bafford (Bed-
ford), 30 years.
55. October 4. ‘Jacobus Hurste from Rekfort (Retford),
bombazine-weaver, 26 years, and Geertrud Bennister from
Rekford (Retford), 23 years.
56. November 29. Robert Newman from Syts (?), bom-
bazine-frizzler, 28 years at Middleburg, and Dorothea
Berrit from Derby, 22 years.
57. December 6. * Cuthbert Hutton from Daelten (Dal-
ton, Lancastersire), pewterer, 27 years and Prudence Blass
from Berford (Bradford) 21 years.
58. December 10. Jan Willems from Redtford (Retford),
bombazine-weaver, 24 years, and Marserye Dael from
Laundt (Louth P) 32 years.
APPENDIx A 191
I 609
59. April 1 I. William Jepson from Worship (Worksop),
in Notinhamshire, carpenter, 26 years, and Rosemund
Korsfeld, also from Worship, 23 years.
60. April 1 1. Robert Dampert from Stafford, hawker,
widower of Stynke Gerrits, and Lyntje Claesdochter, 25
years. - -
61. April 14. * Joan de l’Ecluse from Rouen, printer,
widower of Els Dikkers, and Jacomyne May from Wisbus
(Wisbeach) in Cambridgeshire, 30 years. Her brother
Willem Hoyt witness.
62. August 15. * Anthony Traford from London, hatter,
24 years, and Lysbet Jonas from Taenbourch (Tonbury,
Worchestershire 2) 23 years. -
63. September 19. # Thomas Cox from Chichester,
tailor, 31 years, and Margaret Pickerings, 28 years.
64. November 29. Raaf Hamelyn from Fordimbrugh
(Fordingbridge, Hants) tailor, 24 years, and Anna Luyt.
His witnesses are his brother Hendrick and mother Judith
Socin.
I6 IO
65. February 6. * Christopher Laund from Norfolk,
buttonmaker, 30 years, and * Susanna Goldt from Westcon-
trey (the West Country P) widow of Robert Alef.
66. August 2. * Walter Smith from Berry (Bury, Lan-
castershire 2) tobacco-pipemaker, 30 years, and * Anne
Colman from Woesterp (Wooltsthorp, Lincolnshire) 29
years.
67. August 14. William Cok from Loxael (?) bomba-
zine-weaver, widower of Magdalena Kanwel and Aelken
Braedje from Welles (Wells) in Somersetshire, widow of
Jan Braedsie.
68. September 4. Jan Brun from Briston (Bristol),
glover, 30 years, and Susanne Muessinck from Wrinston
(Wrington 2) Somersetshire, 21 years.
192 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
69. October 23. * Matthew Auckland from Brechtwyl
(Blackwell, Worchestershire 2) glover, 24 years, and
Elisabet Pygadt from Axen (Hexham P), 19 years.
7o. December 1 I. # Richard Bennet from Worchester-
shire, ivory-turner, widower of Constance Couward, and
Mary Jens from London, 22 years. Witness her step-father
Roger Waterer.
I6 II
7 I. January 20. * William Penroes from Devonshire,
bombazine-weaver, 27 years, and Anne Sharp from Bed-
fordshire, 27 years. Witness her overseer (?) Jan Withorff.
72. February 12. "Edward Armfielde from Eppestown,
damast-weaver, 26 years, and Margery Orghan from Kassel-
wey (?) 33 years. -
73. February 12. * Josewy Cobart from Wiltshire, bom-
bazine-weaver, widower of Janneke Jans, and Lysbet
Heynrictd from Sommershire (Somersetshire) 20 years.
74. April 23. Jan Cot from Ugenthon in Bashire (Over-
ton, Berkshire) cutler, 23 yeers and * Mary Perkins from
London, 20 years. Witness her father Thomas Perkins.
75. May 14. * Samuel Whitaker from Somersetshire,
bombazine-weaver, 23 years, and * Deliverance Penry from
Hamptonshire, 21 years.
76. June II. * William Jansen from Tanton (Taunton,
Somersetshire) bombazine-weaver and Anne Jans from
Brouton (Broughton) 23 years.
77. September 15. * Richard Mortlocke from Herrits
(Harwich) in Essexshire, widower of Lysbet Mortlocke,
and Janneke Willems from Iverstone (Ingarestone) in
Essex, widow of Thomas Thaennson.
78. November 5. * Charles Thicels from Saltzbury
(Salisbury) 28 years, and Maria Hutton from Dubbes-
bridge (?) 27 years.
79. November 19. Edward Pekzeal from Wording hegen
(Worthing, Sussex 2), tailor, 47 years, and Justina Kox
APPENDIX A 193
from Sissethel (?). The banns were forbidden and the
marriage was not carried through.
So. December 3. Richard Galy from Bedfordshire,
mason, 40 years, and Jenne Swaen from London, widow of
Lowys Jenkins. -
81. December 17. Thomas Brown from Sussex, bomba-
zine-printer, 26 years, and Jannelje Lodewyks, widow of
Bartolomeus Adriaens from Alkmaar.
I6 I 2
82. April 7. Robert Jaques from Wylshire (Wiltshire),
bombazine-weaver, 26 years, and Saartje Parys from
London, I 7 years.
83. April 14. * Abraham Pratt from London, barber on
board a ship, 32 years, and * Jane Charter from Saltzbury
(Salisbury) 34 years. Witness her cousin Edward Pexael.
84. April 4. * Eduard Amlin from Saltzbury (Salis-
bury). bombazine-weaver, 25 years, and Lysbeth Smyth
from Cambridge, 21 years.
85. June 1. * Oliver Smyth from Southampton, tailor,
22 years, and * Barber Stubbard from Southampton, 21
years.
86. July 14. * Salomon Thomson from Lauwe (Louth,
Lincolnshire 2) bombazine-weaver, 21 years, and Dorothea
Struth from Axem (Hexham P) 34 years. Witnesses his
father Antoni Thoms and her cousin Francis Pygott.
87. August 18. Hendrik Everts from Stokholm, 33
years, and Susanna Ingles from London, widow of Robert
Aegem.
88. September 22. Thomas Salzbery from London, box-
maker, widower of Aelken Andries, and Elisabet Sharp
from Nottinghamshire, 25 years. Her witnesses are
Francis, Joseph and Richard Bennett. --
89. November to. Parthey Silman from Alewicke
(Almavick) in Nothumber, bombazine-weaver, 26 years,
and Elsebet Glind from Gilbe (?) in Leicestershire, 26
years.
194 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
I6 I 3
90. February 2. * Timotheus Elkes from London,
physician, 34 years, and Margerieta Eerdewyns, 24 years.
9 I. February 16. * Jonathan Jans Hart from Haetfield
(Hatfield) bombazine-weaver, 23 years, and Celiken Jelisd
from Brakkelee (Brackley, Buckinghamshire), 22 years.
Witnesses his parents Jan Hart and Trynke Joosten, and
her father Thomas. -
92. April 23. * Thomas Yellison from Strackford
(Stratford), buttonmaker, widower of Tanneke Jelis, and
Anneke Ansen from Cirnter (Cirencester), widow of Willem
Salsbury. -
93. June 29. .” William Masit from Possit (Portsea),
bombazine-weaver, widower of Lysbet Willems, and Doro-
thea Thomas from Thorburg (Thornbury, Glocester), 19
years. Her witness is her father Thomas Perkyns.
94. July 6. # Timothy Moyse from Penchaster (?) in
Kentshire, 26 years, and Lyzbet Meryweder from Ingelbey
(Ingoldwells 2) in Lincolnshire, 23 years.
95. July 6. * Richard Mortlake from Herwitz (Har-
wich), blacksmith, widower of Jannetje Tangin, and Elske
Tillet from Niewbery (Newbury, Berkshire) widow of
William Dardin.
96. July 6. * Giles Silvester from Adamchartle (?) 29
years, and "Marie Arnould from Laystad (Leicester P), 19
years. Witnesses her parents Antonie and Elsken Arnould.
97. July 13. * Rainold Hartt from Abbotsbury (Dorset-
shire), 35 years and Magiory Willobey from Fovey
(Fowey, Cornwall 2) 25 years.
98. July 13. Eduard Philip from Bedfordshire, bomba-
zine-weaver, 35 years, and Anna Hutton from Boolem (?)
24 years. .
99. August 31. Willem Johns from Beynessen (Bowness?)
bombazine-weaver, widower of Yde Milles, and Anna
Sanders from Saltsburgh (Salisbury), widow of Simon
Willes.
APPENDIX A 195
Ioo. September 7. # Richard Plater from Bockingham,
compositor, 24 years, and Janneke Hodry from Nottingham-
shire, 28 years. -
IoI. November 9. * William Bradford from Ostervelde
(Austerfield) fustian-worker, 23 years, ‘‘living at Leyden,
where he was required to have published the banns, de-
clared to have no parents,’’ and Dorothea May, 16 years,
from Witsbuts (Wisbeach). Her witness is Henry Mayr.
I 614
IO2. March 22. Dirk Mancell from Leicestershire, bom-
bazine weaver, widower of Lysbet Bakker, and Anna Lytte
from Wiltshire, widow of Ralf Amlin (See No. 64).
Iog. April 19. Thomas Giles from Somersetshire, black-
smith, widower of Anna Paris, and Lysbet Naris from
Hampshire, divorced from Steven Bradly (see No. 4I).
IOA. June 7. # Daniel Studley from London, widower of
Janneke Auterits, and Ursule Trieuwery from Norwits
(Norwich), widow of Jan de Klercg, see No. 29.
I6 I5
IoS. February 14. * Henry Reckode from Sandwitz
(Sandwich) comber, 34 years, and Sara Jans from London,
24 years. Witness her father Jan Hazel.
106. April 18. Thomas Syarth from Berington (Bar-
rington) bombazine-weaver, 27 years, and Machteld Rob-
berts, 18 years. Witness her mother Ariaentje Jan
Christoffels. *
Io?. May 2. * Swith unus Grindall from Tunstal in
Yorkshire, ligature-maker, 22 years, and Margriete Moritz
from Scheckbye (Saxby) in Nottinghamshire, 24 years.
IO8. June 6. * Hendrick Mot from London, cane-chair
maker, 28 years, and Sara Peyn, 19 years. Witnesses her
parents Jan Peyn and Immeken.
Io9. * Mathew Auckland from Bredwelle (Blackwell ?)
glover, widower of Lysbet Pyketh, and * Geertje Arens-
dochter from Bunschoten, 28 years. See No. 69.
196 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
I Io. August 29. William Waldern from Klokfort (Gos-
port, Hants 2) and Ruth Walker from Marguet overton
(Overton) in Rottland (Ruthland), 20 years. Witness her
father Eduard Walker. -
III. November 9. Alexander Hodgdin from Warssop
(Worksop) damask-weaver, 25 years, and Ursele Harstaff
from Gende (?) widow of Thomas Bywater.
I6 I6
I 12. July 23. * Pieter Alken from Meltenmook (Melton
Mowbray Leicester P) blade-smith, 24 years, and * Marytje
Alberts, 28 years. -
I 13. October 13. Jan Robberts from Nottinghamshire,
painter, 25 years, and * Maritje Thomas from London, 17
years. Witness her mother Maritje Jans.
I 14. October 27. * William Davids from Derbyshire,
embroiderer, 29 years, and Beliken Harmans from
Hillegeloo, 24 years.
II 5. November 12. * Jan de l’Ecluse from Rouen,
school-master, widower of Jacomyne May, and Anne Harris
from Hamberoo (Handborough) in Oxfordshire, 27 years.
See Nos. 26 and 6 I.
II6. November 12. * Claes Jonge, from London, cooper,
30 years, and Machtelt Pieters from Amersfoort, 27 years.
I 17. November 12. * Thomas Sanford from London,
silk-ribbon-weaver, 32 years, orphan and Martje Willems,
19 years. Witnesses her parents Willem Jans Clerck and
Magdalena Willems.
1617
I 18. January 14. * Charles Shirkley from Salzbery (Salis-
bury, widower of Merial Huttend, and Anna Thomas from
Ipswich, 22 years.
APPENDIX B
THE DIFFERENCES OF THE CHURCHES OF THE SEPERA-
TION CONTAYNING A DESCRIPTION OF THE LEITOURGIE
AND MINISTERIE OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH ANNEXED
AS A CORRECTION AND SUPPLEMENT TO A LITTLE
TREATISE LATELY PUBLISHED BEARING
TITLE, PRINCIPLES AND INFERENCES,
CONCERNING THE VISIBLE CHURCH
PUBLISHED
I. For the satisfaction of every true lover of the truth
especially the Brethern of the Seperation that are doubtfull.
2. As also removing of an unjust calumnie cast uppon
the Brethren of the Seperation of the second English Church
at Amsterdam.
3. Finally for the clearing of the truth ; and the dis-
covering of the mysterie of iniquitie yet further in the
worship and offices of the Church.
DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS
I. Concerning the Leitourgie of the Church.
2. Concerning the ministerie of the Church which hath
two sections. One of the Eldership : Another of the
Deacons office, whereto apertaineth the Treasury
BY JOHN SMYTH
Search the Scriptures : John 5, 39. Try all things, keep
the good thing, I Thes. 5, 2 I Beloved : Believe not every
spirit. I John 4, 11 The Spirits of the Prophets are
subordinate to the Prophets I Cor. 14, 32.
I6O8
TO EVERY TRUE LOVER OF THE TRUTH
ESPECIALLY TO THE BRETHERN OF THE
OF THE SEPERATION, SALUTATIONS:
Not long since I published a little methode intituled
principles and inferences concerning the visible church,
Wherein chiefly I purposed to manifest the true consti-
198 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
tution of the church, a matter of absolute necessities
and now so cleared by the writings of the late witnesses of
Jesus Christ the auncient brethren of the seperation as that
it seemeth nothing can further be added. The absolute
necessitie of the true constitution appeareth, because if the
church be truly constituted and framed ther is a true
church : the true sporose of Christ : if the church be falsely
constituted, ther is a false church and she is not the true
sporose of Christ. Herein therfor especially are those
auncient brethren to be honoured, that they have reduced
the church to the true Primitive and Apostoligue Constitu-
tion which consisteth in these three things. I. The true
matter which are sayntes only. 2. The true forme which
is the uniting of them together in the covenant. 3. The
true propertie which is communion in all the holy things
and the power of the L. Jesus Christ, for the mayntayning
of that communion. To this blessed work of the L.
wherein those auncient brethren have labored I know not
what may be more be added. I thincke rather ther can
nothing be added : but now Antichrist is perfectly both
discovered and consumed in respect of the constitution by
the evidence of the truth, which is the brightness of
Christ’s comming. Now although they have also verie
worthelie employed themselves in the leitourgie, ministerie
and Treasurie of the Church, both in discovering the
forgeries and corruptions which the man of synne had
intermingled and also in some good degree reducing them
to ther primitive puritie, wherein they weere by the Apostles
left unto the churches. Yet wee are persuaded that herein
Antichrist is not utterly eyther revealed or abolished, but
that in a verie high degree he is exalted even in the true
constituted churches : In regard, whereof, as also being
enforced upon some occasion well knowne wee thought it
necessary to publish this description of the Leitourgie and
ministerie of the church. The ministerie I say consisting
APPENDIX B -- - 199
of the Presbytery and Deacons office, whereto apertyneth
the Treasuree and that for these ends : partly that the
ºtruth wee walk in may be manifested to the world, among
whome our opinion and practice is so straungely and falsely
traduced ; partly that the differences betwixt us and the
auncienter brethren of the Seperation may appeare, and
thereby men may be occasioned to trye the truth from error
and to hold it fast. And although in this writing somthing
ther is which overtwharteth my former judgment in some
treatises by mee formerly published : Yet I would intreat
the reader not to impute that as a fault unto mee: rather
it should be accounted a vertue to retract errors. Know
therfor that latter thoughs oft times are better than the
former ; and I do professe this (that no man account it
strannge) that I will every day as my erroes shalbe dis-
covered confesse them and renounce them : For it is our
covenant made with our God to forsake every evil way
whither in opinion or practise that shalbe manifested unto
us at any time ; and therfor lett no plead now, as some
have formerly done, these men are inconstant : they would
have they know not what : They will never be satisfied and
the like. For wee professe even so much as they object :
That we are inconstant in erroer : that wee would have the
truth, though in many particulars wee are ignorant of it :
Wee will never be satisfied in endevoring to reduce the
worship and ministery of the church, to the primitive
apostolique institution from which as yet it is so farr dis-
tant : Wherfor my earnest desire is, that my last writing
may be taken as my present judgment and so farre forth as
it is overthwarteth any former writing of myne let it be
accounted a voluntary retractation and unfeyned repentance
of my former errors and evil wayes before the whole earth.
And lett no man bee offended at us for that wee differ from
the auncient brethern of the seperation in the leitourgie,
Presbyterie and Treasurie of the church ; for we hold not
200 - HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
our fayth at any mans pleasure or in respect of persons,
ney ther doe wee by nd ourselves to walk according to other
mens lynes further than they walk in the truth ; neyther
lett the world think that wee approve them in all their
practises: let them justifie their proceedings or repet of
them, wee have (wee willingly and thankfully acknowledge)
receaved much light of truth from their writings for which
mercy we alwayes blesse our God; and for which help wee
always shall honour them in the Lord and in the truth.
But as Paull withstood Peter to his face and separated from
Barnasbas that good man that was full of the holy ghost
and of faith, for just causes : So must they give us leave to
love the truth and honour the Lord more than any man or
church uppom earth. Now if any of the adversaries of us
both shall hierby take occasion of offense, thereby to speake
will, or to withhold or revolt from the truth : let these men
consider with themselves; First : that they even in that
theyr Aegyptian darknesse wherein they walk have their
most violent oppositions and deadly contentions : Agayne,
the Apostle hath foretold that it is necessary their should
bee dissentions even in the true churches that they which
are approved may bee knowne : besides the truth shall by
our differences bee further cheered and theyr Antichristian
worship and ministery more and more detected and cast into
the bottomlesse pitt from whence it issued. Finally the
Apostle saith that Christ is a stone to thumble and a rock
of offence to the disobedient as well as a chief corner stone
elect and pretious to them that believe : and blessed are
they that are not offended at Christ or his truth. So
desyring the reader to weygh well what I plead and not to
bee offended at the manifold quotations which are of
necessity that by places compared together the truth which
is a mystery may appeare and antichristianisme which is
the mystery of iniquity may be discovered. I cease, com-
mending him to the grace of God in Jesus Christ, who in
APPENDIX B 201
due tyme will bring his people out of Aegypt and Babylon
spiritually so called, though for a season they are there kept
in Antichristian captivity and greevous spirituall slaverny :
which the Lord in his due tyme effect, Amen, Amen.
JOHN SMYTH
The principall contents of this treatise or our differences
from the auncyent brethren of the seperation.
1. We hould that the worship of the new testament
properly socalled is spirituall proceeding originally from the
hart : and that reading out of a booke (though a lawfull
eclesiastical action) is no part of spirituall worship, but
rather the invention of the man of synne it being substi-
tuted for a part of spirituall worship. - .
2. We hould that seeing prophesiing is a parte of spirit
ual worship: therefore in time of prophesiing it is unlaw-
full to have the booke as a helpe before the eye.
3. We hould that seeing singing a psalme is a parte of
spirituall worship : therefore it is unlawfull to have the
booke before the eye in time of singinge a psalme.
4. We hould that the Presbytery of the Church is uni-
forme : and that the triformed Presbyterie consisting of
three kinds of Elders viz.: Pastors, Teachers, Rulers is
none of Gods ordinance by mans devise.
5. Wee hold that all the Elders of the Church are
Pastors : and that lay Elders (so called) are Antichristian.
Wee hold that in contributing to the Church Treasurie
their ought to bee both a separation from them that are
without and a sanctification of the whole action by Prayer
and Thankesgiving.
Page 31. Certayne demandes, wherto wee desire direct
and sound answer, with proof from the Scriptures.
I. Concerning the kingdom and Priesthood of Christ.
Whither the kingdom and Priesthood of the Old Testament
were not distinct and severall, both in person, office and
actions. -
202 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Whither the kingdom and Priesthood of the Old Testa-
ment were not distinct and severall, both in person, office
and actions. - - . . .
Whither the kingdom and Priesthood of the old Testa-
ment were not typical, shadowith out the kingdom and
Priesthood of Christ P - - ... - -
Whither the kingdom and Priesthood of Christ are not
distinct, both in office and action though united in one
person 2 - - * * * * -
Whither as Christ is both king and Priest so also the
Saynts are not by Christ annoynted to be kings and Priests
unto God P • - -
Whither the office and actions of the Sayntes in the
kingdom and Priesthood are not distinct and several, though
united in person 2 - - - -
Whither the office and actions of the kingdom in the Old
Testament were not of opposition, difference, plea and
Strife P - - -
Page 32. Whither the office and actions of the kingdom
of the Sayntes in the new testament are not of the same
nature ? .
Wither the office and actions of the Priesthood of the Old
Testament were not of union, concord and agreemt in sacri-
ficing 2 . * , - -
Whither the office and action of the Priesthood of the
Saynts in the new Testament be not of the same nature ?
Rom. I 5.6. -
2. Concerning the spirit and spirituall: the Letter and
Literal.
Whither in this phrase and the like (viz. The manifesta-
tion of the Spirit) the spirit doth not signifie principally,
both the spiritual and regenerate part of the soule, and the
spirituall matter in the regenerate part. -
Whither the manifestation of the Spirit doth import
eyther the spirituall matter which a man bringeth out of a
APPENDIX B - 203
book by reading ; or the spiritual and gracious gestures and
motions which a man expresseth in reading and performing
other actions.
Whither quenching the spirit be not to withhold and
restrayne the spiritual matter which by the spirit of sancti-
fication is stirred up in the regenerate part of the soule.
Whither reading wordes contayned in a book doth mani-
fest the spirit that is, expresse the spirituall matter which
is in the regenate part of him that readeth or rather doth
not cleane put it by, leave it and diverteth to another
subject and so quencheth it 2 * - - -
Whither the letter doth not properly signifie the literal
and ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament, 2 Cor. 3:6
which began outwardly signifying and conveighing spirit-
ual matter into the regenerate part of the soule from with-
Out 2 • * - -
Whither reading the wordes contayned in a booke be not
as much and as truly literal beginning outwardly and con-
veying matter inwardly as the sacrificing of a beast in the
Old Testament. * * - -
Whither sacrificing in the Old Testament may not as
truly be accounted the manifestation of the Spirit as reading :
seeing sacrificing did expresse the spiritual matter Chr.
Jesus, and was done with a grace by the Priests, even as
reading doth expresse the spiritual matter of the booke
Christ Jesus and is performed with a grace by the reader 2
3. Concerning writing and reading.
Whither letters or characters are not invented by the witt
of man to expresse the articulare sounds of natural speech :
and whither the inventors of letters are not mentioned in
historyes?
Whither writing be not the invention of man by the same
reason 2 * -
Whither reading be not the invention of man by the
same reason 2 +
204 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Whither writing and reading be not things meerly arti-
ficial though speaking be natural P
Whither writing and reading being meer artificial devices
may be properly called spirituall worship and whither if
reading be spiritual worship, worship be not so also 2
Whither that because the mannarie trade of the butcher
and cook in killing rosting boyling the sacrifices, of the
ingraver in the stones of the brestplate, of the apotecary
the annoynting oyle, of the mason and carpenter in the
hewing of stone and wood and so sequently of the scribe or
paynter in writing and reading, were literal and ceremonial
ey ther worship or actions in the Old Testament, they may
now be called spirituall worship actions in the New Testa-
ment and whither one rather then another and why P
4. Of the Holy Scriptures and translations.
Whither the Holy Scriptures viz. the originals Hebrew
and Greek do not conteyne in the infinite depth of truth
and whither the holy spirit did not intend by the to signifie
all the truths, which all the men of the earth, eyther hereto
fore, now or hereafter truly collect from thence 2
Whither the holy originals do not conteyne more matter
then the Prophets and Apostles that wrote them did
conceave 2
Whither the Hebrew and Greek tong in their idiomes,
words and phrases are not plentifuly more comprehensive.
and significative of matter the any other language what-
soever ?
Whither as the original Scriptures are the image of the
mynd of God : So a translation be not the image of the
original Scriptures.
Whither the image can possibly expresse the thing thereby
signified fully.
Whither it be possible for any language verbatim with-
out paraphast to expresse the Hebrew and Greek text of
the holy originals fully *
APPENDIX B 205
Whither a translation made by the most learned and holy .
man of the earth doth or can expresse truly and fully the
holy ghost's meaning in the originals.
Whither therefor a translation made by the most learned
and holy men of the earth be not an Apocrypha writing of
an ordinary man 2
Whither if an Apocrypha writing may be brought into
the worship of God to be read all may not ; and whither of
some apocrypha-writings must be cast out of the church
why not all, yea the translation also 2
5. Of worship, and rise of bookes in tyme of worship in
the new Testament.
Whither prayer, prophesying and Singing Psalms be the
true as only parts of the worship of the new Testament?
Whither reading be eyther prayer, prophesy or a Psalme P
Whither reading be lawfull in tyme of prayer, prophesy
and singing Psalmes P
Whither reading doth not put matter into the hart of him
that readeth and worship be not the producing of matter
out of the hart of him that worshippeth 2
Whither the Apostles and primitive Churches did ever
pray, prophesy and sing psalmes out of bookes, after the
day of Penticost. Act. 2. 2
Whither they did not pray, prophesy and sing Psalms as
the holy ghost gave them utterance 2
Whither the place I Cor. 14:26 doth not teach that a
man must have a Psalme have doctryne, that is in his hart,
whence he must produce it by the manifestation of the
spirit 2
Whither if a book must be lain aside in prayer, it must
not be so also in prophesy and singing Psalms and why?
Whither if a book be retayned in prophesy and a psalme,
it may not be so also in prayer and why P
Whither ther be two kindes of prayer, prophesy and
Psalmes, one with books, another without books or one sort
206 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
of prayer without bookes : and two sorts of prophesying
and Psalmes ; with or without bookes and why : and
whither this can be warranted by the apostles doctryne and
practice?
6. Concerning a Psalm.
Whither as in prayer and prophesy one alone speaketh,
and the rest pray and prophesy by consent I Cor. I I :4 so
in a Psalme one only must speak and the rest must conset
I Cor. I4. I6.
Whither in a Psalm a man must be tyed to meter and
Rithme, and time and whither voluntary be not as necessary
in tune and wordes as in matter.
Whither meter, Rithme and tune be not quenching the
spirit 2
Whither a psalme be only thanksgiving without meter,
Rithme or tune, yea or may P
7. Concerning the Elders or Presbytery.
Whither all the Elders must not be able to teach and rule
as the Apostle saith, didacticoi and proistamenoi I Tim. 3.
Whither didacticos that is apt to teach be not expounded
by the Apostle Tit. I:9 by three particulars : viz:
I. to teach wholesome doctrine
2. to exhort : 3 to convince the gainsayers
Whither Teaching and Ruling be not the two parts of
feeding 2
Whither feeding that is teaching, Ruling, exhorting,
comforting be not the pastors office, and therefore all the
Elders pastors 2 *
Whither the Eldership hath not all their power from the
Church 2 *
Whither the Eldership hath a negative voyce in the
Church that nothing can be concluded without them P
Whither if most of the church consent and the Elders
dissent, the matter cannot passe against the Elders dissent.
Whither seeing the Church may depose and excommuni-
APPENDIX B - 207
cate the Eldership they may not passe other sentences with-
out or contrary to their liking 2
Whither may not a man propound his mater to the
Church without acquaynting the Elders with it in the first
place.
Whither in the second degree of admonition a man is not
bound to take an Elder for witnesse P
Whither one Elder only in a Church by Gods ordinance
and whither if ther be chosen any Elder ther must be chosen
more then one P
Whither the scales of the covenant may not be adminis-
tred, ther being yet no Elders in office P
8. Concerning the Treasury and contributions.
Whither the treasury be not holy P
Whither contribution be not an action of the communion
of Saynts 2
Whither as in other parts of communion so in this, ther
ought not to be a separaiion from them that are without 2
Whither the action of contribution must not be sanctified
by prayer and thanksgiving.
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PASSENGERS OF THE ‘‘ MAYFLOWER ''
(Preserved by Governor William Bradford at the end of his
“History of Plymouth Plantation.”)
The names of those which came over first, in ye year
I62O, and were by the blessing of God the first beginers
and (in a sort) the foundation of all the Plantations and
Colonies in New-England ; and their families.
Mr. John Carver ; Kathrine, his wife ; Desire Minter ;
and 2 man-servants, John Howland, Roger Wilder ; William
Latham, a boy ; a maid servant, and a child yt was put to
him, called Jasper More.
Mr. William Brewster ; Mary, his wife ; with 2 sons,
whose names were Love and Wrasling ; and a boy was put
to him called Richard More ; and another of his brothers.
The rest of his children were left behind, and came over
afterwards.
Mr. Edward Winslow ; Elizabeth, his wife ; and 2 men-
servants, caled Georg Sowle and Elias Story ; also a litle
girle was put to him, caled Ellen, the sister of Richard
More.
William Bradford, and Dorothy, his wife ; having but
one child, a sone, left behind, who came afterward.
Mr. Isaack Allerton, and Mary, his wife ; with 3
children, Bartholmew, Remember and Mary ; and a servant
boy, John Hooke.
Mr. Samuell Fuller, (*) and a servant, caled William
Butten. His wife was behind, and a child which came
afterwards.
John Crakston ; and his some, John Crakston. Captain
Myles Standish, and Rose, his wife.
(*) Samuel Fuller died before the arrival at Cape Cod.
APPENDIX C - 209
Mr. Christopher Martin, and his wife, and 2 servants,
Salomon Prower and John Langemore.
Mr. William Mullines, and his wife, and 2 children,
Joseph and Priscilia ; and a servant, Robart Carter.
Mr. William White, and Susana, his wife, and one son,
caled Resolved, and one borne a ship-bord, caled Pere-
griene(*) ; and 2 servants, named William Holbeck and
Edward Thomson. -
Mr. Steven Hopkins, and Elizabeth, his wife, and 2
children, caled Giles, and Constanta, a daughter, both by a
former wife ; and 2 more by this wife, caled Damaris and
Oceanus (*); the last was born at sea; and 2 servants,
called Edward Doty and Edward Litster.
Mr. Richard Warren ; but his wife and children were
lefte behind, and came afterwards.
John Billinton, and Elen, his wife ; and 2 sones, John
and Francis.
Edward Tillie, and Ann, his wife ; and 2 children, that -
were their cossens, Henry Samson and Humillity Coper.
John Tillie, and his wife ; and Eelizabeth, their daughter.
Francis Cooke, and his some John. But his wife and
other children came afterwards.
Thomas Tinker, and his wife, and a sone.
John Rigdale, and Alice, his wife.
James Chilton, and his wife, and Mary, their dougter.
They had an other doughter, yt was married, came after-
ward. -
Edward Fuller, and his wife and Samuell, their sonne.
John Turner, and 2 sones. He had a doughter, came
some years after to Salem, wher she is now living.
Francis Eaton, and Sarah, his wife, and Samuell, their
Sone, a yong child.
(*) Born after their arriyal at Cape Cod, and therefore should not
be included in the number of passengers.
(**) She is included in the list of passengers, and so also is William
Butten, the servant of Samuel Fuller, who died before the arrival at
Cape Cod. Only one of these should be enumerated.
210 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
Moyses Fletcher, John Goodman, Thomas Williams,
Digerie Preist, Edmond Margeson, Peter Browne, Richard
Britterige, Richard Clarke, Richard Gardenar, Gilbart
Winslow.
John Alden was hired for a cooper, at South-Hampton,
wher the ship victuled ; and being a hopfull yong man, was
much desired, but left to his owne liking to go or stay when
he came here ; but he stayed and maryed here.
John Allerton and Thomas Enlish were both hired, the
later to goe Mr. of a shalop here, and ye other was reputed
as one of ye Company, but was to go back (being a seaman)
for the help of others behind. But they both dyed here,
before the ship returned. -
There were allso other 2 seamen, hired to stay a year here
in the country, William Trevore, and one Ely. But when
their time was out, they both returned.
These, bening aboute a hundred sowls (*) came over in
this first ship ; and began this worke which God of his
goodnes hath hithertoo blesed ; let his holy name have ye
praise.
(*) This list adds up 104, but Peregrime White and William Butten
or Oceanus Hopkins should be deducted, which will leave the true
number of passengers lo2, of whom 51 died within a few months after
their arrival at Cape Cod.
APPENDIX D
JOHN sMYTH's EARLIEST CONFESSION OF FAITH
[Taken from the copy writtem in Latin in Smyth's own hand-
writing, preserved in the Archives of the Amsterdam Mennonite
congregation, 2 pages folio, No. 1347.]
Corde credimus et ore confitemur :
I
Unum esse Deum, optimum, maximum, gloriosissimum,
creatorem et conservatorem omnium : qui est Pater, Filius
et Spiritus Sanctus.
- 2
Deum Creasse et redemisse genus humanum ad imaginem
suam, omnesque homines (nenrine reprobato) ad vitam
predestinasse.
3
Deum nullam peccandi necessitatem cuiquam imponere,
sed hominem libere impulsu Sathanae a Deo deficere.
4
Regulam vitae a Deo primitus in observatione legis posi-
tam ; exinde ob infirmitatem carnis Dei beneplacito per
Christi redemptionem in justitiam fidei translatam esse quam
ob caussam, neminem Deum juste incusare, verum potius
et intimis visceribus ipsius misericordiam revereri, admirari
et celebrare debere; cum possibile homini reddiderit Deus
per gratiam, quod prius homini lapso impossibile fuerit per
uaturam.
5
Nullum esse peccatum originis, verum omne peccatum
esse actuale et voluntarium vid. dictum factum aut con-
cupitum contra legem Dei : ideogue infantes esse sine
peecato.
6
Jesum Christum esse verum Deum et verum hominem
vid. Filio Dei assumente et sibi uniente hominis veram et
212 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
puram naturam ex vera anima rationali et vero corpore
humans consistentem.
7
Jesum Christum, quod ad carnem attinet, per Spiritum
Sanctum in utero virginis Mariae conceptum fuisse, postea
natum, circumcisum, baptisatum, tentatum fuisse, etiam
ipsum esurivisse, sitivisse, comedisse, bibisse, crevisse tum
statura tum cognitione : defatigatum fuisse, dormivisse,
denique crucifixum, mortuum, sepultum fuisse, resurrexisse,
in caelum ascendisse, ipsique utpote soli Regi, Pontifici et
prophetae Ecclesiae omnem tum in caelo tum in tersa
potestatem commissam esse.
8
Gratiam dei per Christi redemptionem impetratam omnibus
sine discrimine paratam et oblatam fore, idque non ficte sed
bona fide : partim per creaturas guae invisibilia dei
declarant, partim per evangelii predicationem.
9 ę
Homines et Dei gratia per Christi redemptionem posse
(Spiritu Sancto per gratiam ipsos preveniente) resipiscere,
credere, ad Deum convertere et vitam aeternam adipisci :
sicut e contra, posse ipsos Spiritini Sancto resistere, a Deo
difecere et in eternum perire.
IO
Justificationem hominis coram Dei tribunali (qui est et
justitiae et misericordiae thronus) subsistere, partim ex
imputatione justitiae Christi per fidem apprehensa, partim
ex justitia inherente in ipsis sanctis per operationem
spiritus Sancti quae regeneratio sive sanctificatio dicitur :
siquidem justus est qui facit justitiam.
I I
Fidem bonis operibus vacuam, mortuam esse ; veram
autem et vivam fidem per bona opera dignosei.
I 2
Ecclesiam Christi esse coetum fidelium post fidei et
APPENDIX D 213
peecatorum confessionem baptisatorum, potestate Christi
preditam.
I 3
Ecclesiam Christi habere potestatem sibi delegatam verbi
annuntiandi, sacramenta ad ministrandi, ministros consti-
tuendi et abdicandi, denique excommunicandi ; ultimam
autem provocationem esse ad fratres sive corpus Ecclesiae.
I 4.
Baptismum esse externum symbolum remissionis pecca-
torum, mortificationis et vivificationis, ideoque ad infantes
non pertinere.
I5
Coenam Domini esse symbolum externum communionis
Christi et fidelium ad invicem per fidem et charitatem.
I 6
Ministros ecclesiae esse, tum Episcopos quibus facultas
dispensandi tum verbum tum sacramenta commissa est, tum
Diaconos, viros et viduas, qui res pauperum et fratrum
infirmorum curant.
I 7
Fratres post tertium gradum admonitionis in peccatis sibi
cognitis perseverantes excludendos esse e communione
sanctorum per excommunicationem.
I 8
Excommunicatos quod ad civile commercium attinet non
esse devitandos.
I9
Mortuos (vivis momento mutatis) resurrecturos iisdem
corposibus, non substantia sed qualitatibus mutatis.
2O
Post resurrectionem omnes sistendos fore ad tribunal
Christi judicis, secundum opera judicandos : pios post sen-
tentiam absolutionis vita eterna cum Christo in caelis
fruituros, impios vero damnatos, in Gehenna cum Diabolo
et angelis ejus eternis suppliciis cruciandos.
JOHN SMYTH
APPENDIX E
ILETTER OF THOMAS HELWYS AND CHURCH TO THE
CONSISTORV OF THE UNITED MENNONITE
CHURCH AT AMSTER DAM
(Copied from the Records of aforesaid Church. I page fol.
No date. No. I349.)
Ecclesia Anglicana Ecclesiae Belgiae Amsterdamiae.
Gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre nostro et domino Jesu
Christo.
Charissimi frates fidei vinculo, (in eo ad quod perveni-
mus) oportet nos, ut eadem simul incedamus regula : et hoc
profitemur in omnibus erga vos prestare, secundum eam
scientiae et gratiae mensuram, quam Deus nobis dedit aut
daturus est : idem a vobis expectantes, quum tale judicium
de vobis ferendum est Ideirco nostra interesse judicavimus
(cum auditua idque a semetipsis, quod quidam, qui erant
ex nobis, sed nunc temporis, propter eorum in peccato im-
penitentiam, quum nos esse Christi ecclesiam et potestatem
recipiendi ejiciendique membra habere negent, sancta
Christi censura nobis, ejus ecclesiae, concessa ; et com-
munione omnium sanctorum juste excluduntur, et nunc
conantur seipsos vobis adjungere), vos certiores facere, ut
caveatis, ne tales recipiatis, quibus polluamini, cum optime
sciatis paululo fermenti totam massam fermentari. Et vos
in timore Dei obsecramus, ut vobis ipsis attendatis, ne
inconsulto improbos justificetis innocentesque condemnetis,
a quo scelere ut vos Deus avertat summis.precibus oramus.
Sed persuasimus nobis de vobis istis meliora, assidue ex-
pectantes, vos operam vestram potius in reformandis con-
tumacibus, quam in ipsis corroborandis in peccatis suis
daturos, et adhuc vestrum auxilium in nobis superstruendis,
non diruendis collocaturos. Et sic sperantes vos in omni-
bus rebus vestris, verbum Dei regulam vestrae directionis,
secundum vestrae fidei professionem, sequuturos : com-
mendamus vos Deo et Sermoni gratiae ipsius, qui potest.
superstruere, et dare vobis quod haereditatis jure possideatis
cum sanctificatis omnibus. Valete.
APPENDIX F
CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE “TRUE ENGLISH CHURCH"
UNDER THOMAS HELWYSS AT AMSTERDAM, IN NINE-
TEEN ARTICLES PRESENTED TO THE WATERLAND-
ERS, WITH THANKS FOR THEIR ALREADY
GIVEN IN FORMATION AND RECOMMEND-
ING THEMSELVES FOR THE FUTURE.
(Archives of the Amsterdam Memnonite Congregation,
No. I35o. 3 pages folio).
Synopsis fidei verae Christianae Ecclesiae Anglicanae
Amsterodamiae.
I
Quod tres sunt qui testificantur in caelo, Pater, Sermo et
Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres sunt unus Deus,. per quem
omnia in caelo et terra creantur et preservantur.
2
Quod hic Deus creavit hominem secundum imaginem
suam, qui peccavit et per cujus inobedientiam omnes pecca-
tores constituti sunt ; sed per obedientiam Jesu Christi justi
constituuntur omnes.
3 -
Quod Deus necessitatem peccandi nemini imponit.
4
Quod nullum sit peccatum per generationem a parentibus
nostris.
5
Quod Deus vult omnes homines servari et ad agnitionem
veritatis venire et non vult mortem morientis.
6
Quod Jesus Christus in plenitudine temporis manifestatus
erat in carne, factus ex muliere, conceptus et natus ex ea,
Spiritus Sanctus inumbrans eam, fructus uteri ejus, semen
' Abrahami, Isaaci, Jacobi et Davidis secundum carnem. Et
sic verus homo circumcisus erat, baptisatus, precatus est,
216 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
tentatus erat, metuebat, ignarus dici judicii, esuriebat,
sitiebat, defatigatus erat, edebat, bibebat, somnum oculis
capiebat, statura et cognitione crescebat, crucifixus erat,
moriebatur, sepultus resurrexit, in caelum ascendebat,
omni potestate in caelo et terra ei traditia existens solus
Rex, Sacerdos et Propheta ejus ecclesiae. Et una persona,
verus Deus et verus homo.
Quod hominis justificatio coria Deo solummodo consistit
in Christi obedientia et justicia per fidem apprehensa : fides
tamen absque operibus mortua est.
8
Quod homo Dei gratia per Christi redemptionem faculta-
tem habet (Spiritu Sancto in eo operante per predicationem
evangelii) resipiscendi, credendi, ad Deum revertendi et ad
finem perseverandi, atque etiam est in homine facultas
Spiritui Sancto resistendi et a Domino avertendei.
9
Quod Ecclesia sit coetus populi fidelis, baptizatus in
nomen Patris, Filii et spiritus, tempore quo confitentur
fidem et peccata eorum ; potestatem Christi habens verbum
predicandi, baptismum et coenam dominicam administrandi,
ministros suos eligendi et abdicandi, et membra sua recipi-
endi et ejiciendi, secundum Christi canones.
IO
Quod baptismus sit signum externum remissionis pecca-
torum, mortificationis et vitae renovationis, et idcirco ad
infantes non pertinet.
I I
Quod coena dominica sit signum externum spiritualis
communionis Christi et fidelium mutuo in fide et charitate.
I 2
Quod unumquodque membrum corposis oportet se mutuo
cognoscere, ut sic prestent omnia charitatis fraternae :
munera, tam animae quam corporis, mutuo sibi invicem :
APPENDIX F 217
et presestim Presbiteros oportet totum gregem cognoscere,
in quo cos Spiritus Sanctus constituit Episcopos. - -.-
I 3
Quod Ecclesiae ministri sint aut Episcopi, quibus ab
Ecclesia commissa est potestas verbum predicandi, baptis-
mum et coenam dominicam administrandi ; aut Diaconi,
viri et viduae, qui pro ecclesia fratrum pauperum et infir-
morum necessitates sublevant.
I 4
Quod oportet Ecclesiam (juxta Christi discipulorum et
primitivarum ecclesiarum exemplum) unoquoque primo
die hebdomadis convenire ad precandum, prophetandum,
Deum celebrandum, panem frangendum et prestandum
cetera omnia munera spiritualis communionis, quae pertinent
ad divinum cultum, membrorum mutuam aedificationem et
preservationem verae religionis et pietatis in Ecclesia : et
idcirco seponendi sunt ordinarii nostrarum vocationum
labores, qui in eo nos impedire possent.
I 5
Quod fratres in peccato impenitentes, post tertium admo-
itionis gradum per ecclesiam actum, per excommunica-
tionem ejiciendi sint et ecclesiae communione.
I6
Quod excommunicati respectu civilis societatis non sint
fugiendi.
I 7
Quod adiaphora non sint ecclesiae aut alicui membro
ecclesiae imponenda, sed Christiana libertas in hujusmodi
retinenda est.
I 8
Quod mortui resurgent (et vivis momento mutatis) eadem
corpora quoad substantiam, etsi quoad qualitates diversa.
I9
Quod omnes homines post resurrectionem comparere
opera coram tribunali Christi dijudicandos secundum opera
218 EHISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
eorum, ut pii justificati aeterna vita fruantur et impii con-
demnati in Gehenna cruciatus aeternos ferant.
«-* - -
Et sic per Dei misericordiam, Christum secundum ejus
verbum didicimus, agnoscentes tamen nos ipsos simplices et
ignaros, et semper paratos cum omni reverentia et humilitate
a Deo instrui per hujus modi instrumenta, quae Dominus
noster escitaverit pro nostra in veritate ampliore informa-
tione, et Deo benedicentes pro hujusmodi optimis mediis
quae a vobis nobis suppeditata sunt, Dominum nostrum
Jesum Christum supplicites invocantes, ut vos et nos per
Spiritum suum in omnem dirigat veritatem.
Gratia sit vobis et pax a Deo patre nostro et a domino
nostro Jesu Christo.
APPENDIX G
C
A short confession of faith, no date, in 38 articles, signed by twenty
brethren and twenty one sisters of the English, of whom, however,
seven brethren and 6 sisters drew afterwards a line through their
signature. IO pages fol, No. 1352 of the archives of the Amsterdam
Mennonite Church. In English (Being a translation of the confession
of faith of Lubbert Gerrits and Hans de Ries.)
ARTICLE I. We believe through the power and instruc-
tion of the Holy Scriptures, that there is one only God, who
is a spirit, eternal, incomprehensible, infinite, almighty,
merciful, righteous, perfectly wise, only good, and only
fountain of life and all goodness ; the Creator of heaven
and earth, things visible and invisible.
2. This only God in the Holy Scriptures is manifested
revealed in Father, Son and Holy Ghost, being three, and
nevertheless but one God. -
3. The Father is the original and beginning of all things;
who hath begotten his Son from everlasting before all
creation ; that Son is the everlasting word of the Father,
and his wisdom. The Holy Ghost is his virtue, power,
and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son. These
three are not divided, not separated in essence, nature,
property, eternity, power, glory, or excellency.
4. This only God hath created man good, according to
his image and likeness, to a good and happy estate, and in
him all men to the same blessed end. The first man was
fallen into sin and wrath ; and was again by God, through
a sweet comfortable promise, restored and affirmed to ever-
lasting life, with all those that were guilty through him ;
so that none of his posterity (by reason of this institution)
are guilty, sinful, or born in original sin.
5. Man being created good, and continuing in goodness,
had the ability, the spirit of wickedness tempting him,
freely to obey, assent, or reject the propounded evil : man
being fallen and consisting in evil, had the ability, the T–
220 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
himself moving him freely to obey, assent, or reject the
propounded good : for as he through free power to the
choice of evil, obeyed and affirmed that evil ; so did he
through free power to the choice of good, obey and reassent
that propounded good. This last power or ability remaineth
in all his posterity.
6. God hath before all time foreseen and foreknown all
things, both good and evil, whether past, present, or to
come. Now as he is the only, perfect goodness, and the
very fountain of life itself, so is he the only author, original,
and maker of such things as are good, holy, pure, and of
nature like unto him ; but not of sin, or damnable unclean-
ness. He forbiddeth the evil, he forewarneth to obey evil,
and threatened the evil doer; he is the permitter and pun-
isher. But evil men, through free choice of all sin and -
wickedness, together with the spirit of wickedness which
ruleth in them, are the authors, originals, and makers of
all sin, and so worthy the punishment.
7. The causes and ground, therefore, of man's destruc-
tion and damnation are the man’s free choice of darkness or
sin and living therein. Destruction, therefore, cometh out
of himself, but not from the good Creator. For being
perfect goodness and love itself (following the nature of
love and perfect goodness), he willeth the health, good,
and happiness of his creatures; therefore hath he predesti-
nated that none of them should be condemned, nor ordained,
or willed the sinner, or means whereby they should be
brought to damnation ; yea, much more (seeing he hath no
delight in any man's destruction, nor willing that any man
perish, but that all men should be saved or blessed) hath he
created them all to a happy end in Christ, hath foreseen
and ordained in him a medicine of life for all their sins, and
hath willed that all people or creatures, through the preach-
ing of the Gospel, should have these tidings published and
declared unto them ; Now all they that with penitence and
APPENDIX G 221
faithful hearts receive and embrace the gracious benefits of
God, manifested in Christ, for the reconciliation of the
world, they are and continue the elect which God hath
ordained before the foundation of the world, to make par-
takers of his kingdom and glory. But they which despise
and contemn this proffered grace of God, which love the
darkness more than the light, persevere in impenitence and
unbelief, they make themselves unworthy of blessedness,
and are rejected, excluded from the end whereto they were
created and ordained in Christ, and shall not taste forever
of the Supper of the Lord, to which they were invited.
8. The purpose which God, before the foundation of the
world, had for the reconciliation of the world (which he
saw would fall into wrath and want of grace), he hath in
the fulness of time accomplished ; and for this purpose hath
sent out of heaven his everlasting word, or son, for the ful-
filling of the promise made unto the fathers, and hath caused
him to become flesh . . . . in the womb of a holy virgin
(called Mary) by his word, and power, and working of the
Holy Ghost. Not that the essence of God, the eternal
word or any part thereof is changed into a visible mortal
flesh or man, ceasing to be Spirit, God, or God’s essence ;
but that he, the everlasting Son of God, continuing that he
was before, namely, God or Spirit, became what he was not,
that is, flesh or man ; and he is in one person true God and
man, born of Mary, being visibly and invisibly, inwardly
and outwardly, the true Son of the living God.
9. This Person, God and Man, the Son of the living God,
is come into the world to save sinners, or to reconcile the
sinful world to God the Father : therefore now acknowledge
him to be the only Mediator, King, Priest and Prophet,
Lawgiver and Teacher, which God hath promised to send
into the world, whom we must trust, believe, and follow.
IO. In him is fulfilled, and by him is taken away, an
, intolerable burden of the Law of Moses, even all the
222 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
shadows and figures; as, namely, the priesthood, temple,
altar, sacrifice ; also the kingly office, kingdom, Sword,
revenge appointed by the law, battle, and whatsoever was
a figure of his person or office, so thereof a shadow or repre-
sentation.
II. And as the true promised Prophet he hath mani-
fested and revealed unto us whatsoever God asketh or
requireth of the people of the New Testament; for as God,
by Moses and the other prophets, hath spoken and declared
his will to the people of the Old Testament; so hath he in
those last days, by his Prophet, spoken unto us, and
revealed unto us the mystery (concealed from the beginning
of the world), and hath now manifested to us whatsoever
yet remained to be manifested. He hath preached the
promised glad tidings, appointed and ordained the sacra-
ments, the offices and ministeries, by God thereto destin-
ated ; and hath showed by doctrine and life, the law of
Christians, a rule of their life, the path and way to ever-
lasting life. -
12. Moreover, as a High Priest and Mediator of the New
Testament, after that he hath accomplished the will of his
Father in the aforesaid works, he hath finally given himself
obediently (for the reconciliation of the sins of the world)
to all outward suffering, and hath offered up himself in
death upon the cross unto the Father, for a sweet savour
and common oblation. * -
13. We acknowledge that the obedience of the Son of
God, his suffering, dying, bloodshed, bitter passion, death,
and only sacrifice upon the cross, is a perfect reconciliation
and satisfaction for our sins and the sins of the world ; so
that men thereby are reconciled to God, are brought into
power, and have a sure hope and certainty to the entrance
into everlasting life.
14. Christ, our Prophet and Priest, being also the prom-
ised, only spiritual, heavenly King of the New Testament,
APPENDIX G 223
hath erected, or built, a spiritual kingdom, and united a
company of faithful, spiritual men ; these persons hath he
endowed with spiritual, kingly laws, after the nature of the
heavenly kingdom, and hath established therein justice,
righteousness, and the ministers thereof.
15. Having accomplished and performed here upon the
earth, by dying the death, his office of the cross, he was
afterwards buried, thereby declaring that he was truly
dead ; the third day he rose again, and stood up from the
dead, abolishing death, and testifying that he was Lord
over death, and that he could not possibly be detained by
the hands of death, thereby comfortably assuring all the
faithful of their resurrection and standing up from death.
I6. Afterwards, forty days spent, he conversed amongst
his disciples, and ofttimes showed himself unto them, that
there might no doubt be had concerning his resurrection ;
after that, being compassed by a cloud, he was carried up
into heaven, and entered unto his glory, leading captivity
captive, and making a show of his enemies, hath gloriously
triumphed over them, and is sat at the right hand of the
Majesty of God, and is become a Lord, and Christ, glorified
in body, advanced, lifted up, and crowned with praise and
glory, and remaineth over Mount Sion, a Priest and King
for everlasting.
17. The holy office of this glorified Priest, King, Lord,
and Christ, in the heavenly glorious being, is to help,
govern and preserve, by his holy Spirit, his holy church
and people in the world, through the storm, wind, and
troubles of the sea ; for, according to his priestly office, as
an overseer or steward of the true tabernacle, is he our
Intercessor, Advocate, and Mediator by the Father. He
teacheth, comforteth, strengtheneth, and baptizeth us with
the Holy Ghost, his heavenly gifts and fiery victims, and
keepeth his spiritual supper with the faithful soul making
it partaker of the life-giving food and drink of the soul, the
224 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
fruit, virtue, and worth of his merits obtained upon the
cross ; the only and necessary good signified in the sacra-
Innents.
18. And according to his kingly office, in his heavenly
being he governeth the hearts of the faithful by his Holy
Spirit and Word, he taketh them unto his protection, he
covereth them under the shadow of his wings, he armeth
them with spiritual weapons for the spiritual warfare
against all their enimies, namely, the spirit of wickedness,
under heaven, and whatsoever, dependeth on them in this
earth. He, their most Glorious, Almighty, Heavenly
King, standeth by them, delivereth and freeth them from
the hands of their enimies, giveth them victory and the
winning of the field, and hath prepared for them a crown
of righteousness in heaven. And they being the redeemed
of the Lord, who dwell in the house of the Lord, upon
the Mount Sion, do change their fleshly weapons, namely,
swords into shares and their spears into sythes, do lift up
no sword neither hath nor consent to fleshly battle.
I9. All these spiritual good things and beneficial, which
Christ, by his merits, hath obtained for the saving of
sinners, we do graciously enjoy through a true, living,
working faith. Which faith is an assured understanding
and knowledge of the heart, obtained out of the Word of
God, concerning God, Christ, and other heavenly things
which are necessary for us to know, and to believe to salva-
tion, together with a hearty confidence in the only God,
that he as a gracious and heavenly Father, will give and
bestow upon us, through Christ, and for his merits, what-
soever is helpful and profitable for body and soul for
salvation. t
20. Through such a faith we obtain true righteousness,
forgiveness, absolution from sin through the bloodshed of
Christ, and true righteousness, which through the Christ
Jesus, by the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, is plentifully
APPENDIX G 225
shed and poured into us, so that we truly are made, of evil
men, good ; of fleshly, spiritual ; of covetous, liberal ; of
proud, humble ; and through regeneration are made pure
in heart, and the children of God.
2I. Man being thus justified by faith, liveth and worketh
by love (which the Holy Ghost sheddeth into the heart)
in all good works, in the laws, precepts, ordinances given
them by God through Christ ; he praiseth and blesseth
God, by a holy life, for every benefit, especially of the
soul ; and so are all such plants of the Lord trees of right-
eousness, who honor God through good works, and expect
a blessed reward. -
22. Such faithful righteous people, scattered in several
parts of the world, being the true congregations of God, or
the church of Christ, whom he saved, and for whom he
gave himself, that he might sanctify them, ye whom he
hath cleansed by the washing of water in the word of life :
of all such is Jesus the Head, the Shepherd, the Leader,
the Lord, the King, and Master. Now although among
these there may be mingled a company of seeming holy
men, or hypocrites; yet, nevertheless, they are and remain
only the righteous, true members of the body of Christ,
according to the spirit and the truth, the heirs of the
promises, truly saved from the hypocrites and dissemblers.
23. In this holy church hath God ordained the ministers
of the Gospel, the doctrines of the holy Word, the use of
the holy Sacraments, the oversight of the poor, and the
the ministers of the same offices ; furthermore, the exercise
of brotherly admonition and correction, and finally, the
separating of the impenitent; which holy ordinances, con-
tained in the Word of God, are to be administered according
to the contents thereof. -
24. And like as a body consisteth of divers parts, and
every part hath its own proper work, seeing every part is
not a hand, eye, or foot ; so it is also in the church of God ;
226 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
for although every believer is a member of the body of
Christ, yet is not every one therefore a teacher, elder, or
deacon, but only such who are orderly appointed to such
offices. Therefore, also, the administration of the said
offices or duties pertaineth only to those that are ordained
thereto, and not to every particular common person.
25. The vocation or election of the said officers is per-
formed by the church, with fasting, and prayer to God ;
for God knoweth the heart; he is amongst the faithful who
are gathered together in his name ; and by his Holy Spirit
doth so govern the minds and hearts of his people, that he
by them bringeth to light and propoundeth whom he
knoweth to be profitable to his church.
26. And although the election and vocation to the said
offices is performed by the foresaid means, yet, nevertheless
the investing into the said service is accomplished by the
elders of the church through the laying on of hands.
27. The doctrine which by the foresaid ministers must
be proposed to the people, is even the same which Christ
brought out of heaven, which he, by word and work, that
is, by doctrine and life, hath taught which was preached
by the apostles of Christ, by the commandment of Christ
and the Spirit, which we find written (so much as is need-
ful for us to salvation) in the Scripture of the New Testa-
ment, whereto we apply whatsoever we find in the Canoni-
cal book of the Old Testament, which hath affinity and
verity, which by doctrine of Christ and his apostles, and
consent and agreement, with the government of his Spirit-
ual Kingdom. -
28. There are two sacraments appointed by Christ, in his
holy church, the administration whereof he hath assigned
to the ministry of teaching, namely, the Holy Baptism and
the Holy Supper. These are outward visible handlings
and tokens, setting before our eyes, on God's side, the in-
ward spiritual handling which God, through Christ, by the
APPENDIX G 227
co-operation of the Holy Ghost, setteth forth in the justifi-
cation in the penitent faithful soul; and which on our be-
half, witnesseth our religion, experience, faith, and obedi-
ence, through the obtaining of a good conscience to the
service of God.
29. The Holy Baptism is given unto these in the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which hear, be-
lieve, and with penitent heart receive the doctrines of the
Holy Gospel. For such hath the Lord Jesus commanded
to be baptized, and no unspeaking children.
30. The whole dealing in the outward visible baptism of
water, setteth before the eyes, witnesseth and signifyeth,
the Lord Jesus doth inwardly baptise the repentant, faithful
man, in the laver of regeneration and renewing by the
Holy Ghost, washing the soul from all pollution and sin,
by the virtue and merit of his bloodshed ; and by the power
and working of the Holy Gost, the true, heavenly spiritual,
living Water, cleanseth the inward evil of the soul, and
maketh it heavenly, spiritual, and living, in true righteous-
ness or goodness. Therefore, the baptism of water leadeth
us to Christ, to his holy office in glory and majesty ; and
admonisheth us not to hang only upon the outward, but
with holy prayer to mount upward, and to beg of Christ
the good thing signified. -
31. The Holy Supper, according to the institution of
Christ, is to be administered to the baptized ; as the Lord
Jesus hath commanded that whatsoever he hath appointed
should be taught to be observed.
32. The whole dealing in the outward visible supper,
setteth before the eye, witnesseth and signifyeth, that
Christ's body was broken upon the cross, and his holy
blood spilt for the remission of our sins. That the being
glorified in his heavenly Being, is the alive-making bread,
meat and drink of our souls, it setteth before our eyes
, Christ's office and ministry in glory and majesty, by holding
228 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
his spiritual supper, which the believing soul, feeding and
. the soul with spiritual food : it teacheth us by the
outward handling to mount upwards with the heart holy
prayer, to beg at Christ's hands the true signified food ;
and it admonisheth us of thankfulness to God, and of verity
and love one with another.
33. The church discipline, or external censures, is also
an outward handling among the believers, whereby the
impenitent sinner, after Christian admonition and reproof,
is severed, by reason of his sins, from the communion of
the saints for his future good ; and the wrath of God is
denounced against him until the time of his contrition and
reformation ; and there is also, by this outward separation
of the church, manifested what God before had judged and
fore-handled, concerning this secret sinner, by reason of
his sin. Therefore, first before the Lord, the prejudging
and predetermining of the matter must pass . . . . in re-
spect of the sinner . . . . and the after-judging and hand-
ling by the church. Therefore the church must carefully
regard that none in the church be condemned with it, and
be condemned in the Word of God.
34. The person separated from the church may not at all
be admitted (so long as he proceedeth in sin) to the use of
the holy Supper or any other . . . . handling, but he must
be avoided therein, as also in all other things betokening
the communion of saints or brotherhood. And as the
rebellious life, conversation, or daily company of the godless
and perverse, or anything with them, is dangerous and
hurtful, and ofttimes promoteth scandal and slander to the
godly, so must they withdraw themselves from the same
rebels, avoiding them in all works and ends whereby their
pure souls might be pollutted and defiled : yet so that
always the Word of God take place, and that nothing take
place or be performed that is contrary to love, mercy,
Christian discretion, promise, or any other like matter.
APPENDIX G 229
35. Worldly authority or magistracy is a necessary ordi-
nance of God, appointed and established for the preserva-
tion of the common estate, and of a good, natural, politic
life, for the reward of the good and the punishing of the
evil : we acknowledge ourselves obnoxious, and bound by
the Word of God to fear, honour, and show obedience to
the magistrates in all causes not contrary to the Word of
the Lord. We are obliged to pray God Almighty for them,
and to thank the Lord for good reasonable magistrates, and
to yield unto them, without murmuring, beseeming tribute,
toll and tax. This office of the worldly authority the Lord
Jesus hath not ordained in his spiritual kingdom, the
church of the New Testament, nor adjoined to the offices
of his church. Neither hath he called his disciples or fol-
lowers to be worldly kings, princes, potentates, or magis-
trates ; neither hath he burdened or charged them to
assume such offices, or to govern the world in such a worldly
manner ; much less hath he given a law to the members of
his church is agreeable to such office or government. Yea,
rather they are called of him (whom they are commanded
to obey by a voice heard from heaven) to the following of
his unarmed and unweaponed life, and of his cross-bearing
footsteps. In whom approved nothing less than a worldly
government, power, and sword. This then considered (as
also further, that upon the office of the worldly authority
many other things depend, as wars . . . . to hurt his
enemies in body or goods . . . . with evilly or not at all
will fit or consort with the Christ, and the crucified life of
the Christians), so hold we that it beseemeth not Christians
to administer these offices; therefore we avoid such offices
and administrations, notwithstanding by no means thereby
willing to despise or condemn reasonable discreet magis-
trates, nor to place him in less estimation than he is
described by the Holy Ghost, of Paul.
36. Christ, the King and Lawgiver of the New Testa-
230 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
ment, hath prohibited Christians the swearing of oaths;
therefore it is not permitted that the faithful of the New
Testament should swear at all. -
37. The married state, or matrimony, hold we for an
ordinance of God, which, according to the first institution,
shall be observed. Every man shall have his one only wife,
and every woman shall have her one only husband ; those
may not be separated but for adultry. We permit none of
Our Communion to marry godless, unbelieving, fleshly per-
Sons out of the church ; but we censure such (as other
sinners) according to the disposition and desert of the
Call 1862. -
38. Lastly, we believe and teach the resurrection of the
dead, both of the just and the unjust as Paul (I Cor. XV)
soundly teacheth and witnesseth : The soul shall be united
to the body, every one shall be presented before the judg-
ment seat of Christ Jesus, to receive in his own body wages
according to his works. And the righteous, whosoever
hath lived holily, and through faith brought forth the
works of love and mercy, shall enter into everlasting life
with Christ Jesus, the Bridegroom of the Christian host.
But the unsanctified, which have not known God, and have
not obeyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall go into ever-
lasting fire. The Almighty, gracious, merciful God, pre-
serve us from the punishment of the ungodly, and grant us
grace and gifts helpful to a holy life, saving death, and
joyful resurrection with all the righteous. Amen.
We subscribe to the truth of these Articles, desiring
further information.
APPENDIX H
\ }
*~
CONFESSION OF FAITH OF JOHN SMYTH AND HIS PEOPLE
IN 102 ARTICLES; THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH WAS
FOUND IN 1871 IN YORK MINSTER
[Translated from the copy in the Archives of the Amsterdam
Mennonite Church, 16 pages folio, No. 1365.]
I
We believe that there is a God (Job. XI. 16) against all
Epicures and Atheists, who say in the heart or utter with
the mouth, that there is no God. (Pslm. XIV. I; Job.
XXII, I 3).
II
That this God is one in number (I Cor. VIII, 6) against
the Pagans or any other who hold a pleurality of gods.
III
That God is incomprehensible and ineffable, i.e., that the
essence or substance of God cannot be comprehended in the
mind, nor uttered by the words of men and angels.
- IV
That the creatures and Holy Scriptures do not intend to
teach us what God is in substance or essence. but what he
is in effect and property. (Rom. I. 19-21).
- º V
That the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not teach
us God’s essence or substance, but only his hinder parts :
that which may be known of God. (Rom. I).
VI
That God may be known by his titles, properties, effects,
imprinted and expressed in the creatures, and scriptures.
(John XVII. 3).
- VII
That to understand and conceive of God in the mind is
not the saving knowledge of God ; but to be like to God in
232 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
his effects and properties, – to be made conformable to his
divine and heavenly attributes; that is the true saving
knowledge of God, whereunto we ought to give all diligence.
(2 Cor. III. 18; Matt. V. 49 ; 2 Peter I. 4).
VIII
That this God manifested in Father, Son and Holy Ghost
(Matt. III. 16) is most merciful, most mighty, most holy,
most just, most wise, most true, most glorious, eternal and
infinite. (Pslm. XC 2 : C II. 27).
IX
That God, before the foundation of the world, did foresee
and determine the issue and event of all his works (Acts
XV. 18) and that actually in time he works all things by
his providence, according to the good pleasure of his will
(Eph. I. I I), and therefore we abhor the opinion of them,
who avouch that all things happen by fortune or chance.
(Acts IV. 27, 28 ; Matt. X. 29, 30).
X
That God is not the author or worker of sin (Pslm. V. 4 :
James I I 3) but that he only did foresee and determine
what evil the free will of angels and men would do ; but he
gave no influence, instinct, motion or inclination to the
least sin.
XI
That God in the beginning created the world, viz.: the
heavens, and the earth and all things that are therein (Gen.
I ; Acts XVII, 24) So that the things that are seen, were
not things which did appear (Heb. XI. 3).
XII
That God created man to blessedness, according to his
image in a state of innocency, free without corruption of
sin (Gen. I. 27 ; II 25). He created them male and
female, to wit one man and one woman (Gen. I. 27). He
framed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into him
the breath of life, so the man was a living soul (Gen. II.
APPENDIX H 233
2 I, 22) and God blessed them, and commanded them to
increase and multiply, and to fill the earth, and to rule over
it and all creatures therein. (Gen. I. 28).
XIII
That, therefore, marriage be honourable amongst all men,
and the bed be undefiled, viz.: between one man and one
woman (Heb. XIII. 4; I Cor. VII. 2), but whoremongers
and adulterers God will judge.
XIV
That God created man with freedem of will, so that he
had ability to choose the good, and eshew the evil, or to
choose the evil and refuse the good, and this freedom of
will was a natural faculty or power, created by God in the
soul of man. (Gen. II. I6 ; XVII. 3, XVII. Io; Gen. I.
17 ; VII. 31).
XV
That Adam sinning was not moved or inclined thereto by
God, or by any decree of God, but that he fell down from
innocency, and died the death alone, by the temptation of
Satan, his free will assenting thereunto freely. (Gen.
III. 6).
XVI
That the same day that Adam sinned he died the death
(Rom. VI. 23) and this is that the apostle says, dead in
trespasses and sins (Eph. II), which is loss of innocency,
of the peace of conscience and comfortable presence of God.
(Gen. III. 7). -
XVII
That Adam being fallen did not lose any natural power
or faculty, which God created in his soul, for the work of
satan, who is sin, cannot abolish God’s works or creatures,
and therefore being fallen he still retained freedom of will.
(Gen. III, 23, 24).
XVIII
That original sin is an idle term, and that there is no
such thing as men intend by the word (Jerem. XVIII. 20);
234 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
because God threatened death only to Adam (Gen. II. I 7)
not to his posterity, and because God created the soul
(Heb. XII. 9.)
XIX
That if original sin might have passed from Adam to
posterity, Christ’s death, which was effectual before Cain
and Abel's birth, he being the lamb slain from the begin-
ning of the world, stopped the issue and passage thereof.
(Rev. XIII. 8.) •
- XX
That infants are conceived and born in innocency, with-
out sin, and that so dying are undoubtedly saved, and that
this is to be understood of all infants under heaven (Gen.
V. I 2 ; Gen. I. 17 ; I Cor. XV. 19) for where there is no
law there is no transgression, sin is not imputed while there
is no law, but the law was not given to infants, but to them
who could understand. (Rom. V. I 3 ; Matt. XIII. 9 ; Matt.
VIII. 3.)
DXXI
That all actual sinners bear the image of the first Adam,
in his innocency, fall and restitution in the offer of grace
(I Cor. XV. 49) and so pass under this threefold estate.
XXII
That Adam being fallen God did not hate him, but loved
him still, and sought his good (Gen. III. 8 ; XV. I.),
neither does he hate any man that falleth with Adam ; but
that he loves mankind, and from his love sent his only be-
gotten son into the world, to save that which was lost, and
to seek the sheep that went astray. (John III. I6 ; Matt.
XVIII. I I- 14 ; Luke I5.)
XXIII
That God never forsakes the creature till there is no
remedy, neither does he cast away his innocent creature
from all eternity ; but casts away men irrecoverable in sin
(Job. V. 4; Ezek. XVIII 23-32 ; XXXIII, 6.)
APPENDIX H - 235
XXIV
That as there is in all the creatures a natural inclination
to their young ones to do them good, so there is in the Lord
an inclination towards men to promote their happiness; for
every spark of goodness in the creature is infinitely good in
God. (Rom. I. 20; Pslm. XIX. 4; Rom. X. 18).
XXV -
That God before the foundation of the world has deter-
mined the way of life and salvation to consist in Christ and
that he has foreseen who would follow it (Eph. I. 4, V. 2 ;
Tim. I. 9), and also who would follow the way of infidelity
and impenitency. (Job. I. 8.)
XXVI
That as no man begets his child to the gallows, nor no
potter makes a pot to break it, so God does not create or
predestinate any man to destruction. (Ezek. XXXIII,
17; Gen. I. 17 ; I Cor. XV, 49 ; Gen. V. 3).
XXVII.
That as God created all men according to his image, so
has he redeemed all that fall by actual sin, to the same end ;
and that God in his redemption has not swerved from his
mercy, which he manifested in his creation. (John I. 3-16 ;
2 Cor. V. 19 ; 1 Tim II. 4, 5, 6.)
XXVIII
That Jesus Christ is he who in the beginning did lay the
foundation of the heavens and earth which shall perish
(Heb. I. Io; Pslm. CII. 28). He is the Alpha and Onega,
the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Rev.
XXII. I.3) He is the brightness of the glory and the ex-
pressed image of the substance of his Father, upholding all
things by the word of his power. (Heb. I. 3). He is the
wisdom of God, which was begotten from everlasting before
all creatures (Prov. VIII. 20 ; Micah V. 4 ; Luke XI. 49).
He was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to
be equal with God ; yet he took to him the shape of a ser-
236 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
vant, the word became flesh (John I. 4; Luke I. 34), won-
derfully by the power of God in the womb of the Virgin
Mary ; he was of the seed of David according to the flesh,
God having prepared him a body. (Phil. II. 7 ; Rom. I.
3 ; Heb. X. 5)
XXIX
That Jesus Christ, after his baptism by a voice out of
heaven from the Father, and by the anointing of the Holy
Ghost, which appeared upon his head in the form of a dove,
is appointed the prophet of the church, whom all men must
hear (Matt. XVII; Heb. I. 2); and that both by his doc-
trine and life, which he led here in the earth, by all his
doings and sufferings, he has declared and published as the
only prophet and lawgiver of his church, the way of peace
and life, the glad tidings of the gospel. (Acts III. 22, 23.)
XXX
That Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,
and that God in his love to his enemies did send him (John
III. 16) that Christ died for his enemies (Rom. V. Io);
that he bought them that deny him (2 Peter II. I.) thereby
teaching us to love our enemies. (Matt. V. 44, 45).
XXXI
That Christ was delivered to death for our sins (Rom.
IV. 25) and that by his death we have the remission of our
sins (Eph. I. 7), and that he made himself of no reputation,
humbled himself, and became obedient into death, even the
death of the cross (Phil. II. 8) redeeming us from our vain
conversation, not with silver or gold, but with the precious
blood of himself, as of a lamb without spot and undefiled
(I Pet. I. 18-19); for he cancelled the hand-writing of ordi-
nances, which was against us (Eph. II. I5; Col. II. I4 ;
Deut. XXXI. 26), and spoiled principalities and powers,
made a show of them openly, and triumphed over them on
the cross (Col. II. I 5). by death he destroyed him who had
the power of death, –that is the devil. (Heb. II. I.4).
APPENDIX H 237
XXXII
That the enemies of our salvation, which Christ van-
quished are the gates of hell, the power of darkness,
namely : Satan, sin, death, the grave, the curse or condem-
nation, wicked men and persecutors (Eph. VI. 12; I Cor.
XV. 26; I Cor. V. 4, 5-7 ; Rev. XX. Io-14, 15;) which
enemies we must overcome no otherwise than Christ has
done. (John XXXI. 12 ; I Pet. II. 21 ; Rev. XIV. 4).
XXXIII
That although the sacrifice of Chirst's body and blood
offered up unto God his Father upon the cross; be a sacri-
fice of a sweet smelling Savour, and God in him is well
pleased, yet it does not reconcile God unto us, who did
never hate us, nor was our enemy, but reconciles us unto
God and slayes the enemy and hatred, which is ill us
against God (2 Cor. V. 19 ; Eph. II. 14-17 ; Rom. I. 3O).
XXXIV
That the efficacy of Christ's death is only derived to
them, who do mortify their sins which are grafted with
him to the similitude of his death (Rom. VI. 3-6), which
are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, by
putting off the sinful body of the flesh, through the cir-
cumcision which Christ works who is the minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises
made to the Father. (Rom. XV ; Deut. XXX. 6).
XXXV
That there are three which bear witness in the earth ;
the spirit, water and blood, and these three are one in testi-
mony, witnessing that Christ truly died (John V. 8) for he
gave up the ghost (John XIX. 30), and out of his side
pierced with a spear came water and blood, the cover of the
heart being pierced, where there is water contained. (John
XIX. 36-38).
238 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
XXXVI
That every mortified person has this witness in himself
(I John V. Io), for the spirit, blood and water of sin is
gone, that is the life of sin with the nourishment and
cherishment thereof. (I Pet. IV. I ; Rom. VI. 7 ; 1 John
III. 9). -
XXXVII
That Christ Jesus being truly dead was also buried (John
XIX. 39-42), and that he lay in the grave the whole
sabbath of the Jews; but in the grave he saw no corruption
(Pslm XVI. Io ; Acts II. 31).
XXXVIII
That all mortified persons are also buried with Christ by
the baptism, which is into his death (Rom. VI. 4; Col. II.
12), keeping their sabbath with Christ in the grave, that
is, resting from their own works as God did from his (Heb.
IV. Io), waiting there in hope for a resurrection (Pslm
XVI. 9). -
XXXIX - -
That Christ Jesus early in the morning, the first day of
the week, rose again after his death and burial (Matt.
XX. 6) for our justification (Rom. VI), being mightly
declared to be the son of God, by the spirit of sanctifica-
tion, in the surrection from the dead. (Rom. I. 4).
XL
That these who are gratified with Christ to the similitude
of his death and burial shall also be to the similitude of his
resurrection (Rom. VI. 4, 5); for he does quicken or give
life unto them, together with himself (Col. II. 13; Eph.
II. 5, 6 ;) for that is their salvation, and it is by grace.
(Eph. II. 5; I John V. I I-15; Tit. III. 5-7.)
XLI
That this quickening or reviving of Christ, this laver of
regeneration, this renewing of the Holy Ghost is our justifi-
cation and salvation (Tit. III. 3-7). This is the pure river
APPENDIX H 239
of water of life, clear as crystal, which proceeds out of the
throne of God, and of the Lamb (Rev. XXII. I.) which
also flows out of the belly of him who believes in Christ
(John VII. 38); this is the precious promise whereby we
are made partakers of the divine nature, by flying the
corruptions that are in the world through lust (2 Peter I. 4)
this is the fruit of the tree of life which is in the midst of
the paradise of God ; this is the white stone wherein there
is a name written, which no man knows, save he that re-
ceives it. This is the morning star, this is the new name,
the name of God, the name of the city of God ; the new
Jerusalem which descends from God out of heaven ; this is
the hidden manna, that white clothing, eye-salve and gold,
and that heavenly supper which Christ promises to them
who overcame. (Rev. II. 7, 17, 28 ; Rev. III, 5-12;
XVIII. 20).
XLII
That there are three who bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and that these three
are one in testimony, witnessing the resurrection of Christ.
The Father says: thou art my son, this day have I be-
gotten thee (Acts XIII. 33-35). The Son testifies of his
own resurrection being forty days with his diciples (Acts I.
3). The Holy Ghost testifies the same whom Christ sent to
his diciples upon the day of Penticost (Acts II).
XLIII
That every person that is regenerate and risen again with
Christ has these three aforesaid witnesses in himself (ſ
John V. 20); for Christ does dwell in his heart by faith
(Eph. III. 17.) and the Father dwells with the Son (John
XIV. 2); and the Holy Ghost likewise (I Cor. X. 3);
and that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love
of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost is with them.
(2 Cor. XIII I3).
240 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
XLIV
That Christ having forty days after his resurrection con-
versed with his diciples (Acts I. 18) ascended locally into
the heavens which must contain him unto the time that all
things be restored. (Acts III. 21).
XLV
That they who are risen with Christ, ascend up spiritu-
ally with him, seeking those things which are above, where
Christ sits at the right hand of God, and that they set their
affection on heavenly things and not on earthly things.
(Col. III. I. 2.) *
XLVI
That Christ now being received into heaven sits at the
right hand of God. (Mark XVI. 9), having led captivity
captive, and given gifts unto men (Eph. IV. 8) ; that God
has now highly exalted him, and given him a name above
every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of things in heaven, in earth and under the earth, and
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father (Phil. II 29); that he has
obtained all power both in heaven and in earth (Matt.
XXVIII. I8), and he has made all things subject under his
feet, and has appointed him over all things to be the head
of the church, that is his body, the fulness of him that fills
all in all things. (Eph. I. 22, 23.) -
XLVII
That the regenerate do sit together with Christ Jesus in
heavenly places (Eph. II. 6), that they sit with him in his
throne (Rev. III. 21 ;) that they have power over nations,
and rule them with a rod of iron, and as a potter’s vessel
they are broken to pieces (Rev. II. 6-27), and that sitting
on twelve thrones, they do judge the twelve tribes of Israel
(Matt. XIX. 28), which spiritually is to put all their
enemies in subjection, under their feet, so that the evil one
APPENDIX H - 241
does not touch them (I John V. 18), nor the gates of hell
prevail against them, (Matt. XVI), and that they are be-
come pillars in the house of God, and go no more out.
(Rev. III. I.2).
XLVIII -
That Christ Jesus being exalted at the right hand of God
the Father, far above all principalities and powers, might,
and domination, and every name that is named, not only in
this world, but in the world to come (Eph. I. 2 I) has
received of his Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,
which he also shed forth upon his disciples on the day of
Pentecost. (Acts II. 23)
XLIX
That Christ Jesus, in his resurrection, ascension and
exaltation, is more and rather Lord and Christ, Saviour,
anointed, and King, than in his humiliation, sufferings and
death (Acts II. 36; Phil. II. 7); for the end is more ex-
cellent than the means, and his sufferings were the way by
which he entered into his glory (Luke XXIV. 26), and so
by consequent the efficacy of his resurrection in the new
creature, is more noble and excellent than the efficacy of
his death in the mortification and remission of sins.
L
That the knowledge of Christ according to the flesh is of
small profit (2 Cor. V. I6, 17), and the knowledge of
Christ’s genealogy and history is no other but that which
the Devil has as well if not better than any man living ;
but the knowledge of Christ according to the spirit is effect-
ual to salvation, which is spiritually to be grafted to the
similitude of Christ’s birth, life, miracles, doings, suffer-
ings, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation.
(Rom. VI. 3-6). e
LI
That Christ Jesus, according to the flesh and history in
his doings and suffering is a great mystery, and divine
242 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
sacrament of himself, and of his ministery in the spirit,
and those spiritual things which he works in those who are
to be heirs of salvation (Rom. VI. 3, 6, 7 ; Eph. II. 5, 6);
and that spiritually he performs all those miracles in the
regenerate which he wrought in his flesh ; he heals their
leprosy, bloody issue, blindness, dumbness, deafness, lame-
ness, palsy, fever ; he casts out the devils and unclean
spirits ; he raises the dead, rebukes the wind and the sea,
and it is calm ; he feeds thousands with the barley loaves and
fishes. (Matt. VIII. 16, 17; Isiah LIII. 4; John VI. 27).
LII
That Christ (in that manner) is become a Mediator of
the new Covenant, namely, priest and prophet into his
church, and that the regenerated are become also through
him spiritual kings and prophets. (Rev. I. 6; I John II.
2O). -
- I,III
That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the
Son (John XIV. 26; XVI. 7); that he is the eternal spirit,
whereby Christ offered himself without spot to God (Heb.
IX. I4); that he is that other comforter who Christ asks,
obtains and sends from the Father (John XIV. 16) which
dwells in the regenerate (I Cor. III. 16), which teaches
them all things, and that they have no need that any man
teach them, as the same anointing teaches all things.
(1 John II, 20-27).
LIV
That although there be divers gifts of the spirit yet there
is but one spirit, which distributes to every one as he will
(I Cor. XII. 4- 1 1 ; Eph. IV. 4); that the outward gifts of
the spirit which the Holy Ghost pours forth upon the day
of Pentecost upon the diciples, in tongues and prophecy,
and gifts, and healing, and miracles, which is called the
Baptism of the Holy Ghost (Acts I. 5), were only a figure
of and a handleading to better things, even the most proper
APPENDIX H 243
gifts of the spirit of sanctification, which is the new crea-
ture, which is the one baptism (Eph. IV. 4 ; Acts II. 23-28 ;
Luke X. I 7).
LV
That John the Baptist and Christ are two persons, their
ministry are two ministries several, and their baptisms are
two baptisms, distinct the one from the other (John I. 20 ;
Acts XIII. 25 ; Acts I, 4, 5 ; Matt. III. 2).
LVI
That John taught the baptism of repentance for the re-
mission of sins, baptising with water to amendment of life
(Matt. III. I I) thus preparing a way for Christ and his
baptism (Luke III. 3) by bringing men to repentance and
faith in the Messias, whom he pointed out with the finger,
saying; behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins
of the world. (John I. 29-31 ; Acts XIX. 4).
LVII
That Christ is stronger, and has a more excellent office
and ministry than John (Matt. III. I I), that he baptises
with the Holy Ghost and fire, that he comes and walks in
the way which John has prepared and that the new creature
follows repentance. (Luke III. 7).
LVIII
That repentance and faith in the Messias are the condi-
tions to be performed on our behalf, for the obtaining of
the promises of God (Acts II. 38; John I. 12), that the
circumcision of the heart, Imortification and the promise of
the spirit, that is, the new creature, are the promises which
are made to the aforesaid conditions (Deut. XXX. 6; Acts
II. 38; Gal. III. I4 ; 2 Peter I. 4, 5), which promises are
all yea and amen in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. I. 20) and that in
the regenate (Gal. III. I6).
w LIX
That repentance and faith are wrought in the hearts of
men by the preaching of the word, outwardly in the Scrip-
244 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
tures, and creatures, the grace of God preventing us by the
motions and instinct of the spirit, which a man has power
to receive or reject. (Matt. XXIII. 27 ; Acts VI. Io;
Rom. X. I4, I5).
LX -
That our juitification before God consists not in the per-
formance of the conditions which God requires of us, but in
the partaking of the promises, the possessing of Christ,
remission of sins, and the new creature.
LXI
That God the Father, of his own good will, does beget us
by the word of truth (James I 18), which is immortal seed
(I Peter I. 23), not the doctrine of repentance and faith
which may be lost (Luke VIII. 17); and that God the
Father, in our regeneration, neither needs nor uses the
help of any creature, but that of the Father, the Word and
the Holy Ghost, immediately works that work in the soul,
where the free will of men can do nothing (John I. I.3).
LXII
That those as have not attained the new creature, have
need of the scriptures, creatures and ordinances of the
church, to instruct them, to comfort them, to stir them up
the better to perform the condition of repentance to the
remission of sins. (2 Peter I. 19 ; I Cor. II. 26; Eph. IV,
I2, I3). -
LXIII
That the new creature which is begotten of God, needs
not the outward scriptures, creatures or ordinances of the
church, to support or help them. (I Cor. XIII. IO-12 ;
1 John II. 17; 1 Cor. I 15, 16; Rev. XXI. 23) seeing he
has three witnesses in himself, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost, which are better than all Scriptures, or
creatures whatsoever.
LXIV
That as Christ who was above the law notwithstanding
was made under the law, for our cause, so the regenerate in
APPENDIX H 245
love to others, can and will do no other than use the out-
ward things of the church, for the gaining and supporting
of others; and so the outward church and ordinances are
always necessary for all sorts of persons whatsoever (Matt.
III. 15; XXVIII. 19, 20; 1 Cor. VIII. 9).
LXV
That the new creature although he be above the law and
scriptures, yet he can do nothing against the law or scrip-
tures, but rather all his doings shall serve to the confirming
and establishing of the law (Rom. III. 31). Therefore he
can neither lie nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor kill, nor
hate any man, or do any other fleshly action, and therefore
all fleshly libertinism is contrary to regeneration, detestable,
and damnable. (Rom. VI, 15, 16, 18; 2 Pet. II. I 8, 19 ;
John VIII, 34 ; I John V. I8) -
- LXVI
That the visible church is a mystical figure outwardly of
the true spiritual visible church, which consists of the
spirits of just and perfect men only, that is of the regener-
ate. (Rev. I. 20 ; XXI. 2.)
LXVII
That the outward church visible consists of penitent and
believing men, as much as men can judge thereof, who
bring forth fruits worthy amendment of life (1 Tim. VII.
3-5; 2 Tim III. 5-IO ; Acts XIX. 4); although hypocrites
and feigners are often hidden among the penitent.
LXVIII &
That repentance is the change of the mind from evil to
that which is good (Matt. III. 2), a sorrow for sin com-
mitted, with a humble heart for the same ; and a resolution
to amend for the time to come, with an unfeigned endeavour
therein. (2 Cor. VII. 8, 1 I ; Jer. XXXI. 18, 19.)
LXIX
That when we have done all that we can we are unprofit-
able servants, and all our righteousness is a stained cloth
246 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
(Luke XVII. Io), and that we can only suppress and lop
off the branches of sins, but the root of sin we cannot pluck
up out of our hearts (Jer. IV. 4 ; Deut. XXX. 6, 7.)
LXX
That faith is a knowledge in the mind of the doctrine of
the law and gospel contained in the prophetical and apos-
tolical scriptures of the Old and new testament, accom-
panying repentance with an assurance that God, through
Christ, will perform unto his promise of remission of sins,
and mortification, upon the condition of our unfeigned
repentance, and amendment of life (Acts II. 38, 39; Heb.
II. I ; Matt. I. I 5) d
LXXI
That all penitent and faithful Christians are brethren in
the communion of the outward church, wheresoever they
live, by what name soever they are known, be they Roman
Catholics, Lutherns, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Brownists,
Anabaptists, or any other pious Christians, who in truth
and zeal follow repentance and faith, though compassed
with never so many ignorances and infirmities, and we
salute them all with a holy kiss, being heartly grieved that
we who follow after one faith, and one spirit, one Lord, and
one God, one body, and one baptism, should be rent into so
many sects and schisms, and that only for matters of no
11]Olnent.
LXXII
That the outward baptism of water is to be administered
only upon such penitent and faithful persons as are (afore-
said) and not upon innocent infants, or wicked persons.
(Matt. III. 23 ; XXVIII. 19, 20 ; John IV. I.)
LXXIII
That in Baptism to the penitent person and believer there
is presented, and figured, the spiritual baptism of Christ,
that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, the baptism
APPENDIX H 247
into the death and resurrection of Christ, even the promise
of the spirit, which he shall assuredly be made partaker of,
if he contiune to the end. *
LXXIV
That in the outward supper which only baptized persons
must partake, there is presented and figured before the eyes
of the penitent and faithful, that spiritual supper, which
Christ makes of his flesh and blood ; which is crucified and
shed for the remission of sins, as the bread is broken and
the wine poured forth, and which is eaten and drunken, as
is the bread and wine bodily, only by those who are flesh of
his flesh, and bone of his bone, in the communion of the
same spirit. (I Cor. XII, 13; Aps III. 20; I Cor. XXI.
23, 26; John VI. 53, 58.)
LXXV
That the outward baptism and supper do not confer and
convey grace and regeneration to the participants Or CO111-
municants (see Art. 61), but as the word preached they
serve only to support and stir up the repentance and faith
of the communicants till Christ comes, till the day dawns,
and the day-star arises in their hearts. (I Cor. XI. 26 ;
2 Peter I. 9 ; I Cor. XV. 8)
LXXVI
That the sacraments have the same use that the word
has ; that they are a visible word, and that they teach the
eye of them that understand as the word teaches the ears of
them who have ears to hear (Pro. XX. I I ), and that there-
fore, they pertain no more to infants than the word does.
LXXVII
That the preaching of the word and ministry of the sac-
raments, represents the ministry of Christ in the spirit,
which teaches, baptises and feeds the regenarate by the
Holy Spirit inwardly and invisibly (See Art. 41).
248 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
LXXVIII
That Christ has set in his outward church two sorts of
ministers : viz., some who are called pastors, teachers or
elders, who administer in the word and sacraments, and
Others who are called deacons, men and women, whose
ministry is to serve tables and wash the saints' feet. (Acts.
VI. 2, 4 ; Phil. I. I ; 1 Tim. III. 2, 8).
LXXIX
That the separating of the impenitent from the outward
communion of the Church is a figure of the eternal re-
jection and reprobation of them that persist impenetent in
sin. (Aps. XXI. 27 ; XXII. I.4, 15 ; Matt. XVI. 16, 18;
Matt. XVIII. I8; John XX. 23 ; Apo. III. I.2).
LXXX
That none are to be separated from the outward com-
munion of the Church but such as forsake repentance, who
deny the power of godliness (2 Tim. III. 5, 18), and that
none are to be rejected for ignorance or errors, or infirmities
as long as they retain repentance and faith in Christ (Rom.
XIV. I ; Thess. V. 14 ; Rom. XVI. 17, 18), but they are
to be instructed with meekness, and the strong are to bear
the infirmities of the weak, and that we are to support one
another through love. 3.
LXXXI
That a man may speak a word against the Son and be
pardoned, that is, a man may err in knowledge of Christ's
history and in matters of the outward church, and be for-
given, doing it in an ignorant zeal ; but he who speaks a
word against the Holy Ghost, that is, after illumination
forsakes repentance and faith in Christ, persecuting them,
trampling under foot the blood of the covenant, returning
with the dog to the vomit, that such shall never be
pardened neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
(Matt. XII. 31, 32 ; Heb. VI. 4).
APPENDIX H 249
LXXXII
That persons separated from the communion of the
church are to be accounted as heathens and publicans
(Matt. XVIII. 17) and that they are so far to be shunned
as they may pullute, notwithstanding being ready to in-
struct them, and to relive them in their wants, seeking by
all lawful means to win them, considering that excommuni-
cation is only for the destruction of the flesh, that the
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (I Cor. V. 5, I I ;
Matt. XIV. 19 ; Luke XV. 12).
LXXXIII
That there is no succession in the outward church but
that all the succession is from heaven, and that the new
creature only has the thing signified, whereof the outward
church and ordinances are shadows (Col. I. 16, 17), and
therefore he alone has power and knows right, how to
administer in the outward church, for the benefit of others
(John VI. 45), yet God is not the God of confusion but of
order, and therefore we are in the outward church to draw
as near the first institution as may be, in all things, there-
fore it is not lawful for every brother to administer the
word and sacraments. (Eph. IV. I I, 12 ; I Cor. XII,
4, 5, 6, 28, 29).
LXXXIV
That Christ has set in his outward church the vocation of
master and servant, parents and children, husband and wife
(Eph. V. 22, 23 ; VI. I, 4, 5, 9, and has commanded every
soul to be subject to the higher power, not because of
wrath only, but for conscience sake, that we are to give
them their duty, as tribute, and custom, honour and fear
(Rom. XIII. I, 2, 3, 7), not speaking evil of them that are
in authority (Jud. 8) but praying and giving thanks for
them (I Tim. II. I, 2, 3) for that it is acceptable in the
sight of God our Saviour.
250 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
LXXXV -
That the office of the magistrate is a disposition or per-
missive ordinance of God (Rom. XIII. I.) for the good of
mankind (I Pet, II, 13; 1 Sam. VIII. 5, 22), that one
man like the brute beasts devours not another, and that
justice and civility may be preserved among men ; and that
a magistrate may so please God in his calling in doing that
which is righteous and just in the eyes of the Lord, that he
may bring an outward blessing upon himself, his posterity
and subjects (2 Kings X. 30). -
LXXXVI
That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to med-
dle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force and
compel men to this or that form of religion or doctrine, but
to leave Christian religion free to every man’s conscience,
and to handle only civil transgessions (Rom. XIII. 3, 4),
injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adul-
tery, theft, etc. for Christ only is the King and Lawgiver
of the church and conscience. (James IV. I2).
LXXXVII
That if the magistrate will follow Christ and his diciple,
he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow Christ;
he must love his enemies and not kill, pray for them and
not hate them, feed and comfort them, but not let them die
from hunger ; he must visit them in prison but not im-
prison them, not banish them, nor dismember them and
spoil their good. He must suffer persecution with Christ,
be slandered, reviled, blasphemed, scourged, buffed, spit
upon, imprisoned, and killed with Christ ; and that by the
authority of the magistrate, which things he cannot possible
do, and retain the revenge of the sword.
LXXXVIII
That the diciples of Christ, the members of the outward
church are to judge all their cause of differences among
themselves, and they are not to go to law before the magis-
APPENDIX H 251
trates (I Cor. VI. 17), and that all their differences must
be ended by yea and nay, without an oath (Matt. V. 33 ;
James V. 1 2).
• LXXXIX
That the diciples of Christ, the members of the outward
church, may not marry any of the profane or wicked, god-
less people of the world, but that everyone is to marry in
the Lord (I Cor. 39, 40), every man one only wife, and
every woman one only husband. (I Cor. VII. 2 ; Acts
XIII).
YC
That parents are bound to bring up their children in in-
struction and information of the Lord (Eph. VI. 4), and
that they are to provide for their family, otherwise they
deny the faith, and are worse than infidels (Tim. V. 8).
XCI
That notwithstanding of the Lord shall give any man
special calling, as Simon, and Andrew, James and John,
then they must leave all, father, ship, nets, wife, children,
yea, and life also to follow Christ. (Luke X. 4-26;
Mark IV. I 8.
XCII
That in the necessities of the church, and poor brethren,
all things are to be common (Acts IV. 32), yea and that
one church is to administer to another in time of need.
(Gal. II, Io; Acts XI. 30 ; 2 Cor. VIII. 29).
XCIII
That all the bodies of all men who are dead, shall by the
power of Christ, be raised up, out of his own proper seed,
as corn out of the seed rotting in the earth.
XCIV
That these who live in the last day shall not die, but
shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trumpet (I Cor. XV. 52), for the trump shall
252 HISTORY OF THE FREE CHURCHMEN
blow, and the dead shall be raised up incorruptible, and we
shall be changed, not in substance but in qualities, for the
bodies shall rise in honour, in power, in incorruption, and
and spiritual, being sown in dishonour, in weakness, in
corruption, and natural. (I Cor. XV, 42, 44),
XCV
That the bodies being raised up, shall be joined to the
Souls, whereto formerly they were united, which till that
time were preserved in the hands of the Lord. (Apo. VI,
9 ; Job XIX. 25, 27.)
XCVI
That it is appointed to all men that they shall once die,
and then comes the judgment (Heb. IX. 27), and that the
change of them who live in the earth at the last day, shall
be as it were a death unto them. (I Cor, XV. 1 2 ; 1 Thess.
IV, 15, 17.)
XCVII
That there shall be a general and universal day of judg-
ment when everyone shall receive according to the things
that are done in the flesh, whether they be good or evil
(2 Cor. V. Io; Acts XVII. 31).
XCVIII
That of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the
angels in heaven, neither the Son himself, but the Father
only (Mark XIII. 3). But at that time, whether revealed
into the church or not, we dare not say anything positively.
XCIX
That Christ that man shall be judge in that day (Acts
XVII. 31) that he shall come in the cloud with glory, and
all his holy angels with him (Mat. XXV), with a shout,
and with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of
God (1 Thess, IV. 16), and he shall sit upon the throne of
his glory, and all nations shall be gathered before him, and
APPENDIX H 253
he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd
separates the sheep from the goats, setting the sheep on his
right hand and the goats on the left. (Mat, XXV.)
C
That the King shall say to the sheep, the regenerate,
which are on his right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you before the
foundation of the world,” and it shall be performed accord-
ingly, (Mat, XXV.)
CI
That the King shall say to them on his left hand, the
goats, the wicked ones ‘‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” and
it shall be accomplished accordingly,
CII
That after the judgment ended and accomplished, and
the last enemy, that is death, being put under the feet of
Christ, then the Son himself shall deliver up the kingdom
into the hands of the Father, and shall be subject unto
him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. XV, 24).
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GRADUATE LIBRARY
*DATE DUE

sfºrºsii
OCI 1791–
***
sº [ºf C-4-1971-
* ..s.. . . . ** * . *.*. ºf i < ||
- ' ' ' ' . . . . . . . . . .” - J
vº: , ‘- ~" . . . . . . . . . - - - - 2

Liliili
3 9015 053629476
*** *-*--——----------- - - -
--
DD NOT REMDWE
DR
M|T|LATE [ARD
-∞
r.sae， ， ， ，*，* †§§
-：£ € ± ≠ ≠ſaeaeaeaeaeae§§§
############********¿¿.*¿¿.
ſº, ſº ºgºffaetº， ºſºa", "...“ （„ , ; * *. ^^， º, , ， , , ， , ， ， , , ，-
ſkř3:;;，,,。、、、、、、、 、 ' : · · · · · · ·* … ， ,~^
（***）*******ț¢.*ş;ſ&gºbaeaeae
*º.º.º.º. º.º.º.º.º.º.º.º.º.，sº ºººººººººaerº， ºſº.º.， º， ºrºſºſ
* * * * *- ſ nº
Ģ
， -，&× × × × × × ×
... * *º .…！ ！ ！! 4
?
w º º§ 1. - S - 3 ， ！și º ş ， ， ， ，
¡ ¿eº ： （*） ≤ ≥ ≡■ *-
ſae：|×Ķſſº ºzºg，
· -ſ-saº-2,±，±,±，±,±,±）,
·…“... - ? . .- -
ºſa a， …“
-”… .' . .
， ！
… …， ¿º º
* * ·
• • • • • • p.
& & & * * ·
º • q r ≤ ∞ × s）
：، ، ،
º " ！：
ſ. （T. aeº. ：） Aº º * *
..“ º.ººº..ºººº... .
* * · * * * *
... * №
~--~O º·
* * · · · · ·& ſ & z
...º.º.º. º.º.º.º.* * * * *
* @ ₪） • • • •£ €
∞ √∞ √° √°.'，：
* - * * * · §
U • № ： * * * *
！ € ± − ×
•',', ， ， ºù
', ，'','º'，º.ºººo ：
· ：sr：..， º.º.º.x'e ¿ºº.ººº，）
* .*, *） ），&~º.
* * ſ;
* * * * * * * ſ;
■ ■ ■ ■ £ € © ·
* * · * * * &
€.
* , ， ， ， s
， ， ， ',.' ），
∞
· · eºs ºss，
• • • •“, , , º
3.
gº©* * ,
• … • •
ºv， ºſſºſº".
№vº,& ţ
ae
ſ.ſº º „º
·-sae ， ， ， ，
ſº, ºſae.
º tº， º·
B|}
∞ √∞
s’aº:
* √
·&. ，
× ·
：:：e's' ,
8. №- -*...*.* * * * *
∞
a ºs
�
= −∞ √∞
·-ſae
-- -）
&&-··· -Ō
№ 3,2%-
ſae-··-+ √
ſa sae，--¿
≡ ：-
º.！ºſſ·
* &-º，
··º gaeae∞ √-ſae .№ ſº ſº.º.
-zj#3） **_*}&， # 3.
،|- ſ--ſae
* sº ºğ）-·+ }*« și， ºs
...º aez -, º.º.º., -ě-*§），pae
× × × 7 =ſae§ 13：3，
|---º-º·：：**（pºș”， ș.ae
·-∞·ſºſyº.！！ģ
º ： C， ， ， ，، ، ،~--
، ، ، ، ،º.ſe
* …*ae : ）
ſºſ，***）*）*）
¿¿.*）'）（ *）（.*¿¿.*