¹ Studies on Calvinist Churches in most areas of sixteenth-century Europe have emphasised the communal motivations that underlay ecclesiastical discipline. For the Netherlands, East Friesland and France see Kaplan, Benjamin J., ‘Dutch particularism and the Calvinist quest for holy uniformity’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte lxxxii (1991), 241, 249–5;Google Scholarvan Deursen, A. Th., Bavianen en slijkgeuzen, kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt, Assen 1974, 193–217Google Scholar; Schilling, Heinz, ‘Calvinism and the making of the modern mind: ecclesiastical discipline of public and private sin from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century’, in his Civic Calvinism in northwestern Germany and the Netherlands, sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, Kirksville, Mo. 1991, 41–68Google Scholar; Roodenburg, Herman, Onder censuur, de kerkelijke tucht in de gereformeerde gemeente van Amsterdam, 1578–1770, Hilversum 1990, 267Google Scholar; Mentzer, Raymond A., ‘Disciplina nervus ecclesiae: the Calvinist reform of morals at Nimes’, Sixteenth Century Journal xviii (1987), 89–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Ecclesiastical discipline and communal reorganisation among the Protestants of southern France’, European History Quarterly xxi (1991), 163–83; idem, ‘Marking the taboo: excommunication in the French Reformed Churches’, in his (ed.), Sin and the Calvinists: morals control and the consistory in the Reformed tradition, Kirksville, Mo. 1995, 97–128.

² Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian religion, 2 vols, ed. McNeill, John T., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia 1960, ii. 1230Google Scholar.

³ According to James Spalding, discipline in the Reformed confessions of these lands derived from the influence of Bucer, Martin, Theodore Beza and Peter Martyr Vermigli: ‘Discipline as a mark of the true Church in its sixteenth-century Lutheran context’, in Lindberg, Carter (ed.), Piety, politics, and ethics: Reformation studies in honor of George Wolfgang Forell, Kirksville, Mo. 1984, 119–20Google Scholar.

⁴ Van Deursen, Bavianen, 200, 204. Martin Bucer believed that Charles v's Interim was divine punishment against Protestants for failing to institute discipline in their congregations in the empire: Burnett, Amy Nelson, ‘Church discipline and moral reformation in the thought of Martin Bucer’, Sixteenth Century Journal xxii (1991), 439Google Scholar.

⁵ Norbert Elias helped shape the research agenda on the changing cultural standards in western Europe in The civilizing process: the history of manners, trans. Jephcott, Edmund, New York 1978Google Scholar. Influenced by studies on crime, Janine Estebe and Bernard Vogler have argued that Calvinist church officers were new agents of social control taking on the traditional functions of the ‘seigneur, notary, or curd’: genèse, ‘Lad'une société protestante: ètude comparèe de quelques registres consistoraux languedociens et palatins vers 1600’, Annales ESC xxxi (1976), 386Google Scholar. Since then, Heinz Schilling has uncoupled ecclesiastical discipline from criminalisation by distinguishing the ‘sin discipline’ of the Church from the ‘punitive discipline’ of the State: Heinz Schilling, ‘”History of crime” or “history of sin”? Some reflections on the social history of the modern church discipline’;, in Kouri, E. I. and Scott, Tom (eds), Politics and society in Reformation Europe: essays for Sir Geoffrey Elton on his sixty-fifth birthday, London 1987, 289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Schilling's quantitative study of discipline in Emden underscored the Reformed Church's independent contribution to social discipline. Some other important studies of Calvinist discipline not cited elsewhere in this essay include Kingdon, Robert M., ‘The control of morals in Calvin's Geneva’, in Zuck, L. P. and Zophy, J. W. (eds), The social history of the Reformation, Columbus, Ohio 1972, 3–16Google Scholar, and ‘The control of morals by the earliest Calvinists’, in Klerk, Peter de (ed.), Renaissance, Reformation, resurgence, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1976, 95–106;Google ScholarMéjan, Francois, Discipline de I'Eglise Rèformee de France annotèe et precedèe d'une introduction historique, Paris 1947Google Scholar.

⁶ Hoffman, Philip, Church and community in the diocese of Lyon, 1500–1789, New Haven 1984, 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Muchembled, Robert, Culture populaire et culture des elites, Paris 1978Google Scholar;Delumeau, Jean, Le calholicisme entre Luther et Voltaire, Paris 1971Google Scholar; Burke, Peter, Popular culture in early modern Europe, New York 1978Google Scholar; Farr, James R., ‘The pure and disciplined body: hierarchy, morality, and symbolism in France during the Catholic Reformation’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History xxi (1991), 391–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Oestreich, Gerhard, Neostoicism and the early modern state, ed. Oestreich, Brigitta and Koenigsberger, H. G., trans. McLintock, David, Cambridge 1982, 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Schilling, , ‘Calvinism and the modern mind’, 40Google Scholar.

⁹ Ibid. 60.

¹⁰ Po-Chia Hsia, R., Social discipline in the Reformation: central Europe 1550–1750, New York 1989, 1246Google Scholar.

¹¹ Prestwich, Menna, ‘Calvinism in France, 1555–1629’, in her (ed.), International Calvinism 1541–1715, Oxford 1989, 945Google Scholar.

¹² In addition to the previously cited works of van Deursen, Roodenburg and Schilling, Jeffrey Watt has examined this issue in the parishes under the jurisdiction of the consistory in Valangin (Switzerland) from 1547 to 1588. He found that there was considerable resistance among parishioners to embracing the Calvinist moral code and that success in reforming the area was both gradual and incomplete: ‘The reception of the Reformation in Valangin, Switzerland, 1547–1588’, Sixteenth Century Journal xx (1989), 89–104Google Scholar.

¹³ Jaanus, H. J., Hervormd Delft ten tijde van Arent Cornelisz. (1573–1605), Amsterdam 1950, 33Google Scholar

¹⁴ A. Ph Wouters, F. and Abels, P. H. A. M., Nieuw en ongezien: kerk en sameleving in de classis Delft, 1572–1621, I: De nieuwe kerk, Delft 1994, 222–3Google Scholar. The population of Delft between 1564 and 1580 hovered between 14, 000 and 15,000, while church membership grew from 378 adult members in 1573 to 1,143 in 1580. Around 1600 the city's population had grown to 17,500, just under 2,000 of whom were adult members of the Reformed Church. In 1620 the municipal population was 23,827 and adult church membership was 3,500: ibid. 230–3, 239.

¹⁵ He served as secretary to the Provincial Synod at Dordrecht (1574) and at the National Synod in Dordrecht (1578), president of the National Synod at Middelberg (1581), and assessor of the National Synod at The Hague (1586): Nijenhuis, W., ‘Varianten binnen het Nederlandse Calvinisme in de zestiende eeuw’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis lxxxix (1976), 358 n. 6Google Scholar; Woltjer, J. J., ‘Een nieuw ende onghesien dingh: verkenningen naar de positie van de kerkeraad in twee Hollandse steden in de zestiende eeuw’ (Afscheidscollege Rijkuniversiteit), Leiden 1985, 9Google Scholar. Bremmer, R. H. has identified Cornelisz. as one of the most important leaders in the 1574 Provincial Synod of Dordrecht and the 1581 National Synod at Middelberg: Reformatie en rebellie, Willem van Orange, de Calvinisten en het recht van opstand lien onstuimige jaren: 1572–1581, Franeker 1984, 88, 176Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Acta der Provinciate en Particuliere Synoden, gehouden in de Noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, II: Noord-Holland 1618–1620, guid-Holland 1574–1592, ed. Reitsma, J. and van Veen, S. D., Gronningen 1893, 131, 144Google Scholar; Acta van de Nederlandsche synoden der zestiende eeuw, ed. Rutgers, F. L., Den Haag 1889, 68–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The model of discipline procedure in these synodal resolutions came primarily from the practice of the London exile community under the leadership of Johannes à Lasco and Martin Micron: Abels, P. H. A. M. and Wouters, A. Ph. F., Nieuw en ongezien: kerk ensamelving in de classis Delft, 1572–1621, II: De nieuwe samenleving, Delft 1994, 26–7, 30–1Google Scholar.

¹⁷ The synod allowed local consistories some latitude on minor administrative issues, such as the period of time between the various steps and where a public admonition might be held (i.e. in the consistorial chamber or before the congregation): ibid. 38–40. The 1571 Synod of Emden was the first in the Netherlands to provide for this procedure: Acta van de Nederlandsche synoden, 68–72.

¹⁸ William Monter estimated that between 1564 and 1569 the Genevan consistory excommunicated 2, 500 people: ‘The consistory of Geneva, 1559–1569’, Bibliothèque a”Humanisme et Renaissance xxxviii (1976), 479–84Google Scholar. Ray Mentzer has calculated that Calvinists in the Protestant city of Nimes excommunicated fewer than 15 people per year between 1578 and 1583 and Calvinists in smaller southern French cities excommunicated even fewer: ‘Marking the taboo’, 125–6. The Dutch churches excommunicated transgressors much more infrequently than even the French congregations: Deursen, van, Bavianen, 203–4Google Scholar; Evenhuis, R. B., Ook dat was Amsterdam: de Kerk der Hervorming in de gouden eeuw, 5 vols, Amsterdam 1965–1978, ii. 82–4Google Scholar. The Amsterdam church excommunicated only 33 members out of 5,754 under discipline between 1578 and 1700. Most of these excommunications were for heresy: Roodenburg, Onder censuur, 137, 148.

¹⁹ Abels, and Wouters, , Nieuwe samenleving, 99Google Scholar.

²⁰ Kaplan, Benjamin J., ‘”Remnants of the papal yoke”: apathy and opposition in the Dutch Reformation’, Sixteenth Century Journal xxv (1994), 658–68Google Scholar.

²¹ Ray Mentzer's research on discipline in the Languedoc region of France shows that a similar distinction existed between those suspended from communion temporarily and those excluded on a permanent basis. He argues that this distinction corresponded to the medieval Catholic practice of minor and major excommunication: ‘Marking the taboo’,102.

²² GAD Reglementen, nos 312, 313, 314. Paul Abels and Anton Wouters have noted that the frequency of communion in Delft (six times per year) and the growth of the Reformed congregation prevented the ministers and elders from conducting house visitations more than two or three times per year: Nieuwe samenleving, 35.

²³ GAD Reglementen, no. 312. Between 1574 and 1580, there were twenty-two ‘opsienders’ assigned to designated neighbourhoods mapped out by the consistory. The use of inspectors was not unique to Delft, but common in Dutch and French Reformed Churches: Evenhuis, Ook dat was Amsterdam, i. 144–8; Garrisson-Estébe, Janine, Les Protestants du Midi, 1559–1598, Toulouse 1980, 105Google Scholar.

²⁴ GAD Kerkeraad, 10 June 1585. For a few of the other cases in which the consistory made similar inquiries see wife of Hans Backer, ibid. 27 Oct. 1589; Gilbert Cornelisz., 26 June 1592; Conner Ariens, 21 Oct. 1596; Bartholomeeus de Cruyenier, 26 Feb. 1599; Belitghe de Witte, 14 Feb. 1600; Claes Rijckwaert and his wife, 21 Oct. 1602; Tanneken Hoeckaert, 21 Feb. 1605.

²⁵ Ibid. 17 Apr. 1595. The use of neighbours to gain more information was not confined to suspicions about women, for various ministers talked to neighbours about suspicions or the uproar associated with a number of men. These included Gilbert Cornelissen, ibid. 22 June 1592; Bartholomeus de Cruyenier, 21 Apr. 1603; Jan de Ridder, 4 Feb. 1602; Gerrit Claesz., 9 July 1607; Willem Kijck, 23 Oct. 1606.

²⁶ While Donteclock admonished Thomis without using her name, he referred to ‘those who knew her and were offended by her sin’. It seems likely, therefore, that at least a portion of the congregation realised who was being admonished: ibid. 24 Apr. 1583.

²⁷ For example, there were ‘complaints’ or ‘rumours’ against Joachim Jansz., ibid. 13 Sept. 1593; Cornelis Ariensz.,3 Mar. 1603;Jan Well Gerredtsz. and his wife, 17 July 1589; Maritge Crijnen, 12 Apr. 1604; Hans Tootman, 29 Sept. 1603.

²⁸ Roodenburg, , Onder censuur, 350–69Google Scholar.

²⁹ Wouters, and Abels, , Nieuwe kerk, 335Google Scholar.

³⁰ In April 1576, the consistory in the town of Dordrecht decided that house visitations overburdened its ministers and elders. As a result, the consistory resolved to make no more visitations, but to investigate allegations that were reported to them: Uw Rijk Rome: acta van de kerkeraad van de Nederduits Gemeente te Dordrecht, 1573–1579, ed. Jensma, Th. W., Dordrecht 1981, 50Google Scholar.

³¹ GAD Kerkeraad, 21, 28 Sept. 1579.

³² Ibid. 22 Nov. 1599, 14 Feb. 1600.

³³ Ibid. 17 July 1606.

³⁴ ‘…om eener hele wille waeren door vele menschen insonderheijt de buijren groote ergernisse geven’: ibid. 23 June 1586.

³⁵ ‘Is ook aenghegheven ten versoeck vanden naburen doende professie vande religie dat Barber Conners’: ibid. 24 July 1581.

³⁶ For example, in the 104 sexual discipline cases that I have identified from 1581 to 1616, the records suggest that in at least 41 of these cases the charge of illicit sexuality stemmed from either neighbours and members, or from an uproar in the community. Women and men were charged in this fashion in almost equal numbers: 20 women and 21 men. For a summary of those cases which came before the consistory in this fashion see Appendix. In many of the other cases, the consistory may have gained their information from these sources.

³⁷ Citing the uproar for similar offences, the consistory took disciplinary measures against the following: Elias, Aeltgen, GAD Kerkeraad, 24 02 1592Google Scholar; Catelijne Jans, 14, 21 June 1604; Maijken Hendricx, 16 Sept. 1585; Nelltge Jans, 13 May 1579; Michiel de Wale, 8 Aug. 1581; Tanneken van Bruijssel, 29 Jan., 1 Oct. 1590; Juffrow van Vliet, 11 Nov. 1591; Pieter van Stralen, Cornells Jansz. and Ariaen Jansz., 9 Sept. 1591; Conner Ariens, 8 June 1598; Belitghe de Witte, 22 Nov. 1599.

³⁸ Ibid. 2 Jan., 24 Feb. 1584.

³⁹ Ibid. 28 Dec. 1609. Due to a dispute with Capiteijn de Witte in 1607, Adam Witfort became the subject of a consistorial investigation because de Witte thought Witfort unworthy of communion: ibid. 15 Oct. 1607.

⁴⁰ Ibid. 1 Feb. 1593.

⁴¹ Ibid. 21 June 1593.

⁴² Ibid. 26 Sept. 1611. For earlier disputes see ibid. 21, 28 Mar., 22, 26 Aug. 1611.

⁴³ Ibid. 3 Feb. 1586.

⁴⁴ Ibid. 9 Feb. 1587.

⁴⁵ Several examples include Willem Kijck, ibid. 23 Oct. 1606; Jan de Ridder, 4 Feb. 1602; an anonymous female, 19 July 1604; Gerrit Claesz., 9 July 1607.

⁴⁶ See Appendix.

⁴⁷ For one example see Bartholomeeus, , GAD Kerkeraad, 15 01 1595Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ For one example see Catelijne Jans, ibid. 14 June 1604.

⁴⁹ Some of the most important anthropological and historical works that treat issues relating to the social values of neighbourhoods and local communities include the articles in Peristiany, J. G. (ed.), Honour and shame: the values of a Mediterranean society, London 1965Google Scholar;Gilmore, David, ‘Introduction: the shame of dishonour’, in his Honour and shame and the unity of the Mediterranean, Washington DC 1987, i. 2–21Google Scholar; Burke, Peter, The historical anthropology of early modern Italy: essays in perception and communication, Cambridge 1987, 95–109Google Scholar; Amelang, James S., Honored citizens of Barcelona: patrician culture and class relations, 1490–1714, Princeton, NJ 1986, 25ffGoogle Scholar; Hufton, Olwen, ‘Women and the family economy in eighteenth-century France’, French Historical Studies ix (1975), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, The family, sex, and marriage in England, 1550–1800, London 1977, 98ffGoogle Scholar; Thomas, Keith, Religion and the decline of magic: studies in popular beliefs in sixteenth-and seventeenth-century England, London 1971, 527ffGoogle Scholar; Sabean, David W., Power in the blood: popular culture and village discourse in early modern Germany, Cambridge 1984, 27–36, 94–112Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Garrioch, David, Neighbourhood and community in Paris, 1740–1790, Cambridge 1986, 2–29Google Scholar; Cobb, Richard, The police and the people: French popular unrest 1789–1820, Oxford 1970, 198–200Google Scholar; Farr, James R., Hands of honour: artisans and their world in Dijon, 1550–1650, Ithaca 1988, 156, 165Google Scholar. See also Brennan, Thomas, Public drinking and popular culture in eighteenth-century Paris, Princeton, NJ 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ In Neighbourhood and community, 16, Garrioch points out that the chief characteristic of neighbourhood interaction was a close familiarity, which produced both strong loyalties and bitter hatreds. The intensity of neighbourhood relations was also a feature of sixteenth-and seventeenth-century urban life in France. James Farr argues in his study of Dijon that the bonds between neighbours were as close as those of kinship. At the same time, physical proximity could also breed bitter animosity: Hands of honour, 156, 165. In terms of the latter, Natalie Davis and Barbara Diefendorf have shown how neighbourhood enmities could turn violent in periods of extreme social and religious tension: Davis, Natalie Zemon, ‘The rites of violence’, in Society and culture in early modern France, Stanford 1975, 152–88Google Scholar; Diefendorf, Barbar, Beneath the cross: Catholics and Huguenots in sixteenth-century Paris, New York 1991, 50–63Google Scholar.

⁵² Garrioch, , Neighbourhood and community, 6Google Scholar.

⁵³ Peristiany, Honour and shame, 1.

⁵⁴ As noted in Burke, , Historical anthropology, 14Google Scholar. See also Goffman, Erving, The presentation of self in everyday life, New York 1971Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ In their respective descriptions of culture in the Golden Age, Arie van Deursen and Simon Schama did devote chapters to women, but these works say very little about notions of female honour in the neighbourhoods and local communities: van Deursen, A. Th., Plain lives in a golden age: popular culture, religion and society in seventeenth-century Holland, trans. Ultee, Maarten, Cambridge 1991, 81–95Google Scholar; Schama, Simon, The embarrassment of riches: an interpretation of Dutch culture in the Golden Age, Berkeley 1987, 373–480.Google ScholarA more recent work (Kloek, Els, Huisman, Nicole and Huisman, Marijke [eds], Women of the Golden Age: an international debate on women in seventeenth-century Holland, England, and Italy, Hilversum 1994), has reconsidered images of Dutch women, but this volume focuses on literary sources and not local archival materials. In this tradition also stands Cornelia Niekus Moore, ‘ “ Not by nature but by custom”:Google Scholarvan Beverwijk's, Johann “Van de wtnementheyt des vrouwelicken Geslachts”, Sixteenth Century Journal xxv (1994), 633–52Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ See Roodenburg, , Onder censuur, 205–320Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ GAD Kerkeraad, 6 Apr. 1609.

⁵⁸ Ibid. 22 June 1601.

⁵⁹ Ibid. 8 June 1598. For prior complaints and admonitions see ibid. 15, 29 July 1596, 14, 21 Oct. 1596, 14, 21 Apr. 1597.

⁶⁰ Ibid. 22 Nov. 1599, 14 Feb. 1600. It is likely, though not certain, that the accusation against her was for some type of illicit sexuality.

⁶¹ Although most of these cases mentioned above involved women, it does not appear that either the consistory or common folk harboured a greater concern for female behaviour than for male. For throughout this period, men came under censure at a higher rate than women in every category of offence. Paul Abels and Anton Wouters have calculated that the Delft consistory disciplined a maximum number of 1, 199 people from 1572 to 1621. Of this number, 664 (574%) were men and 493 (42.6%) were women: Nieuwe samenleving, 106. Whether or not the consistory or church folk operated under distinct notions of female and male honour awaits future study.

⁶² Another related point about these requests is that most of them (83) occurred between 1599 and 1611. It seems likely that the concentration of requests in this period was both a function of church growth as well as of increased attention to discipline. The Delft Church had grown from 1, 143 members in 1580 to 1,968 in 1602; yet from 1602 to 1605 it grew almost as much as it had the previous twelve years, from 1,968 to 2,380: Wouters, Anton, ‘Kerk and samenleving in de Classis Delft van 1572 tot 1621’, unpubl. outline presented to the Contactgroep xvi eeuw in Leiden, 01 1991, 2, 10Google Scholar. Given this pattern of growth, it is not surprising that the convergence of requests for readmission to communion took place at this time. The drop-off rate of requests beginning around 1611 probably had something to do with the religious controversies that troubled the Reformed Church in the early seventeenth century. It was about this time that a gradual shift in the consistorial minutes began to occur, as they became increasingly devoted to defending clerical independence against city magistrates and to discussing issues pertaining to doctrinal disputes in Holland.

⁶³ Deursen, Van, Plain lives, 262–7Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Watt, , ‘Reception’, 99Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Van Vijven had been excommunicated by the Amsterdam consistory in 1594 for an adulterous relationship that produced a child. He appeared before the Delft consistory in 1598, requesting to be permitted to return to communion. Given the gravity of the sin, the church college referred the matter to the synod of South Holland. There the synodal delegation from Delft reported that van Vijven had a troubled conscience in 31 Aug. 1599: ‘naerdien hy ghedaen heeft behoorlyck schultbekentenisse over syn voorsz. overspel, aenghesien hy hem niet gherust en vindt in syn conscientie, soolanghe hy van den avondtmael wert affgehouden’: Acta der Provinciate, iii. 135.

⁶⁶ GAD Kerkeraad, 21 Feb. 1597, 7 June 1599.

⁶⁷ Ibid. 21 Feb. 1603. Griete Saterdachs was called Griete Pauwells in an earlier entry (23 Sept. 1602) so I have used the latter name in the text and in the appendix for the sake of consistency. The consistory decided to deny her request until they could negotiate a reconciliation.

⁶⁸ Likewise, Cornelis Ariensz., ibid. 17 Mar. 1603, insisted on knowing his accusers and Anneken Jans, 11 June 1607, demanded that the entry in the consistory records about her dispute with her father-in-law be removed.

⁶⁹ Ibid. 10 Nov., 15 Dec. 1608.

⁷⁰ Ibid. 21 Nov. 1594. For previous references to Pauw's bitterness see 12 Oct. 1592, 25 Jan. 1593, 14 Nov. 1594. The following week Cornelisz. reported to the consistory that he had complied with Pauw's request: ibid. 28 Nov. 1594.

⁷¹ ‘Is gerapporteert van Gerrit Claessen hoe dat hij aengesproken ende de resolutie der vergaederinge hem voorgedragen sijnde ter antwoort heeft gegeven geensins te zullen verstaen tot openbaer schultbekenninge seggende dat hij niet en verstaet dat soodaninge censure in gods woort gefondeert is’: ibid. 24 Sept. 1607.

⁷² Ibid. 28 May, 4 June, 11, 25 June, 9 July, 11 Aug., 24 Sept., 22, 26 Oct., 28 Dec. 1607, 28 Jan. 1608, 25 May, 28 Dec. 1609, 29 Mar. 1610, 5, 23 Apr. 1610, 8 Oct. 1612.

⁷³ ‘Also Maurinius Snijder hem heeft verluijden laten dat hij nijet met der Gemeente broot breken wil overmidts hij ontrust is dat de broeders (so hij seijt) haer partijdich hebben bewesen inde zaecke van tusschen hem ende Jan Engelschen’: ibid. 22 June 1587. Engelsz, Jan. served one term as elder from 1579 to 1581Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ ‘Dat den oorsaeck was de ongheschickheijt ende wereldtscheijt die hij bij velen sach die ten Avondtmael gaen’: ibid. 21 Sept. 1579.

⁷⁵ Pietersz. was elected as elder in 1575; he served one term. He is listed as an inspector in 1574: ibid. 16 July 1575; GAD Reglementen, no. 312.

⁷⁶ ‘Alsoemen verstaet dat Adam de Houtsager lange heeft geabsenteert vander taefel des heeren vuijt oorsaecke (so hij seijt) dat hij siet veel ongeregelt volcx daer toe comen ende dat hij hem de sonden der zelven nijet en behoort deelachtich te maken’: GAD Kerkeraad, 5 Nov. 1590.

⁷⁷ ‘Maurcium de Backer dat hij sijn onschult maect op sijn imperfectie waerom hij dieslanghe absenteert van avontmael des heeren seggende dat se geheel puijr ende zuiver moeten zijn die ten avontmael gaen’: ibid. 29 Jan. 1584. It is not clear from the text if he was referring to himself or to others. Donteclock was assigned to get a more specific answer.

⁷⁸ This does not mean, however, that people who left the Reformed Church because of concerns about moral impurity only affiliated with Mennonites. Filip de Cuijper, Margeriete Brans, Anthonis Anthonisz. and others affiliated with Catholic assemblies. Their motives were probably similar to those who associated with the Mennonites. None the less, I have only been able to locate one case in which a former member (and his wife) used a claim to moral autonomy to abandon the Calvinist community for a Catholic one. Suspected of going to Catholic services in July 1596, Anthonis Anthonisz. told two members of the consistory that he and his wife ‘desired to remain where they are without any more sermons or without depending on the church because they had advanced to better knowledge and instruction’: ibid. 5 Aug. 1596. At the last record concerning them in December 1598, Anthonisz. and his wife were still under censure: ibid. 15 Dec. 1597, 22, 26 June, 23 Oct., 21 Dec, 1598.

⁷⁹ Duke, Alastair, ‘The ambivalent face of Calvinism in the Netherlands, 1561–1618’, in his Reformation and revolt in the Low Countries, London 1990, 273–90Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Davis, Kenneth, ‘No discipline, no Church: an Anabaptist contribution to the Reformed tradition’, Sixteenth Century Journal xix (1988), 50–6Google Scholar. See also Packull, Werner O., ‘The Melchiorites and the Zieghenhain Order of Discipline, 1538–39’, in Klaasen, Walter (ed.), Anabaptism revisited, Scottsdale, Pa. 1992, 11–28Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Kaplan also demonstrated that Libertines were neither apathetic nor irreligious, as Calvinists claimed. Rather, they possessed a moral autonomy that ran counter to Calvinist, discipline: ‘”Remnants of the papal yoke”: apathy and opposition in the Dutch Reformation’, Sixteenth Century Journal xxv (1994), 658–67Google Scholar.

⁸² Gary Waite has informed me in a very helpful letter (17 Nov. 1994) that Joris did embrace public confession of sins early in his career, but discarded the practice after 1540.

⁸³ Waite, Gary K., David Joris and Dutch Anabaptism, 1524–1543, Waterloo 1990, 92–3Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Given the mystical inclinations of these members, it seems likely that they were reading works from Joris's spiritualistic period (1540S-1556): Waite, , letter, 17 11 1994Google Scholar. For a discussion of influence of these writings see Waite, Gary K., ‘The longevity of spiritualistic Anabaptism: the literary legacy of David Joris’, Canadian Journal of History/Annales Canadiennes a' Histoire xxvi (1991), 177–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ Unfortunately, there is no indication of the particular Mennonite strain the local Mennonite congregation followed. If they were the spiritualistic Waterland Mennonites, there would have been no contradiction between the mysticism of the Reformed members and the local Mennonites. Waterland Mennonites opposed stringent discipline and favoured the works of Joris: Waite, letter, 17 Nov. 1994. Nevertheless, there was a contradiction between the communal discipline of the Reformed Church and these spiritualistic tendencies. As discussed below, these folk continued to affiliate with the Reformed Church.

⁸⁶ The consistory records throughout this period indicate a strong concern with Anabaptist influence on Reformed members. In August 1617 the consistory complained to the magistrates about general unrest caused by the Mennonites, and in September 1619 it protested that Mennonites were holding public meetings, were troubling Reformed members in their homes, and were preaching on the streets: GAD Kerkeraad, 14 Aug. 1617, 2 Sept. 1619.

⁸⁷ This is a conservative estimate; Paul Abels and Anton Wouters have identified 55 who were disciplined for some form of contact with Mennonites and eight for reading works by David Joris. In addition, 31 associated with Catholics, 9 with Remonstrants, 9 with ‘Coornhertists’, and 9 others with ‘Libertines’: Nieuwe samenleving, 63.

⁸⁸ GAD Kerkeraad, 12 July 1573, 14, 21 Sept., 12 Oct., 27 Dec. 1579.

⁸⁹ After the encounter on 15 March 1583, I have identified eight other occasions when the consistory either discussed his situation or reported on a meeting with him. The last entry to my knowledge that deals with Walich Pietersz. is GAD Kerkeraad, 21 Oct. 1602.

⁹⁰ Ibid. 15 Mar. 1593.

⁹¹ He urged the consistory to take the matter up with the burgomasters: ibid. 1 June 598.

⁹² ‘Dat hy niet ghelooven conde dat Godt ijemand ter verdoemeenisse gheschapen heeft’: ibid. 21 Sept. 1579. The consistory had noted his absence in communion on 12 Aug. 1579; Pauwelsz. gave his explanation before the church council three weeks later. Wouters and Abels have noted the family relationship between these two men in Meuwe kerk, 244.

⁹³ GAD Kerkeraad, 26 Apr., 12 Aug. 1596, 17 Mar. 1597, 3 July 1600, 9 Feb. 1602, 1 Nov. 1604, 21 Feb. 1605: Wouters and Abels, Nieuwe kerk, 245.

⁹⁴ Under advice from the Synod of South Holland meeting at Woerden in August 1604, the consistory refused to allow a public follower of Joris, David to marry in the church: Acta der Provinciate synoden, iii. 210–27Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ ‘Siet voor U hier wat ghij doet: Wij sullen eens commen voor de Lichstoel Christi’, to which Daniel de Dolegen, a minister, retorted, ‘not the Christ of David's [i.e. David Joris], but of Christ Jesus’: GAD Kerkeraad, 8 Nov. 1604.

⁹⁶ She also received a loan from the Mennonites. In order to win her back, the consistory agreed in January 1579 to loan her four guilders in order to repay them: ibid. 21 Jan. 1579.

⁹⁷ ‘Alzoe Anna Gillis haer heeft laten hooren dat sij inde vergaderinghe ontboden zijnde nijet en wil compareren noch oock inde predicatie haer nijet meer wil laten vinden ende begeert wel datmen haer vuijt de Gemeente doen’: ibid. 10 Mar. 1586.

⁹⁸ ‘hoewel zij tegen de leere nijet en heeft maer datse gebreck vindt inde liefde ende dat zij een beter wil soecken’: ibid. 24 Mar. 1586. Yet, by the spring of 1586, Gillis had become disgusted with the consistory's moral and religious constraints. Given her earlier history with the consistory, it is possible that a conflict over poor relief was also an issue. By the following December, however, Gillis experienced a change of heart and ‘desired communion again’, so the consistory dispatched Reynier Donteclock to admonish her to come to church so that she might believe ‘the true religion from the heart’: 8 Dec. 1586. The consistory dispatched Reynier Donteclock to inquire after her morals and whether she might be able to return to communion in April 1587: 6 Apr. 1587.

⁹⁹ ‘Dat hij hem ane sulcken ghemeijnte niet houden conde / daer gheen liefde in is / ende daer de armen niet gheholpen werden’: ibid. 12 Nov. 1578. Maartensz., one of the few excommunicants in the Reformed Church at Delft, was seeking readmission to communion when he died in 1580: 12 Dec. 1580; Abels and Wouters, Nieuwe samenleving, 41.

¹⁰⁰ The States of Holland had decreed in July 1580 that all people, regardless of religious creed, were to have their marriages publicly proclaimed in their place of residence: Resolution van de Staten van Holland, 6 July 1580. This did not necessarily mean, however, that a Reformed minister would have to marry one who publicly flaunted his doctrinal heterodoxy. Consequently, this case was one of those thorny issues that pitted the public character of the Netherlands Reformed Church against its confessional sectarian tendencies. Pauwelsz. immediately appealed the consistory's decision to the burgomasters.

¹⁰¹ Pauwelsz. consistently maintained his opposition to Calvinist teaching, continued to follow the spiritualist teachings of David Joris, and came under suspicion for Libertine views for over 15 years. Daniel de Doelegen informed Pauwelsz. in August 1596 that ‘the brothers had noticed for a long time that he was against the [Reformed] Religion which he at one time had confessed and accepted’: GAD. Kerkeraad, 12 Aug. 1596. Pauwelsz. promised Doelegen a written response that would outline his differences with the Reformed faith. The consistory did not receive a response, for several months later in March 1597 they asked again for a written statement. Pauwelsz. indicated that he had not believed it necessary since the consistory ‘dismissed him’, but he welcomed further discussion: ibid. 17 Mar. 1597. These disputes went on until August 1605.

¹⁰² Ibid. 8 Nov. 1604.

¹⁰³ Ibid.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. 14, 21 Nov. 1605. The consistory forcefully reminded him of his affirmation. The matter was still unresolved on 22 Aug. 1605, tne last time Pauwelsz.'s name is mentioned in the consistory records.

¹⁰⁵ It appears that Houtsager did not completely disassociate himself from the Reformed community, for the consistory attempted to arbitrate disputes involving Houtsager in 1602 and in 1607: ibid. 21 Oct. 1602, 9 July 1607. Yet later (and possibly earlier) Houtsager held to the views of David Joris: 17Feb. 1603, 9Feb. 1604. In addition, Houtsager asked the consistory in May 1606 to forgive him for remaining away from communion for so long: 22 May 1606. Yet six months later, the consistory reported that he was still keeping company with David Jorists: 30 Oct. 1606.

¹⁰⁶ Waite, , David Joris, 114Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Idem, ‘Longevity’,177.