1. Variant spellings of the name “Offwood” include “Ofwod,” “Ofwoode”, and “Affwood”. The name appears as “Offwood” or “Offwoode” in the parish registers of Thornham Magna, Suffolk. I have therefore chosen “Offwood” for use in this essay. See Parish Registers of Thornham Magna, 1555–1593, Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich, Suffolk.

2. Burrage, Champlin, The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research (1550–1641), 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1912), 1: 179–181.Google Scholar For the history of the English Reformed Church of Amsterdam, see Carter, Alice Clare, The English Reformed Church in Amsterdam in the Seventeenth Century (Amsterdam, 1964).Google Scholar

3. Carter, p. 59; and probably [Stephen Goffe to Sir William Boswell], [1633], British Library Additional Manuscript 6394, vol. 1, fol. 146^v, printed in Stearns, Raymond Phineas, Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands: The Rise and Fall of the English Congregational Classis, 1621–1635 (Chicago, 1940), pp. 117–118.Google Scholar

4. Offwood], Stephen Ofwod [, An Advertisement to Jhon Delecluse, and Henry May the Elder ([Amsterdam?, 1632]).Google Scholar This book's irregular pagination and binding cause confusion. The following is a list of text Sections and page designations as they appear in the book accompanied by my alterations in brackets where necessary: “An Advertisement to John Delecluse and Henry May the Elder”, pp. 1–2 [Preface], “Christian Reader”, p. 93 (correct in sequence, but mispaginated), unpaginated page [4] [Letter], “To my loving wife and children”, pp. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (7 and 8 are bound Out of sequence before page [4]); [pt. 1], “Heady and rash censurers seasonably reproved”, pp. 1–45 (page 25 is mispaginated as 27); [pt. 2], [untitled], pp. 45–92 (pp. 84–85 are mispaginated 86–87). Capitalization, spelling, and punctuation have been modernized in quotations when necessary for clarity.

To confirm 1632 as the year the Advertisement was published, see Offwood's marginal notation that reads “reprove of John d'Escluse & May, An. 1632” in O[ffwood], S[tephen], “The Publisher['s] Postscript to the Reader,” in The Opinion, Judgement, and Determination of two reverend, learned, and conformable Divines of the Church of England, concerning bowing at the name, or naming of Jesus ([Amsterdam ?], 1634), p. 79.Google Scholar

5. Paget, John, An Answer to the unjust complaints of William Best (Amsterdam, 1635), pp. 87–88.Google Scholar

6. Stillingfleet, Edward, The Unreasonableness of Separation (London, 1681), pp. 48, 50, 52.Google Scholar

7. Parish Registers of Thornham Magna, 20 February 1555/6, 30 November 1563, 29 October 1564, and 3 May 1567. In the text, all dates are given in old style. In the notes, all dates are given as they appear in the original sources cited; new-style dates in the notes are followed by the letters “N. S.” In both text and notes, old-style dates between 1 January and 25 March have their years split to include the new-style year.

Thomas Offwood died when Stephen was approximately three years old. His will was made on 8 July 1567 and probated before the end of the year. See Will of Thomas Offwood the Younger, 101 Bunne, Norwich Consistory Court Wills, Norfolk Record Office, Norwich; and Farrow, M. A., comp., Index of Wills Proved in the Consistory Court of Norwich… 1550–1603, Norfolk Record Society 21 ([Norfolk], 1950), p. 125.Google Scholar

8. Offwood, , Advertisement, p. 44;Google ScholarBullen, R. Freeman, “Catalogue of Beneficed Clergy of Suffolk, 1551–1631”, Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History 22 (1936): 297, 312.Google Scholar

9. The best accounts of the religious situation in Suffolk from 1570 to about 1585 are Collinson, Patrick, “The Puritan Classical Movement in the Reign of Elizabeth I” (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1957), pp. 860–930;Google Scholar and Smith, A. Hassell, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558–1603 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 201–228.Google Scholar See also Collinson, Patrick, “Magistracy and Ministry: A Suffolk Miniature,” in Reformation, Conformity and Dissent: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Nuttall, ed. Knox, R. Buick (London, 1977), pp. 70–91;Google Scholar and Seaver, Paul S., “Community Control and Puritan Politics in Elizabethan Suffolk”, Albion 9 (Winter 1977): 297–315.Google Scholar For the period 1585 to 1602, see Browne, John, History of Congregationalism and Memorials of the Churches in Norfolk and Suffolk (London, 1877), pp. 47–51.Google Scholar

10. Offwood, , Advertisement, p. 44;Google Scholaridem, Opinion, p. 79.

11. Offwood, , Opinion, pp. 79–80;Google Scholaridem, Advertisement, pp. 44–45. For further information on Harlston and Laurence, see Garrett, Christina Hallowell, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 176–177, 216–217.Google Scholar

12. Offwood, , Advertisement, pp. 44–45;Google Scholaridem, Opinion, pp. 79–80.

13. Parish Registers of Magna, Thornham, 11 01 1589/1590.Google Scholar

14. Offwood, , Advertisement, p. 44.Google Scholar

15. Ibid.; Offwood, , Opinion, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

16. Offwood's youngest son was buried on 26 March 1592; the eldest on 11 April 1593. Although there are burial entries for both children in the Thornham Magna parish registers, there is no record of either child's baptism. Indeed, the notation for the eldest boy states that he was buried “unbaptised, by assent of Mr. Harlette”. Another child was clearly born to the Offwoods sometime before they left England, but, once again, there is no parish baptismal entry. See also Offwood, , Advertisement, [Letter], p.4.Google Scholar

17. Offwood, , Advertisement, [Letter], p. 4, [pt. 1], p. 37.Google Scholar

18. The best published account of Francis Johnson and his church is in White, B. R., The English Separatist Tradition from the Marian Martyrs to the Pilgrim Fathers (Oxford, 1971), pp. 91–115, 143–155.Google Scholar See further Moody, Michael E., “A Critical Edition of George Johnson's A Discourse of Some Troubles and Excommunications in the Banished English Church at Amsterdam, 1603”, (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1979), pp. xiii–xcvi.Google Scholar

19. Although Offwood did not directly state when he came to Amsterdam, his time of arrival can be calculated approximately. He remarked in his Advertisement, p. 13, that he had “remained” with the Amsterdam Separatists “nere 15 yeares.” If he was, in fact, excommunicated from Henry Ainsworth's congregation in March 1617 (see n. 27 below), he must have come to Amsterdam in the late spring or early summer of 1602.

20. Moody, , “Critical Edition”, pp. xxxvii–xcvii.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., pp. 153–155, 398, 404–406, 504–508, pp. 1 s. v. “Matley, Ralph” and “Slade, Matthew”; and Offwood, , Advertisement, p. 9.Google Scholar The background of Separatist-Dutch relations is set forth in Scheffer, J. de Hoop, History of the Free Churchmen Called the Brownists, Pilgrim Fathers and Baptists in the Dutch Republic 1581–1701, ed. William, Elliot Griffis (Ithaca, 1922), pp. 16–27, 44–63;Google Scholar and White, , English Separatist Tradition, pp. 95–96, 103–106.Google Scholar

22. For a text of the eleven articles, see [François du Jon the elder, that is, Francis Junius], Certayne Letters, translated into English ([Amsterdam ?], 1602), pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

23. Offwood, , Advertisement, [Letter], p. 4Google Scholar, [pt. 1], pp. 36–37. After the Amsterdam Separatists split into two feuding factions in December 1610, Johnson's group excommunicated Bennet. He subsequently joined the other party led by Henry Ainsworth. Nothing is known about Saltsbury's ejection. See Fowler, John et al. , A Shield of Defence against the Arrowes of Schisme (Amsterdam, 1612), p. 30.Google Scholar

24. Offwood, , Advertisement, [pt. 1], p. 8.Google Scholar

25. For details of the split, see White, pp. 142–153.

26. On this point, see ibid., p. 152. See also Burrage, 1:171–182.

27. Offwood, indicated in his Advertisement, pp. 12–13Google Scholar, that he was excommunicated from Ainsworth's congregation in March 1616. Arguments for March 1617 are embedded in Offwood's jumbled account of his ouster. He noted that on “three Lords dayes ye sought to entrap me with questions…” He also plainly referred to 19 March as the second of these “Lords dayes.” 19 March 1616 N. S. falls on a Saturday, whereas 19 March 1617 N. S. falls on a Sunday. (The old-style dates are a Tuesday and a Wednesday.) Further support for 1617 can be found in Offwood's refutation of a rumor that he had been cast out for refusing to allow a fellow Separatist to marry his daughter (see below). Offwood countered this report by stating that “in this citty,… wee were before the commissaries who did heare the matter, & they did pronounce all matters concerning mariage was [sic] voyd, and if any doubt the trueth of this, they may be satisfyed with the Commissaries booke.” The Commissaries' records do indeed show that the case came before them, but their verdict is dated 22 November 1616 N. S.—nearly eight months after the date Offwood alleged for his ejection. Given these facts, one may assume either that “1616” is a misprint for 1617 or that Offwood's advanced age in 1632 caused his memory to err. See Offwood, , Advertisement, pp. 12–13, 31;Google Scholar and Judicial Archives (before 1811), Commissaries of Matrimonial Cases, no. 3056, fol. 9^v, Gemeente Archief, Amsterdam.

28. Commissaries of Matrimonial Cases, no. 3056, fol. 9^v.

29. Offwood, , Advertisement, p. 14.Google Scholar

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., pp. 12–13.

32. Elsynge, Henry to SirBoswell, William, 6 06 1633 N. S., printed in Burrage, 2: 273;Google Scholar and Offwood, , Advertisement, p. 43.Google Scholar

33. Offwood, , Advertisement, pp. 44–45.Google Scholar

34. The account given here is based on Burrage, 1: 171–179; and Foster, Stephen, Notes from the Caroline Underground: Alexander Leighton, the Puritan Triumvirate, and the Laudian Reaction to Nonconformity (Hamden, Conn., 1978), pp. 22–24Google Scholar, and 87 n.31. See also A. T.[Thatcher, Anthony?], A Christian Reprofe against Contention ([Amsterdam ?], 1631], pp. 5, 10, 12, 14, 19, 23, 33–35;Google Scholar and Offwood, , Advertisement, [pt. 1], p. 1.Google Scholar

35. Offwood, , Advertisement, “Advertisement,” pp. 1–2; [pt. 1), pp. 36, 40–45.Google Scholar

36. Consistory Register, vol. 3 (1628–1700), 18 April 1629 N. S., English Reformed Church Archives, English Reformed Church of Amsterdam, Gemeente Archief, Amsterdam (hereafter cited as Consistory Register 3). Old ex-Separatist friends who were already members no doubt encouraged Offwood to make this move. One of his witnesses when he joined the church was the ex-Separatist John Osborne. See Carter, pp. 58–59.

37. Evidence of their aversion to outside intervention occurs in the church records as early as late 1620. See Carter pp. 58–59, 74–76; and Sprunger, Keith L., “The Dutch Career of Thomas Hooker,” The New England Quarterly 46 (03 1973): 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. This treatment of the Hooker affair is based on Carter, pp. 76–80; and Sprunger, , “Hooker,” pp. 17–44.Google Scholar

39. Sprunger, , “Hooker,” pp. 34–37.Google Scholar

40. Offwood, , Advertisement, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

41. Ibid., p. 15; Sprunger, Keith L., The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana, 1972), pp. 245–246.Google Scholar

42. Carter, pp. 79–81.

43. This outline of the Davenport controversy employs Carter, pp. 81–84; and Calder, Isabel MacBeath, ed., Letters of John Davenport, Puritan Divine (New Haven, 1937), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

44. “Take heed… what you do,” Hugh Peter warned the wavering Davenport on several occasions, “for you were as good yeald to the English Bishops as to the Dutch classis”. Goffe, Stephen to SirBoswell, William, 7 04 1634, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 3d ser. 42 (1908–1909): 231.Google Scholar

45. Paget, p. 58; and Davenporte, John, An Apologeticall Reply to a booke Called “An Answer to the unjust complaint of W[illiam] B[est]” (Rotterdam, 1636), pp. 197–199.Google Scholar See also Carter, pp. 59, 83.

46. Paget, p. 58; Davenporte, Reply, pp. 197–199; and Calder, p. 4.

47. See “The Greivances [sic], and Complaints of the burthened and oppressed members of the English Church in Amsterdam. Anno 1634. The 18 October [N.S.]”, in [Davenport, John], A Just Complaint against an Unjust Doer ([Amsterdam ?], 1634), pp. 16–24.Google Scholar Twenty-one church members signed this document. Of this number, 14 can be positively identified. They are William Best, Nicholas Jacques, James Crisp, John Pollard, Laurence Coughen, Augustin Horsman, Henry Poulter, Thomas Fletcher, Stephen Offwood, Thomas Farret, Thomas Adams, Edward Phillips, Humphrey Denman, and Edward Scase. See [Davenport, ], A Just Complaint, p. 24.Google Scholar Compare Paget, pp. 21–22, 71, 87, 105–106, 129; Carter, pp. 205–222; Conistory Register 3, fol. 50.

48. Offwood, , Advertisement, pp. 29–30;Google Scholar Paget, pp. 87–88.

49. Paget, pp. 59, 102; Eaton, Sam[uel] and Taylor, Tim[othy], The Defence of sundry Positions & Scriptures for the Congregational-way justified (London, 1646), pp. 41–42.Google Scholar For the best sketch of Eaton's life, see Earwaker, J. P., East Cheshire: Past and Present; Or a History of the Hundred of Macclesfield, in the County Palatine of Chester, 2 vols. (London, 1880), 2: 28–35.Google Scholar

50. Alphabetical Register of Church Members of the English Reformed Church in Amsterdam, under the date 26 October 1635 N. S., English Reformed Church Archives, Gemeente Archief, Amsterdam. In the back of this volume are lists of members absent from communion from 1629 to 1642. See also Archief, Gemeente, Acta Classis Amsterdam, vol. 4 (1631–1645)Google Scholar, fols. 61–62, 67, 72–73; Paget, John to Calderwood, David, 16 06 1636 N. S.Google Scholar, Wodrow Manuscripts 42, fol. 254, National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh. I am indebted to Professor Keith Sprunger for these references.

51. Burrage, 1: 179–189; SirBrereton, William, Travels in Holland, the United Provinces, England, Scotland, and Ireland, m.dc.xxxiv-m.dc.xxxv, Chetham Society, vol. 1 ([London], 1844), p. 54.Google Scholar

52. Offwood, , Advertisement, p. 15.Google Scholar

53. Ibid., p. 37, see also p. 36.

54. Ibid., pp. 7–9, 37, 45.

55. Ibid., [Letter], pp. 4–5; [pt. 1], pp. 12–16, 37.

56. Ibid., p. 43.

57. Ibid., pp. 29–30.

58. Moody, , “Critical Edition”, pp. xxx–lxxxii, xc–xci, xcv–xcviGoogle Scholar, A pp. 1 s. v. “Ainsworth, Henry,” Offwood, , Advertisement, pp. 12–16, 42–43;Google ScholarSprunger, , “Hooker”, pp. 20–21;Google Scholar and Carter, pp. 56–57.

Among the 14 identifiable signers of the “Greivances” (see n. 47 above) were at least five ex-Separatists. They were Stephen Offwood, Thomas Farret, Thomas Adams, Edward Phillips, and Edward Scase. [Davenport, ], A Just Complaint, p. 24;Google Scholar compare Carter, pp. 205–222, and Paget, pp. 87, 106. Other known ex-Separatist church members who opposed Paget and the classis included Henry Whittaker, Edward Romein, William Pinnock, and Comfort Symons. See Carter, pp. 57, 59, 83.

59. Moody, , “Critical Edition”, pp. lxiii–lxviii, cxxv (nn. 338–339, 641–642).Google Scholar

60. Paget, sig. (*)3^r. To substantiate this point further, see Carter, pp. 58–59.

61. Carter, pp. 58–59, 64–65.

62. Ibid., pp. 59, 78; Sprunger, , “Hooker”, p. 38;Google Scholar Acta Classis Amsterdam, vol. 4, fols. 61, 67, 72. I wish to thank Professor Keith Sprunger for this last reference.

63. The relatively moderate treatment of those who disagreed with orthodox Reformed views is outlined in Carter, pp. 59–61. Of all those who participated in Davenport's meetings, Crisp's and Fletcher's conventicles, and Eaton's church, only James Crisp, William Best, Henry Poulter, and Thomas Adams appear to have been punished. Crisp was evidently suspended from the Lord's Supper, but I can find no record of this action in the consistory register. Best and Poulter were also suspended from communion because they denied the power of the classis and wished to join Eaton's church. Best was reinstated in 1648. Thomas Adams requested a letter of dimission on 5 March 1635 N. S. without giving a reason. The consistory refused. It then went on to admonish him for “going sometymes to the Brownists, & to other unwarrantable meetings.” Adams again requested a letter so that he could join Eaton's congregation on 30 January 1636 N. S. The consistory still refused. Eventually, Adams returned to the English Reformed Church, but he again found himself in trouble in 1642 for adopting the Jewish doctrine of the Sabbath. He refused to recant his opinions and was excommunicated in July 1644. See Consistory Register 3, fols. 58, 63, 67, 69. A summary of Adams's case appears in Carter, p. 64.

64. In fact, Paget died in August 1638. See Carter, p. 25, n. 30.