enough, there being three, and the church small; although as they had but one deacon, there might be need in that direction. It was also suggested that there was nobody fit for the office. The pastor named M. Bellot. It was answered that he was not fit. The Elders then requested the brethren "to bring their exceptions against him." It was replied that there was no warrant to object thus against a man who was not chosen. But the Elders appointed the next Thursday at 1 o'clock to hear what objections the church had to Bellot's becoming an Elder! 157 On that occasion a paper signed by twenty-two male members of the church was handed in, asserting that there is no rule or practice in the Scriptures to bring in exceptions before election be made; with these three "grounds for ye contrary practise," viz.: (1) It is taught that there should be trial of an Elder; (2) he must be found blameless; (3) hands must not suddenly be laid on all which "proveth a consideration or tryal betweene election and ordination; which same appeareth by Acts vi: 2-6, and i: 21-26." After prophesying this was discussed, and Bellot again urged, and again objected to as "not fitt." The subject was resumed, after exercise, on the next Sabbath evening, and another attempt made by the Elders to secure the choice of their nominees, both for Deacons and Elder, with like result of failure. Still another attempt followed, on the 19th February, and the brethren continuing of the same mind, the subject dropped for the time; 158 George Johnson calling attention to the significant fact that instead of allowing the Church to have its way and yielding "to receive the best," the Elders deferred the election until such time as they might see the way clear to secure in some way the choice of their own candidates.'59 A lull of tolerable amity between all parties now ensued for about three months, only endangered by the circumstance that poor G. J. was driven "thorow very great striuing and much hardnes to perform the duety" of laboring once more with Mrs. F. J.-this time about "a veluet hoode-such as none but ye richest, finest and proudest sorte do vse.' His letter to her winds up, as follows: "I condemne not velvets or silkes; but in you the Pastors wife, and in ye poor banished estate of 159 Ibid, 156. "Till at length they got yr will, as after ward wil apeare." this remnant, such attire will open ye adversaries mouth, discomfute ye ungodly, discredit ye Ghospell, and dishonour God; if therefore their be any vertue, and love in you, thinke on these things." 160 But, on the whole, this was tolerably received, and through the intervention of brother-in-law Thomas Bishop, the peace was maintained. On the 25th June, the subject of the choice of Jacob Johnson as deacon came up again, and it appeared that a man deeply interested 16 had been aided by others who felt strongly to go over to England after testimony; and that he had brought back a letter signed by three London brethren,163 to the effect that Jacob Johnson had "apostated." 164 A hot discussion ensued, and the election dropped once more. The old clothes controversy now revived, and after several seasons of storm, on Friday, 4 August, 1598, six brethren (including two of the Elders, and brother-in-law Bishop) waited upon George at his chamber, to know if he purposed to receive the sacrament on the following Sunday; saying that “many would not partake if he did." 165 He says that "for peace sake he yeelded to them herein." 166 It seems a little odd that, attending the meeting on the next Thursday, expecting to reply — as he had been warned-to former general matters of complaint, he was required to give the reasons of his absence from the sacra ment. However he gave them, and John Nicholas "gibed him." Ainsworth followed, "dilating upon a greeke worde." 167 On the ensuing Thursday George gave his reasons; which were, for substance, that "before sacrifice is to be offered, reconciliation is to be sought." [Matt. v: 23, etc.169] Several meetings followed, the main topic being his "overcariage and contentious dealing" against the pastor's wife, 160 Ibid, 157, 158. 161 Wm. Asplin. Ibid, 159. 16 Thomas Michel, I. Phelps, M. Shepheard, Rob. Bailey, etc. Ibid, marg. note. 163 Henry Pratt, Leuis Jenkins, Rob. Bailey. Tid, 160. 164 My impression is that, while more sometimes might be included in this word, a man would be said by them to have "apostated," | if he should have returned even for a single half-day to the service of the Established Church. See what F. Johnsen in another place says about Stanley Mercer in this connection. Inquirie and Ans. of Tho. White, etc., 45. 165 Thus early the illogical and silly notion that a believer, in communing with his Lord and with the church, in some way endorses the conduct of any to his thought unworthily partaking with him, shows itself within the Congregational body. 166 Ibid, 164. 167 Ibid, 166. which he declared was due admonition merely, and that the people of Israel "so accounted of Jeremy, yet it was not so." 169 It was finally insisted that he should repent, or be excommunicated, when he "tolde them he then appealed to another church for help; desiering them to stay their excommunication and let another church hear and determine betweene them." The Pastor asked "what church he would appeal to? He said the church of Norwich. The Pastor said it was Popish to appeal to another church. M. Studley spake disdainfully of that church."" G. J. answered that if it were Popish to appeal to one he would appeal to the Reformed Churches, as he could find means thereunto." 172 This early proposition for an Advisory Council — although in strict accordance with the 38th Article of the Confession of the Church—found little favor. The pastor anticipated history by intimating to the brethren that the course proposed would make one church subject to another, and that it would be a disgrace to them not to be able to end their troubles within themselves.'73 I have intimated that this narrative of George Johnson terminates abruptly. It ends before it has recounted all the steps over which the final act of excommunication was reached. We know, however, that their old father went over to Holland in the hope of making peace, and that eventually — the one perhaps in 1599, the other in 1602," both the father and younger brother were cast out of the church of which the elder brother 169 Ibid, 171-201. 170 It would seem that Browne's labors at Norwich, in addition to the church which emigrated, bore fruit on the ground, in a church which maintained, at least for several years, existence in that city, and of which a Mr. Hunt was for a time pastor. Ibid, 205. 171 Johnson intimates that Studley had his own reasons for being dissatisfied with this Norwich church, because it had censured him at a previous date. Ibid, 205. 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid, 206. 174 He says-his book is dated 1603"which excommunication we haue thorow Gods strength endured above 4. yeres;" which would throw back the date of it to 1598 or 1599. [Ibid, 29.] Lawne's Prophane Schisme of the Brownists, etc. (1612), contains a document signed by four Amsterdam ministers, of date 18 November, 1602, referring to the case of the old man. [60.] Dr. Stuart of Edinburgh who seems to have studied this subject in his day with more care than any other writer, says, in his Some Account of the Author, prefixed to his edition of Ainsworth's treatises of the Communion of Saints and An Arrow against Idolatry, etc. (1789), that "about 1598, or 1599, George Johnson, his father, and some members of the church who adhered to him, were put away on account of their behaviour," etc. [xxix.] Bishop Hall speaks of his [G. J.'s] “pittifull relation of his eight yeares quarrels with him [F. J.] and foure yeares excommunication," etc. Common Apologie, etc. (1610), 42. was Pastor.75 The final handling of the matter lasted through twelve weeks.176 The advice and help of the Reformed Churches seem also to have been invoked, but, as I must judge, in the nature of an ex-parte counselling, to which the Pastor and Elders did not assent - certainly to whose result they paid no heed." George Johnson says-for in his peculiar manner of constructing his book, he gives the result before undertaking to recount all the processes by which it was reached: "When none would pronounce the sentence of excommunication against G. J. [he] being present, and shewing how by Gods worde, they could not in good conscience do it: yea, when they had striven about an houre who should do it and none would; then he (I say) [that is F. J.] in his fury and rage vexing stood vp and said he would pronounce it, and so he did; whereby he became (as he 175 Hoornbeek, writing at Utrecht in 1653, says: "Sed Iohnsono [i. e. F. J.] viro admodum contentioso, neque cum Fratre primùm Georgio, tum nec cum Parente benè conveniebat, quem utrumque etiam excommunicavit." Summa Controversiarum, etc. (ed. 1658), 740. 176" When G. J. stood forth against their sins, they brake off the small benevolence which weekly he had received, so as in 12. weekes space (while ye matter was last in hädling) he received not any, but lived in great necessity." Discourse, etc., 37. 177 Baillie says: he "rejected peremptorily the mediation of the Presbytery of Amsterdam for reconciliation." Dissuasive, etc., 15. See also Prophane Schisme, etc., 60. 178 Discourse, etc., 76. "un 179 In considering the manner in which both Gov. Bradford and John Robinson speak of George Johnson, we must, in fairness, remember that as he was in his grave before they ever saw Amsterdam, they were dependent solely upon hearsay evidence for their estimate of him. Bradford speaks, to be sure, only in a general way, leaving his reader to infer his opinion from such phrases as: reasonable and endless opposition," "who can escape the scourge of tongues," etc. [Dialogue Bet. Cert. Young Men & Cert. Anct. Men, | etc., Young's Chron. Plym., 446, 449]; and Robinson but adopts Bernard's reproachful description: "George becoming (as Mr. B. chargeth him) a disgraceful libeller." [Justification of Separation, etc. (1610), 55.] Per haps it is worthy of notice, in this connection, that although Bernard [Separatists Schisme, 35] does use that language, in another place in the same volume, he adopts toward G. J. an entirely different tone; says he "is to be beleeued;" and advises his reader: "If thou canst possiblie, get his booke." [158.] Dr. Waddington [Cong. Hist., ii: 191] calls him "a restless monomaniac." But he had never seen his "rambling book," and judged him solely by the reports of those who did not live at peace with him. 180 This is patent from George's own narrative; while Ainsworth, in 1608, said that he was "for lying, and slandering, false accusation and contention, himselfe cast out of our Church." Counterpoyson, etc. (ed. 1642), 30. 181 It has been represented that George, on his return to England, went back to the Establishment, and died at Durham about 1605, in its communion. [Athena Cantabrigienses, ii: 435. But his brother Francis says, in 1606: "Of late going into England, he was there taken and put in prison for this cause, where he died under their hands," saying also, "he did not leave, or contrary, our generall cause and testimony against the Church of England." [Inquirie and Answer of Thomas White, etc., 61.] Clyfton also gives similar testimony, saying that he died at Durham, and occupied himself in prison "in finishing the book which he had begunne, and whereof some sheets are printed." Advertisement concerning a Book lately published by Christopher Lawne, etc., 14. had beene party, accuser and iudge, so) also pronouncer and executioner of the sentence in his wifes, and his own case.' It is clear that all this testimony of George Johnson ought to be well salted with the remembrance of his many peculiarities," and it is fair also here to call to mind the fact that the estimable Ainworth 180 seems, in the main, to have sided with his brother against him. Yet one can hardly persevere through his tedious quarto, without being strongly impressed with the conviction that, with all his whimsicalities and weaknesses, he always meant to tell the truth; and that a good deal of truth important to be taken into any fairly complete estimate of the working of Barrowism at Amsterdam, has gotten itself told. through his garrulous pen. It is pleasant to note also that after his death even his brother Francis speaks of him in a way to imply general confidence in his character. 181 We may at least be grateful to him for acting as a reporter for us of so many of the minute details of the working of Seperatism in Amsterdam in its earlier developments, in the days when the night-shadows of the sixteenth century were flushing with the dawn of the seventeenth. |