Feature

The Pilgrims, Leiden, and the Early Years of Plymouth Plantation - Chapter 2, page 2

by Dr. Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs

Amsterdam, 1608

- Weddings in 1608 and 1609
- Scandals among the Brethren
- The English Reformed Church in the Begijnhof
- John Smyths Further Separation and Self-baptism
- Debate between John Smyth and Richard Clyfton
- Deciding to Move to Leiden

Weddings in 1608 and 1609

Exactly when the refugees from the Gainsborough-Scrooby group began to arrive in Amsterdam is uncertain. Those left behind in England got across on their own as the months passed.²⁷ The first arrivals had settled in at least to some extent by July 5, 1608, when Henry Cullandt registered his marriage with Margariete Grymsdiche.²⁸ Marriage registration took place in an office of the town government located in the former sacristy of the Oude Kerk (Old Church, dedicated to St. Nicholas), where all couples had to pass through a red door with the admonition inscribed above it, "Hastily wedded is long regretted."²⁹ Both Henry and Margaret were thirty years old. They had been living since Christmas (1607) on Uilenburg, one of Amsterdam's new islands crowded with small houses for poor laborers. He came from Sutton and she was from Lound, the two villages that shared a parish church whose vicar was James Brewster. Cullandt presented written certification from Richard Clyfton, who was still acting as curate in Sutton at this time, that the bans had been proclaimed there. Margaret produced a letter from her grandfather, granting consent. (Her parents must have been dead, but it still seems odd that consent was required for the marriage of a woman aged thirty.) Marriage usually took place about three weeks after the first reading of the banns. In this situation it seems that the flight from England intervened and resulted in an unusual delay. Cullandt needed to re-establish himself with employment before he could start a family. His pastor, Richard Clyfton, managed to get to Amsterdam himself by August, 1608.³⁰

The Ancient Brethren probably provided housing at first — some of the first shipload of refugees from the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire group had no money with them, after all. But we see in the record of the marriage on April 11, 1609, of William Jepson, age 26, and Rosamund Horsefield, age 28, both from Worksop, that he had been living on the Breedstraet (Broad Street, now called the Jodenbreestraat, or "Jews' Broad Street") for six months. She, on the other hand, had been living for nine months in the Jan Hanssen Pad (Jan Hannsen Path).³¹ They were married on April 11, 1609. Rosamund had found her place to live by July, 1608. This detail from the Jepson-Horsefield marriage is enough to suggest that the dramatic escape from England in 1608 occurred in May or June. Archbishop Toby Matthew's sermon at Bawtry in May, 1608, may have been an angry response to the recent escape, intended to warn anyone remaining against leaving.

William Jepson was identified in the marriage record as a house carpenter. He could find construction work around the edges of Amsterdam, where new houses were filling empty spaces brought within the city walls over a decade earlier with an expectation of population growth. Whether Jepson had been a house carpenter full-time before is unknown. He might have been a farmer, choosing to emphasize in Amsterdam just one of the many skills that farmers had to develop. (Every competent farmer had the carpentry skills to build or repair a shed or even a barn.) The other immigrants needed to find work, too, but Amsterdam's guild rules were protective and exclusive.³² Day jobs were available, albeit unpredictable and poorly paid. One of Rosamund Horsefield's neighbors in the Jan Hannsen Path, Francis Pigett, a member of the Ancient Brethren, was a hodcarrier — a laborer who spent the day carrying bricks from stacks directly unloaded from barges over to where a brick-layer needed them. Few jobs paid less. Pigett, from "Axon" (probably Oxton near Bilsthorp and Southwell) married Margriet Struts from Bedford on August 30, 1608.³³

For many of the refugees, finding work was very difficult. Loading and unloading ships offered irregular jobs, as did construction work, but it was not easy for foreigners to get a chance among the informally organized gangs of locals speaking an incomprehensible language. A few of the English worked in the textile industry. James Hurstie, from Retford, was a "bombazijne worker" according to the record of his marriage on October 4, 1608, to Gertrude Benniser, also from Retford.³⁴ He was 26 and she was 23; they both lived in an alley called the Treefts Steech. Bombazijne was cloth mixing cotton and linen as warp and weft. It was used for lining material in clothing, and for coarse underwear. Borat was another mixed-weave cloth that combined silk and wool, used for stockings and some other soft clothing, including light over-mantels. John Murton from Gainsborough, who married Jenne Hodgkin from "Worchen" on August 23, 1608, was listed as a borat worker.³⁵ Because these new immigrants could not have joined guilds (for which local residence of a year and a day was a prerequisite), they must have been employed by Englishmen who had already been in Amsterdam for some time and who either had developed businesses unregulated by guilds or had assimilated to the point of being accepted as guild members.

Theology, however, got in the way of employment. The principle of Separation meant that the truly godly should not associate at all with the not quite so truly godly. Even accepting charity could pose an ethical dilemma, let alone taking employment.³⁶ Deciding the character and biblical orthodoxy of the Ancient Brethren required alert scrutiny.

Scandals among the Brethren

The Ancient Brethren had a reputation for contentiousness, although by 1608 a leading trouble-maker had died and calm had temporarily returned to the congregation. Peace lasted until the split of Johnsonians and Ainsworthians in 1610. Rumors of unrest persisted. Sharp-eyed care for each others souls was essential to the covenanted life. Each member of the congregation expected to contribute to the social control that constituted "Christian discipline" within the godly group. Francis Johnson had scandalized friends and foes not too long ago, however, when he had ex-communicated his brother George, and then even ex-communicated his own father, who had come over to Amsterdam to reconcile the brothers.³⁷ Evidently most of the congregation supported their minister's decision to exclude George, whom they described as suffering from "crackbrainednes."³⁸ But to outsiders, the excommunication of their father was an unprecedented example of harsh disregard for filial piety.

The friction arose as an expression of George's envy regarding the wealth inherited by Thomasine Boyes, the tailor's widow who married his brother Francis in 1594, while Francis was imprisoned in London. George, irked by his new sister-in-law's fortune of £ 300/-/-, decided that he was called upon to let her know that the fine clothing and jewelry she had worn in her first marriage were not fitting for the wife of an imprisoned minister. Sanctimoniously he wrote to her directly, not wanting to trouble his brother with the matter, he said, but offering her the chance to repent and mend her ways.³⁹ Mrs. Johnson passed the letter on to her husband, who was, expectably, infuriated at George's meddling. An uneasy reconciliation smoothed matters for several years, but George, his feelings still rankling, raised his objections again in Amsterdam. This time, having met with rebukes and then ex-communication, he took to the press to publish his complaints (1603). Having only the highest of moral motivations, and thoughtfully following the Bibles injunction to take care that one's brother's possessions not be exposed to harm (the possession in this case being Francis's wife!), George Johnson painted a vivid picture of what it was that caught his attention, particularly, tightly laced bodices and, especially, exposed white breasts.

"First, the wearing of a long busk after the fashion of the world contrary to Rom. 12. 2, I Tim. 2. 9. 10.⁴⁰ 2. Wearing of the long white brest after the fashion of yong dames, and so low she wore it, as the vvorld call them kodpeece brests. Contrary to the former places, and also to I. Pet. 3. 3 [.] 4. 5.⁴¹ 3. Whalebones in the bodies of peticotes Contrary to the former rules, as also against nature, being as the Phisitians affirme hinderers of conceiving or procreating children. 4. Great sleeves sett out with whalebones which the world cal […] Contrary to the former rules of modesty, and shamefastnes. 5. Excesse of lace vpon them after the fashion of yong Marchants vvives. Contrary to the rules of modesty. 6. Foure or five gould Rings on at once. Contrary to the former rules in a Pastors vvife. 7. A copple crowned hatt with a tvvined band, as yong Marchants vvives, and yong Dames vse. Immodest and toyish in a Pastors vvife. Contrary also to the former rules. 8. Tucked aprons, like round hose: contrary likewise to the former rules. 9. Excesse in rufs, laune coives, muske, and such like things: contrary to I. Tim. 2. 9, I. Peter. 3. 3, forbidding costly apparel. 10. The painted Hipocritical brest, shewing as if there were some special workes, and in truth nothing but a shadow. Contrary to modesty, and sobriety. 11. Bodies tied to the peticote with points, as men do their dublets to their hose. Contrary to I. Thes. 5. 22. conferred with Deut. 22 [. 5], I. Iohn 2. 16.⁴² 12. Some also reporte that she laid forth her heare also Contrary to I. Tim. 2. 9, I. Pet. 3.3."⁴³

Excommunicated, George Johnson appealed for redress to ministers of the Dutch and Walloon Reformed Churches of Amsterdam. The four ministers who thus became acquainted with the details of this friction within the English Separatist community were Jean de Vigne, Petrus Plancius, Jacobus Arminius, and Simon Goulart. None was well impressed, especially after their previous antagonistic experiences with these "Brownists," but they pointed out that they had no jurisdiction in the matter and that this sect was not recognized by them as a church.⁴⁴ George Johnson then returned to England, where he was arrested for sedition and died in prison at Durham before 1606.

The scandal was not easily forgotten. Christopher Lawne and other former members of the congregation, writing about it in 1612, expressed horror regarding Francis Johnson's act of excommunicating his own father — "done against such a father as had bin at so great cost in bringing vp his son to learning, & he to vse his Sophistrie, euen against his Father: how vile! Thus to iudge and condemne his father, who also with so much labor, cost and griefe had sued to sundry Iudges and nobles in England for releasing of that son; as may appear by the generall copies of those humble petitions and supplications which Iohn Iohnson made for his sons Francis and George vnto the high Commissioners; and to others."⁴⁵ Francis Johnson was a rigidly self-righteous ingrate.

But this was not all. In 1606, some church members accused one of their deacons, Daniel Studley, of molesting his wife's daughter by a previous marriage. Studley was said to have given his wife a "blew eye" and to have beaten her when she protested. Moreover, Studley had a reputation as a philanderer. When found hidden behind a basket at the house of a woman in the congregation, Judith Holder, he claimed he was waiting to spy on the man who discovered him, who, Studley insinuated, must have come to her house with unholy intentions. His opponents found it telling that Studley would "never so much as denie the matter of Incest with his wiues daughter." Francis Johnson, Jacob Johnson, Henry Ainsworth, Francis Blackwell, Daniel Studley, Christopher Bowman (like Blackwell, a deacon), John Nicholas, Judith Holder, William Barbons, and Thomas Bishop sued Thomas White, a former Church of England clergyman who had briefly joined the Ancient Brethren and, appalled, had become Studley's most vocal accuser. They charged White and his wife Rose with slander, and had the Whites possessions put under arrest. But when the accusers did not appear for the hearing, Amsterdam's court found in White's favor. White and his wife considered this to be proof that their accusations against Studley were upheld. They counter-sued. The court cleared them and rescinded the arrest, because of the non-appearance of the accusers, and condemned the Ancient Brethren to pay the court costs. As White put it, "There is no Sect in Amsterdam (though manie) in such contempt for filthie life, as the English (viz., the Brownists) are."⁴⁶ White was obviously unsympathetically biased.

Francis Johnson and his associates accepted Studley's extenuations of his behavior, and clearly it is possible that the reason he did not deny the incest of which he was accused is that he was innocent and believed his innocence should be a sufficient answer. Whether he ever answered the question, "have you stopped beating your wife?" is unrecorded. Reading about it solely from the viewpoint of his detractors, it seems likely that Studley was a sanctimonious, hypocritical, violent sexual molester. Certain about Studley it is, that on March 23, 1593, he had been imprisoned in London for his Separatist beliefs and on that date was condemned to death. Instead of being killed, however, he was sent with his fellow condemned prisoner Francis Johnson to help found a colony on an island in the St. Lawrence River. When one of the expedition's ships foundered, the other turned back to London. Johnson and Studley managed to escape by going into exile in Amsterdam. Johnsons friendship dated back to shared dangers. Some of the Amsterdam congregation also held Studley in esteem, perhaps excusing crimes because of the oppression he had survived for the cause of Separatism.

The English Reformed Church in the Begijnhof

Amsterdam was home to many non-refugee Englishmen who did not want to be associated in any way with the notoriously unregulated, legalistic antics of the Ancient Brethren. Largely to ensure that they not be confused with such goings-on, an alternative, officially recognized congregation was inaugurated in January, 1607 — the English Reformed Church.⁴⁷ The church was organized like the other foreigh-language Reformed churches — the Walloon (French Reformed, Huguenot) Church, and the German Reformed Church. Amsterdam's town government subsidized the minister's salary and assigned to the congregation the use of a church building, in this case the former Béguinage Chapel. In such Reformed churches, the magistrates had final choice from the congregation's nominees for its officers, from pastor to deacon. Usually the magistrates confirmed the congregation's preferred candidates. Such government involvement was, obviously, the direct opposite of the congregational organization, independence, and separation that the refugees held to be essential to a true church. In the first years, however, this system was not applied in the English Reformed Church, whose congregation elected its elders and deacons without apparently having to submit candidates to the civil government. The congregation was about as independent as could be imagined, but they did not consider themselves separated from or outside the Church of England in general. For this the Separatists considered them not a true church. Amsterdam's English Church still exists, affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Its services are still held in the chapel granted by the city in 1607.⁴⁸

The first sermon was preached on February 3, 1607, by John Paget, in the presence of Petrus Plancius, a leading strict Calvinist among Amsterdam's Reformed clergy (who was, besides, a famous cartographer), and also in the presence of Amsterdam's "Schout" (sheriff, chief prosecutor, and president of the court).⁴⁹ Official approval of this church was re-emphasized a month and a half later when, on March 16, Paget was consecrated pastor by laying on of hands by John Douglas, "a Lawful preacher" and by "D[ominee] Petrus Plancius and some of the Elders of the Reformed Dutch Church in the name of all the whole Church and congregation of this City."⁵⁰ This induction occurred "with prayer and thanks unto God and also according to the word of God." Paget was "confirmed and fastened in his place and calling in will, consent, and presence of the whole congregation, and many Dutch Citizens understanding the English tongue." The laying-on of hands by Plancius and Dutch Reformed elders meant that this English Reformed Church was within the Reformed community, not separate and outside the national church.

John Smyths Further Separation and Self-baptism

Despite their reputation, in 1608, the Separatist congregation that the recent arrivals from England encountered was a group living in increasing strength and apparent harmony. Almost certainly the Ancient Brethren helped the newcomers survive. The refugees, however, were alert to the possibility that Francis Johnson's congregation might not have achieved perfection. Whether the arrival of the ministers — Smyth, Clyfton, and Robinson — led immediately to the re-grouping of a congregation (or congregations) separate from the Ancient Brethren is unknown. These people may have considered their original covenant(s) to define them congregationally in a way that required that they exist independently of that already in Amsterdam. For their early months in Amsterdam, however, clear indications are lacking. Independent congregational identity developed quite soon, whatever the details. Bradford wrote (ca. 1630) that, "when Mr. Robinson, Mr. Brewster, & other principall members were come over, (for they were of ye last, & stayed to help ye weakest over before them,) such things were thought on as were necessarie for their setling and best ordering of ye church affairs."⁵¹

Fairly soon, John Smyth became convinced that Separation was not enough.⁵² By the end of 1608, he had published a tract, The Differences of the Churches of the seperation [sic], in which he indicated how his opinions diverged from what he found among the Ancient Brethren, and in which he justified his as being exclusively the biblically correct view.⁵³ One objection was that churches should be supported only by their own members, whereas the Ancient Brethren had accepted donations from sympathizers in England when news got abroad of the collapse of the church going up in 1606-7.⁵⁴ Smyth's rigidity on this point doomed his congregation to poverty unless they could rely on the generosity of the few wealthy members in the group, such as Thomas Helwys. Consequently, William Bradford's memory (not restricted to Smyth's followers, but also expressing the feelings of those who removed to Leiden) was that "it was not longe before they saw the grim[m]e & grisly face of povertie coming upon them like an armed man, with whom they must bukle & incounter, and from whom they could not flye." Bradford's was the recollection of circumstances resulting partly from theological principle.⁵⁵

Smyth also felt that true worship should not depend on human and therefore imperfect printed devotional material. In this regard, Smyth was taking the Separatists' general rejection of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and extending that rejectionist logic to its most extreme. All translations were imperfect and consequently inadequate. This did not mean that Smyth wanted to allow only unmitigated expression of ineffable spiritual experiences during religious exercises. On the contrary, Smyth seems to have meant that the preacher should read his biblical texts first in Hebrew or Greek and then immediately himself translate and explain the words. Rather than proclaiming a nonsensical and incomprehensible gospel (no Pentacostalist, he), Smyth insisted that whoever preached should be capable of understanding the Bible in its original languages and clearly explain the texts, word by word, to the congregation. Not to do so was to rely on the inevitable mistakes of others, although it was necessary at the same time to acknowledge one's own imperfection in translating or explaining the meaning. But the tract is obscure, and Smyth might have been arguing in favor of fervor without printed guidance as being better than reliance on stultifying standard texts. Using other people's books was relegated to discussion time outside that of "spiritual worship" (a term that evidently meant Sunday morning services, at least). Smyth also objected to the ministerial structure that the Ancient Brethren had learned from Calvin, consisting of pastor, teacher, and two elders (or deacons), besides deaconesses. Smyth argued for equality among the clergy, and that the number should not be so restricted within the congregation. How to reconcile the requirement that preachers be able to expound, working directly from the Hebrew or Greek, with the idea that elders should be equal in preaching capability, appears to be difficult, but it should be remembered that William Brewster, the Pilgrims' Elder in Leiden and in Plymouth Colony, was a layman who was quite capable of the task of working from Hebrew and Greek. Perhaps the other Separatist deacons whom Smyth had in mind could handle this equally well.

Smyth's analytic mind was not satisfied by these observations, and he continued to ponder the logical implications of biblical texts. On consideration, he decided that the sacraments of the Church of England were not only present shams, but that they had always been ineffectual, including the baptism he had received as a child. Only the actions of a true church could have sacramental validity. Looking around him, he found no true church anywhere in the world. This realization must have been both disappointing and at the same time exciting. Baptism was necessary to salvation, he thought, and that belief inspired him to a creative solution that made him notorious. He baptized himself, then baptized those of his followers whom he had convinced with his new insights. With unchecked enthusiasm, Smyth offered re-baptism (anabaptism) to all who would join, while declaring those to be impure, who would not renounce the baptism they had received as infants.

Smyth's spectacular defection with some of the congregation split the émigré group just when it was getting reconsolidated in Amsterdam.⁵⁶ This disintegration inspired most of the newcomers to make arrangements to leave Amsterdam and move to Leiden.

Debate between John Smyth and Richard Clyfton

Early in 1609, soon after Smyth's re-baptism, Smyth engaged Richard Clyfton in an extensive written debate.⁵⁷ Smyth proposed two theses to be debated: (1) "That children should not be baptized"; (2) "that antichristians, having converted, should be admitted into the true church through baptism." Clyfton began his response by expressing regret that he has been forced to write against someone who "was so dear to him" but that he was provoked to action by Smyth's having sent him the two positions or theses in his own handwriting. Describing himself as the least qualified among many, Clyfton still agreed to defend what he took to be the truth. The exchange fills forty-five closely written large folio pages, in which each author supports his position by alleging that particular Bible verses must be interpreted in that person's particular direction.⁵⁸ Often the statements are met by simple denials or contra-assertions, when one or the other did not think that a verse's meaning had been correctly explicated. Much hinges on the correct identification of the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and whether the circumcision of infants in the Old Testament, as a sign of belonging to the Covenant between God and the Hebrews as descendants of Abraham, can be simply interpreted as having been replaced in the New Testament by baptism. If so, then baptism, like circumcision, should be available to infants. Smyth, however, drew a distinction between spiritual descendants and physical descendants. Children of Christians were not capable, as infants, of being spiritual descendants, said Smyth, just as children could not be expected to understand the preaching of the Word; consequently, the analogy of baptism with circumcision logically failed. (Clyfton, of course, objected precisely at the point where the concept "consequently" occurred, and then he denied Smyth's distinction.) Many pages are filled with the syllogistic dissection of the implications that could be drawn from verses to prove opposite opinions, and often the reasoning revolves around the acceptance or rejection of analogies, from which conclusions are derived.

Name-calling started early in the exchange. Clyfton commented that he had read that the position that children should not be baptized had first been defended by Auxentius, who belonged to the Arian sect, and then was supported "by the heretic Pelagius." Augustine and other "Ancient Fathers" had opposed their idea, and had judged it to be unscriptural heresy. "Their justification of infant baptism," said Clyfton, "with God's mercy we shall together with them thus further reveal and test with well-grounded reason from the Word."

Clyfton's first well-grounded reason took this form:

"1) Gen. 17:20. God makes his covenant with Abraham and with his seed, which I explicate thus:

2) The covenant that God made with Abraham, he commanded should be sealed to him and all his seed forever to his children,

3) But the covenant that we receive under the gospel is one and the same that was made with Abraham &c.

4) Therefore, it is commanded to be sealed to us and our seed forever, so thus to our children as it was to Abraham's."

To each of these points Clyfton adduced supportive Bible verses as proof texts, so that each element of his syllogism appeared firmly established and the conclusion irrefutable.

Smyth, however, was undaunted. "You make a special preface about the first point, describing how infant baptism was contradicted by Auxentius the Arian and by Pelagius, whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned as heresy, and that [they accomplished this refuation] according to Scripture. I answer, that then one heretic condemned another, against Scripture according to truth. And if you introduce the Fathers in this point […] I answer, (if to be a heretic is to propound some heresy) I can prove that Augustine, Cyril, Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, and many others are mostly just as gross heretics as Auxentius and Pelagius — and you yourself — , because they are all antichristians, and therefore the old exercise of infant baptism in the old antichristian church is not to be valued any more highly than the old episcopacy and read-prayers. But this is just name-calling; let us see your arguments with scriptural proofs."

Smyth repeats Clyfton's syllogism, then pedantically comments, "I answer thus, first, distinguishing the two covenants or testaments (because a covenant and a testament is one and the same thing in the original, but in the English language they are two words), a covenant was made with Abraham and his carnal seed; and the seal of that covenant was circumcision. Another covenant was made with his spiritual seed, and the seal of that covenant was the Holy Ghost who promised a seal. The spritual covenant had a spiritual promise for the spiritual seed, but the carnal covenant had a carnal seal for the carnal seed, because all things most be made by proportion; and circumcision, which was a carnal seal, could not seal the spiritual covenant, and be for the spiritual seed, because, as, so to speak, [it would be] jumping over the hedge, and a disproportion [would be] made between the sign and the truth. [… ]"

Thus we see that true understanding of the Bible depended on the proper construction of syllogisms; and the proper construction of syllogistic analogies required an understanding of the structure of reality according to such axioms as that the elements of an analogy were required to be "proportional." (God could not have been guilty of a disproportional analogy, according to Smyth.) And when it came down to it, Smyth thought that Augustine, Cyril, Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, and many others were mostly just as gross heretics as Clyfton, but that Smyth himself had finally gotten it right.

Deciding to Move to Leiden

As Bradford remembered it years later, "Mr. Robinson, their pastor, and some others of best discerning, seeing how Mr. John Smith and his companie was allready fallen in to contention with ye church yt was ther before them, & no means they could use would doe any good to cure ye same, and also that ye flames of contention were like to breake out in yt anciente church it selfe (as affterwards lamentably came to pass); which things they prudently foreseeing, thought it was best to remove, before they were any way engaged with ye same; though they well knew it would be much to ye prejudice of their outward estats, both at presente & in licklyhood in ye future; as indeed it proved to be. For these & some other reasons they removed to Leyden, a fair & bewtifull citie, and of a sweete situation, but made more famous by ye universitie wherwith it is adorned, in which of late had been so many learned men."⁵⁹

Bradford's memory simplified the unstable situation. As far as we can tell, the refugees from the Scrooby area had Richard Clyfton as the pastor and Robinson as his assistant (the "teacher") until the move to Leiden. But Smyth had evidently also preached and perhaps administereed the sacraments as an equal to Clyfton. The congregation had not existed in circumstances that allowed it to accomplish more than contemplate fulfilling an ideal, New Testament organizational model. The three ministers, Clyfton, Smyth, and Robinson in England served an oppressed group that shifted from place to place, even if Brewster's house was one of the major places for meetings. When he composed his statement of differences from the practice of the Ancient Brethren, Smyth said that one was that ministers should be equal and not restricted to the limited number and ranks found in Johnson's group. In Amsterdam, Smyth's defection caused the others to decide to leave and move, becoming the Leiden Separatist congregation. Clyfton was considered to belong to that congregation, but he stayed in Amsterdam (perhaps having briefly gone to Leiden), where in 1610 he became Francis Johnson's assistant, at the point where Henry Ainsworth and Francis Johnson diverged and formed two rival congregations.

The decision to move to Leiden must have been made in January, 1609, and that is probably when the argumentative exchange between Smyth and Clyfton should be placed. Preparations for the move to Leiden required visits there, probably by John Robinson and William Brewster. Brewster had been to Leiden before, in 1585-1586, and then he had met at least one of the Leiden officials, the town secretary Jan van Hout, who could be important to the group in 1609. Judging from the documents related to the Pilgrims' permission to move to Leiden, Van Hout was responsible for the wording. In any case, both the application and the answer to it are preserved in the records he kept.

On February 12, Leiden's mayors and magistrates responded to the Pilgrims' written request (submitted previously, in Dutch) by granting permission for the Pilgrims to come to Leiden.⁶⁰

"To the honorable Gentlemen, Mayors and Court of the City of Leiden

With due respect and submission, John Robinson, Minister of God's Word, together with some members of the Christian Reformed Religion, born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and numbering one hundred persons or thereabouts, men and women, inform you that they desire to come to live in this city by the first day of May next, and to receive the citys permission to earn their living by carrying on their various trades, without in the least being a burden to anyone. The petitioners, therefore, address themselves to Your Honors, earnestly praying that Your Honors will be pleased to grant them free and unrestrained permission to betake themselves, as aforesaid. This doing, etc.

"In the margin was noted the resolution: This Court, in making a disposition of the present Request, declare that they do not refuse honest persons permission to come and take up residence in this city, provided that such persons behave themselves honestly, and submit to all the laws and ordinances here, and that, therefore, the coming of the petitioners will be agreeable and welcome to them."

"Thus was resolved (by the Burgomasters) in their session at the Town Hall this 12th of February, 1609.

"In my presence and signed J. van Hout."

Permission had been granted. The Pilgrims could move to Leiden. The next two and a half months would be a mix of ongoing labor with planning and then packing for the move, which they intended to make by the beginning of May, when rent periods terminated and new terms could begin.

---

<< Preface

>> Chapter 2, page 2

>> Download Chapter 2 (229K PDF)