Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029253733 New Netherland Intolerance By FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.Sc.M.H. B R516 .2 C 9 8 ne " Un,ve ««y Library Reprint from The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. IV (1918), pp. 186-216 NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE I Henry Vignaud prints on the title page of his remarkable Histoire Critique de la Grande Entreprise de Christophe Colomb a wise saying of Herbert Spencer: "Demonstration fails to change established opinions." One would hardly expect proof of the say- ing in the official organ designed for the enlightenment of the school population of a great State. This is precisely what has been done by the University of the State of New York in its Bulletin to the Schools, October 15, 1915, which on that date lends itself to the dissemination of views that contravene the demonstrated truth. The University wishes to insist upon the history of the State in the schools of the State, and so reprints the views, that "Doctor Williams has restated for the benefit of the teachers and children of the State" at a recent meeting of the New York State Historical Association. In the cause of truth, exception must be taken to the last two of the first three paragraphs of the quotation from Dr. Williams, in which there are more historical errors than there are sentences. "New York," he says, "was the only colony in which perfect religious liberty was to be had. This was always the case in our State except for a very short time under the rule of the strong, autocratic, masterful, and bigoted Stuyvesant, and he was not sustained in his acts either by the inhabitants of the colony or by the home government. The religious freedom established in New Netherland by Minuit and maintained ever since except for the brief period just mentioned made New York cosmopolitan, and New York City from the first has been 'a melting pot' of races. "The New England Puritans came to this country to seek religious liberty for themselves, but not to allow it to others. The Dutch in New York granted it to every one. They had had it at home." No historian today questions the importance of a correct view of the European background of our colonial history. The religious conditions of the mother country furnish the key to the right understanding of religion in New Netherland more than happens to be the case with almost any other colony. Yet % FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. American historiography had persistently avoided clearness of definition on this fundamental point until the appearance of the doctoral dissertation, "Religion in New Netherland," offered by the writer to the University of Lou vain. 1 Even then demon- stration failed to change established opinion in the mind of my critic in the American Historical Review who was certainly ranked amongst the most judicious historians of the State of New York. The reply to my critic met with no rejoinder, but the hope ex- pressed in its final sentence, that the demonstrated truth would at last now make its way into American historical literature, 1 is made vain, at least for an important section of the country, if all the school intelligence of the State of New York is to accept as truth the errors of Dr. Williams. A list of the oppressive religious ordinances promulgated in the mother country establishes the fact that the Dutch had not religious liberty at home before or during the colonization of New Netherland. Typical is the placard promulgated by the States- General on the very eve of this colonization, Feb. 26, 1622, at the repeated request of the Ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church. 8 It prohibited Jesuits, religious of either sex, and foreign priests to reside permanently or temporarily in the Republic, under the penalty of being arrested as enemies of the State. A second offence on their part entailed punishment for disturbance of the public peace. Their hosts in the land were subject to a fine of one hundred pounds Flemish for the first offence, double the sum for the second offence, and to the penalty of corporal punishment and banishment for the third offence. Priests previously author- ized to reside in the Republic were bound to report their names and places of residence to the local magistrates if they wished to continue in the enjoyment of this privilege. All correspondence with foreign ecclesiastics was prohibited to the subjects of the Republic, and letters of this kind were to be surrendered to the 1 American Historical Review, October, 1911, p. 192, acknowledges "Religion in New Netherland" to be "the first serious attempt at interpretation of the religious development of the province of New Netherland in the light of modern research in the field of religious history of the mother country. " 8 American Historical Review, April, 1912, p. 683. • Wiltenb-Schelttjs, Kerkelyck Placaatboek, Vol. i, pp. 544-554. "Jegens de Pausgesinde Geestelijckheyt, Conventiculen, Schoolen, Collecten, Kloppen, Voogh- den, ende compositien der Officieren." NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 3 magistrates on their receipt under a fine of fifty pounds for every infraction of the law. Catholic ceremonies were interdicted not only in the churches but also in private houses. The master of the house was subject to a fine of two hundred florins, each person present to a fine of twenty-five florins, and the officiating priest to the penalty of banishment. The priests who preached diso- bedience to these laws were to be prosecuted for sedition and sub- jected to corporal punishment, "even to death," according to the gravity of the offence. Attendance at foreign Jesuit schools was forbidden, and parents were ordered to recall their children from such places under a fine of one hundred florins for each month of delay. The congregations of devout women, "klopjes," were to be dissolved at once. Protestant orphans were not to be confided to Catholic guardians, but to the care of the magistrate, if they had no near relation of the Reformed Faith. Collections for all sorts of Catholic purposes were absolutely interdicted. Finally the judges were commanded to execute the provisions of this ordinance without any relaxation, and they were threatened with the loss of their positions and with arbitrary punishment if they accepted a bribe from the delinquents. This was not an exceptional bit of legislation, but typical of ordinances adopted and more or less enforced from the promulgation of the first general placard against Catholics, December 20, 1581, and at intervals thereafter, even throughout the period of Dutch domina- tion in New Netherland. This very placard of February 26, 1622, was renewed in 1624, 1629, and 1641. In fact, the States- General showed no willingness to abandon this policy of religious oppression. When a relaxation of the ordinances against Catho- lics was requested by Count d'Avaux, March 13, 1644, the States- General protested against this presumptuous intervention of a stranger in the internal affairs of the Republic. A resolution was then passed in the States-General to complete the penal legislation against Catholics on the specious plea that impunity to the prop- agation of "Catholic superstitions" and to the introduction of the papist hierarchy entailed undeniable dangers to public safety. 4 The clergy of the Reformed Church did not cease to 4 Archives du Royaume a la Haye, Resolutien van H. H. M. de Staten generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden, 1644, fo. 117 sq. in Hubert, Les Pays-Baa et la Rtpublique des Provinces Unit. La Question Religieuse, p. 81 ff. 4 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. clamor for more drastic measures against "popish idolatry, superstition, and hierarchy," etc., and they did not fail to receive some satisfaction from the government, though not always all that they desired. 6 The oppressive measures of the States-General were often anticipated and even reinforced by the penal legislation of the provincial States, and even of the town councils. For instance; the States of Holland, March 12, 1591, placed a fine of three hundred florins on attendance at the Universities of Louvain, Dole, and Douay, where instruction was contrary "to the true religion" and hostile to the Fatherland. 6 July 1, 1594, the same States placed a fine of one hundred pounds upon persons recurring to the ministry of a priest for the baptism of their children or for the celebration of marriage. A fine of fifty pounds was also placed on the witnesses and a fine of four hundred pounds on the persons instigating the act. The same penalties were decreed for attendance at papist conventicles. 7 The Dutch Republic was evidently aiming at forcing a gradual extinction of Catholicity by a system of harassing measures that the magistrates, it is true, at times only held as a scourge over the heads of the Catholics, and which the Catholics at times were able to escape through the venality of the Dutch officials, subject to the national Dutch passion of the period-greed for money, as Fruin puts it." Yet Fruin declares: "In our Republic the Catholic enjoyed, I repeat it, full freedom of conscience." 8 No more telling criticism can be found of this statement than the words of Dr. Knappert, which are a good summary, besides, of the religious policy of the Dutch Republic as revealed in its oppressive placards: "Also with us there was no place as yet for absolute freedom of conscience, and measured by our concept of the present day, Catholics had certainly no freedom . . . According to modern standards the policy was certainly oppressive. Although * Cf . Hubert, op. cit., passim. Knuttel, De toestand der Nederl Katholieken ten tijde der Republiek. Dr. L. Knappert, De Verdraagzaamheid in de Republiek der Vereenigde Nederlanden. Tijdspiegel, 1907. * Wiltens-Scheltus, Kerkelyck Placaatboelc, Vol i, p. 524. ' Ibid., p. 528. 8 Fhuin, De Wederopluiking van het Katholicisme, pp. 41-45. * Ibid., p. 36. Fruin still has many followers in this opinion. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 5 different in various provinces, severer at one time than at another, it amounts, however, to this : Catholics had no equal rights before the law, could hold no public offices; they were personally un- molested in their religious convictions, but the common, public exercise of worship was not granted them, no Mass, no confirma- tion, no participation in pilgrimages; their sons could not study at foreign Catholic universities; their marriages had to be contracted before the Schout and Schepens, yes, in the Common Lands, for a time, even before the Reformed Preacher; here and there their children were even forced to attend the Reformed school, and their priests, as soon as they appeared in public, were punished with banishment and confiscation of their goods." 10 It is demon- strated, therefore, that the Dutch did not have religious liberty at home, and consequently there is no temptation to jump to the conclusion that the Dutch in New Netherland granted it to every one. With this much established, the short notice given to "Religion in New Netherland" in the English Historical Review appears all the more surprising, although it is valuable as a manifestation of a school of criticism that has a footing in what one is otherwise prone to believe a judicious circle of historians. "The main purpose of the book seems to be to prove that the Dutch in the New World, as in the Old, were by no means the enlightened, tolerant people that they are generally represented. Mr. Zwier- lein as a Roman Catholic may be suspected of some bias; but his conclusions are based on a very large amount of documentary material." 11 The author had only one purpose in view. "Nam quis nescit primam esse historiae legem, ne quid falsi dicere audeat? deinde ne quid veri non audeat? ne qua suspicio sit gratiae in scribendo? ne qua simultas? Haec scilicet funda- 10 Knappert, De Verdraagzaamheid in de Republiek der Vereenigde Nederlanden, p. 248. Other dissenters besides Catholics were subject to persecution. Cf., e. g., Brandt, Hist. d. Reformatie, Vol. ii, p. 14 ff., for placard directed not only against Catholics but also Anabaptists by States of Groningen. On persecution of more liberal party amongst Dutch Reformed, Arminians or Remonstrants, after Synod of Dordrecht; cf. Blok, A History of the People of the Netherlands, Vol. iii, p. 483 ff., and oppressive placards in Wiltens-Scheltus, Kerkelyck Placaatboek. n English Historical Review, October, 1910 (Vol. xxv), p. 821. [The italics are ours.] This principle of historical criticism has not found a place in books of his- torical method, but it is found often in historical reviews. 6 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. menta nota sunt omnibus." 12 It is peculiar that the European critic has no difficulty apparently in accepting the truth regarding the Dutch in Europe, but questions it in case of the Dutch in America, while the American critic accepts without trouble as true the account of religious persecution by the Dutch in America, but questions the truth in regard to the Dutch in Europe. Almost from the very beginning the Dutch Reformed Church appears as the established church of New Netherland. While no mention is made of religion in the charter of the West India Company, 13 or in the subsequent agreement between the managers and the principal adventurers, 14 the matter was soon brought to the attention of its general executive board, the College of the XIX, by a deputation of the Consistory of Amsterdam, which was instructed, August 20, 1623, to recommend the furthering of church service on sea as well as on land. 16 The College of the XIX thanked the Consistory for its solicitude and declared readi- ness to act accordingly, although there could be no thought of the establishment of a seminary for young students as had been suggested, before the affairs of the Company were better ordered and settled. 16 The Directors of the West India Company then agreed to grant a salary to those whom they accepted as fit persons on the recommendation of the Church as long as they were in the country, in order to have them work the better. 17 Accordingly Bastiaen Jansz. Krol was commissioned at the end of 1623 to sail to New Netherland to exercise there the office of Comforter of the Sick, for which he had been presented to the West India Company by the Consistory of Amsterdam. 18 In the fall of 1624, he was authorized to baptize and marry, functions not generally allowed Comforters of the Sick, but the concession was necessary as the number of inhabitants was too small for a minister to be sent there n Cicero, De Oral., Vol. ii, p. 15. 13 Cf. Charter in O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, Vol. i, p. 399 f. Van Rensselaer-Bowier MSS., edited by A. S. Van Laer, gives a revised version of the charter. 14 Cf., Agreement in O'Callaghan, op. cit.. Vol. i, p. 408 f. 11 Protocollen van den Kerkeraad van Amsterdam V, fol. 129 in Eekhof, Baestian Jansz. Krol. Bijlagen, p. XX f. " Protoc. V, fol. 131, ibid., p. XXI. " Protoc. V, fol. 138, September 28, 1623; ibid., p. XXI ff. 18 Protoc. V, fol. 157, December 7, 1623, ibid., p. XXII. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 7 as requested by them. 19 Although still another Comforter of the Sick was sent them in the Spring of 1626 in the person of Jan Hughens, 20 the people had not the consolation of receiving a minister till the Spring of 1628, when Rev. Jonas Michaelius landed in New Netherland the 7th of April. He soon organized a consistory, consisting of himself, the Director General Peter Minuit, Jan Hughens, the latter 's brother-in-law and the Com- pany's storekeeper, and Jans Krol. The Consistory of Amster- dam still had the immediate supervision over this colonial church, to the support of whose minister the Directors of the Company were "indebted ... for as much as the value of a free table." 21 Thus the Dutch Reformed Church was as much the established Church in the colony as in the mother country. When the Company in 1629 granted to its members, who might plant colonies in New Netherland, a charter of privileges and exemptions, guaranteeing feudal rights to such patroons, including also liberal privileges for private persons in the United Provinces, who should settle there, it was most natural, under these circumstances, to insert the twenty-seventh article: "The Patroons and colonists shall in particular, and in the speediest manner, endeavor to find out ways and means, whereby they may support a Minister and schoolmaster, that thus the service of God and zeal for religion may not grow cool and be neglected among them, and they shall from the first procure a Comforter of the Sick there." 22 Thus the maintenance of the ministry of the Reformed Church was made obligatory on the part of the patroons and colonists. Precisely at the time of the negotiation of this charter, the West India Company was anxious to appear in the light of the cham- pion of the Dutch national cause and faith, as the directors feared the successful conclusion of a truce with Spain to the great 19 Protoc. V., fol. 231, November 14, 1624, and November 21, 1624, ibid., p. XXIII. 20 Protoc. V., fol. 336, April 2, 1626, ibid. 21 Jameson, Narratives of New Netherland, pp. 122-133. 22 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. ii, pp. 551-7. Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, p. 9. The provision of the charter was not a piece of legislation adopted in particular for New Netherland, but is also found in the draft of the conditions for colonies in general by the College of the XIX, June 12, 1627 and November 22, 1628. Cf. Extract from Dutch Archives, U. S. Commission on Boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, Vol. ii, pp. 52, 63. 8 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLE1N, D.SC.M.H. detriment of the interests of the Company, whose members, according to their remonstrance, had "most at heart the mainte- nance of the Reformed Religion and the liberties of our beloved Fatherland." 23 Minuit's administration as Director General, therefore, saw the establishment of a fully organized Reformed Church, subsidized by the West India Company, which then imposed on new patroons and colonists the obligation of support- ing the Reformed Church service. 24 The documents furnish the evidence of this, but not of the establishment of religious freedom in New Netherland by Peter Minuit. The privileged position of the Dutch Reformed Church in New Netherland was not in any way menaced till a change in the colonial policy of the West India Company, in the fall of 1638, abolished the monopoly of the fur trade, opened to free competi- tion also the other internal trade of New Netherland to colonists of the Province, and extended these privileges, not only to the inhabitants of the United Provinces, but also to their allies and friends who might be inclined to sail thither to engage in the cul- tivation of the land. 26 The States-General, under whose pressure the change had been effected, hoped thus for an increase of the population of the Province to avert all danger of its loss through foreign invasion. Conditions resulting from this change of colonial policy made a new charter necessary, which the States- General did not cease to demand from the Company. At the same time the patroons made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain greater independence from the Company and a greater restriction of private enterprise in the colony. This was the burden of the New Projet of colonization which they submitted to the States- General. 26 The West India Company itself also submitted a draft of articles and conditions which were to regulate the future colonization and trade of New Netherland. The directors recognized the importance of establishing the proper order of public worship in the first commencement and planting of the population according to the practice established by the govern- 23 West India Co.'s Consideration on a truce with Spain, November 16, 1629. Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. i, pp. 40-2. 24 Cf. result in the only successful patroonship established, Rennselaerswyck, in F. J. Zwieelein, Religion in New Netherland, p. 78. 26 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, Vol. i, 200-8. " Ibid., Vol. i, p. 198. NEW NETHEHLAND INTOLERANCE 9 ment of the Netherlands. Although religion was to be taught and preached in the Province of New Netherland "according to the confession and formularies of unity . . . publicly accepted in the respective churches" of the fatherland, no person was thereby to be "in any wise constrained or aggrieved in his conscience," but every person was to be "free to live in peace and all decorum, provided he take care not to frequent forbidden assemblies or conventicles, much less collect or get up any such; and further abstain from all public scandals and offences which the magis- trate is charged to prevent by all fitting reproofs and admoni- tions, and, if necessary, to advise the Company from time to time of what may occur there herein, so that confusion and mis- understanding may be timely obviated and prevented." The Company then defined the religious duties of the inhabitants still more in detail. Every inhabitant was bound not only to fulfill his civic duties, but also to attend faithfully to any religious charge that he might receive in the churches, without any claim to a recompense. Further, each inhabitant and householder was to bear such tax and public charge as would be considered proper for the maintenance of preachers, Comforters of the Sick, school- masters, and similar necessary officers. 27 This charter with the New Project was sent to the Chamber of the West India Company, which was to consider the entire case of New Netherland with the deputies of the States-General. 28 However, no definite results were obtained till the States-General threatened to grant a charter independent of the Company, if the Directors failed to submit one for approval and ratification. 29 Finally, on July 19, 1640, the new charter of Freedoms and Exemptions was promulgated, of which "all good inhabitants of the Netherlands and all others inclined to plant any colonies in New Netherland" might take advantage. The phraseology of this revised charter in regard to religion is much less liberal in tone than the articles that had been proposed before by the Company. The subjection of the Church to the civil authority, which is expressed in all Confessions of the Reformed Churches, also found its expression in this charter. It reserved to the » Cf. Arts. 6 and 8, Col. Docs., N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 112. M Ibid., p. 114. "Proceedings of States-General, May 31, 1640, Col. Docs., N. V. Vol. i, p. 118. 10 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. Company the founding of churches, and to the Governor and Council the cognizance of all cases of religion. 30 The decree renewing the establishment of the Dutch Reformed Church in a negative form emphasizes the hostile spirit of the new constitution of the country toward dissent: "And no other religion shall be publicly admitted in New Neiherland except the Reformed, as it is at present preached and practiced by public authority in the United Netherlands : and for this purpose the Company shall provide and maintain good and suitable preachers, schoolmasters, and com- forters of the sick." 31 The charter with this clause was promulgated seven years before the arrival in the country of Peter Stuyvesant as Director General, when that important office was held by his predecessor, William Kieft. This express denial of religious liberty did not, however, prevent New Amsterdam from becoming "a melting pot of races," since the charter occasioned the immigration of many foreigners into the colony because of other advantages. This also caused an increase of dissent, against which this clause seems to have been intended for the purpose of strengthening the position of the Dutch Reformed Church in its exclusive privi- lege as the established Colonial Church. Both the cosmopolitan character of New Amsterdam and the lack of religious freedom were noticed by Father Jogues in the days of William Kieft: " On this Island of Manhate and its environs there may well be four or five hundred men of different sects and nations. The Di- rector General told me that there were persons there of eighteen different languages." Although the Dutch were very generous in their treatment of Father Jogues and later of other Jesuit missionaries, 32 they were evidently bent on impressing him with the idea that dissenters from the established religion were only present on the sufferance of the local authorities, as he had been informed, in all likelihood, by the Director General him- self that the colony had "orders to admit none but Calvinists." It may be that Father Jogues misunderstood the matter, and that the orders referred to by his informant were nothing else than the clause of the charter prohibiting dissenting 30 Cf. two last Arts, of Freedoms and Exemptions, ibid., p. 123. 31 Ibid. 32 Cf. Zwiehlein, Religion in New Neiherland, pp. 276-316. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 11 worship. However, the Jesuit had observed that there were, "besides Calvinists in the colony, Catholics, English, Puritans, Lutherans, Anabaptists, here called Mnistes, etc." 33 Ten years later, after the arrival of Stuyvesant, the diversity of relig- ious opinion is still more emphasized in the remonstrance which Domine Megapolensis sent to the Classis of Amsterdam as a protest against the admission of Jews into the Province of New Netherland. "For as we have here Papists, Men- nonites, and Lutherans among the Dutch; also many Puri- tans or Independents, and many atheists, and various servants of Baal among the English under this government' who conceal themselves under the name of Christians; it would create still greater confusion, if the obstinate and immoveable Jews came to settle here." 34 While it was a matter of life and death for the colony of New Netherland to resist the encroachments of New England govern- ments, Kieft seems to have welcomed the occasion to treat with some families from Lynn and Ipswich for their settlement under Dutch jurisdiction in 1641. The Director General no doubt thought that settlements of Englishmen, bound by an oath of allegiance to the States-General and to the West India Company, would prove a good barrier to further encroachments of New England governments. The English were, therefore, permitted to settle in Dutch territory on equal terms with the other colonists of the Province 35 in accordance with the provisions of the charter of 1640, which became the basis of all future grants from the Dutch to the English. This guaranteed them practically "the very same liberties, both ecclesiastical and civil, which they enjoyed in the Massachusetts." 36 They were not granted, as some historians seem to think, freedom of religion, but freedom of their religion. The pronoun is essential and saves the "fair terms" to the English from being a violation of the colonial charter just promulgated by the West India Company. Both the Dutch and the New England English felt that their religion » Doc. Hist., N. Y., Vol. iv, p. 15; Jes. ReL, Vol. ix. " Eccl. Recs., N. Y., Vol. i, p. 336. * Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. i, p. 181; Vol. xiii, p. 8. 38 Winthrop's Journal, Vol. ii, p. 35 (ed. Original Narratives of Early American History). 12 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. did not differ "in fundamentals." The consciousness of the "close union and congruity of the divine service of the two nations" found expression even in the year in which these fair terms were offered to the English of Ipswich and Lynn. The Reverend Mr. Hugh Peters of Salem, who was sent to England to negotiate with Parliament in regard to New England affairs, was also instructed to go, if possible, to the Netherlands to treat with the West India Company for a peaceable neighborhood with its colony of New Netherland. According to the fifth article of the propositions which he was to submit to the Company in the name of Massachusetts and Connecticut, he was to request "that the company, knowing that the English in America amount to about fifty thousand souls, may be pleased to inform us in what manner we can be employed in advancing the great work there, being of the same religion with themselves." 37 This feel- ing of solidarity in religion was also manifested by the Dutch in the Netherlands. When the Dutch heard that the Westminster Assembly "had agreed upon a certain plan of church government, practically the same in most points as that of the Reformed Church of this country, and had laid the same before the Parlia- ment of England . . . for approval," they experienced great gladness and singular "satisfaction" in "the assurance that between the English Church and our Church there should be effected a similar form of government." 38 Even the triumph of Independency over Presbyterianism in England did not change this friendly feeling of the Dutch toward the English Puritans. Upon the Restoration, the States-General of the United Provinces permitted "all Christian people of tender conscience in England and elsewhere, oppressed, full liberty to erect a colony in the West Indies between New England and Virginia in America ... on the conditions and privileges granted by the committees of the respective chambers representing the Assembly of the XIX . . . Therefore, if any of the English, good Christians . . . shall be rationally disposed to transport themselves to the said place under the conduct of the United States (they) shall have full liberty to live in the fear of the Lord." 39 Thus both English " Col. Docs., N. ¥., Vol. ii, p. 150. 38 Synods of North and South Holland, Eccl. Records, N. Y., Vol. i, p. 192. 38 Doc. Hist., N. Y., Vol. iii, pp. 37-39. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 13 Congregationalists and English Presbyterians found a welcome in New Netherland, although the authorities, civil and ecclesias- tical, of the Province naturally favored the latter, whose agree- ment with the Reformed Church was not limited to "funda- mentals," but also extended to church polity in detail. Early in 1642, the Reverend Francis Doughty, Presbyterian minister, as agent for some English residing at Rhode Island, at Cohannock, and other places, negotiated with the Director General and Council a patent for a settlement at Mespath on Long Island that they might "according to the Dutch Reformation enjoy freedom of conscience." 40 Kieft readily granted Doughty and his associates freedom of conscience according to the Dutch Reformation in the clause of the Mespath patent, which gave them power "to exercise the Reformed Christian Religion and church discipline which they profess. 41 In the autumn of the same year, John Throghmorton, asked Kieft for permission to settle under his jurisdiction with thirty -five families and to live in peace, "provided they be allowed to enjoy the same privileges as other subjects and to freely exercise their religion." The following summer, the patent was issued for the territory that he and his companions had occupied, but it makes no mention of religion. 42 In the Spring of 1644, another English colony of Presbyterians settled on Long Island under the Dutch jurisdiction. They had sent a committee there in 1643 to purchase lands from the Indians. Early in the following year, the English were settled "in the great plain, which is called Hemp- stead, where Mr. Fordham, an English minister, had the rule." 43 The reference to Mr. Fordham very likely is due to his civil posi- tion in the new settlement, as the ministerial office was not then exercised by him, but by Richard Denton, who is later described by the Dutch ministers of New Amsterdam as " sound in the faith, of a friendly disposition, and beloved by all." 44 It is not strange, therefore, that the settlement of Hempstead received a patent *« Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. i, pp. 424-31. 41 Book of Patents 00, p. 49; Riker, Annals of Newtown, p. 413; O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, Vol. i, p. 425. 12 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiii, p. 10. 43 Broad Advice, N. Y. Hist. Soc. Col., 2d Ser., Vol. iii, p. 257 (1857). In 1642 Lechford speaks of him as a minister out of office. " Eccl. Records, N. Y., Vol. i, p. 410. 14 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. with the same religious provisions as were contained in the patent of Mespath. Thus the settlers received full power and authority "to exercise the Reformed religion, which they profess, with the ecclesiastical discipline thereunto belonging. 46 On the termina- tion of the disastrous Indian war in 1645, two more English settlements on Long Island succeeded in obtaining a charter. This was evidently formulated by the patentees to avoid a recurrence of New England persecution, to which they had been subjected prior to their removal to New Netherland. At this time Kieft was ready to make any possible concession that would attract new settlers and retain in the country the old inhabitants, for there was no hope for the improvement of the Dutch Province without an increase of its population seriously reduced in the Indian war. The settlers of these towns apparently were not considered within the pale of the Reformed Church, and so the Director General was not in a position to grant them the exercise of the Reformed Religion, which alone could be publicly practiced according to the constitutional charter of the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1640. Consequently all that he could do, was to grant them "Liberty of Conscience," which was further defined as freedom from "molestacon or disturbance from any Magistrate or Magistrates, or any other Ecclesiastical Minister, that may extend jurisdiction over them." A precedent for this concession was found in "the Customs and manner of Holland." The settlers of the town of Flushing were the first to receive this con- cession in their charter. A few months later Gravesend received a charter with the same provision. 46 Peter Stuyvesant's religious policy towards English settle- ments of this kind under Dutch jurisdiction was neither more nor less liberal than that of his predecessor, for the simple reason that the conduct of both in the matter was regulated by the charter of 1640. Thus in 1652, some New England settlers with some individuals from Hempstead obtained permission from Stuyvesant to plant a new colony in the vicinity of the old settle- ment on land not yet occupied, which was, therefore, commonly 46 Patent, November 16, 1644, printed in Thompson, History of Long Island, Vol. ii, p. 6. 49 Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, New York Deed Book, Vol. ii, p. 178; Wallek, History of Flushing; Appendix, Doc. Hist., N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 411. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 15 known as Newtown, although its official name was Middelburg. The patent granted them the free exercise of their Protestant religion. 47 Some of the inhabitants were Presbyterians, but the great majority of them were Independents. 48 In 1655, a settle- ment of English in Westchester was brought under Dutch juris- diction and called by the Dutch Ostdorp. The inhabitants were Independents, and so there was no reason to disturb their religious worship. 49 There was likewise no interference with the religion of Jamaica, settled in 1656 mostly from Hempstead and called by the Dutch Rustdorp, as long as it was a question of the Reformed worship. 60 Most significant, however, are the long negotiations for the establishment of a settlement between some prospective New Haven settlers and Peter Stuyvesant, which illustrate most clearly the New Netherland attitude towards the "New England Way." The demands of the English are well put in their proposal, dated November 8, 1661, at Milford, N. E. They were evidently bent on transferring all their civil and eccle- siastical institutions to the projected settlement. The newly planted church or churches of the English were "to enjoy all such powers, privileges and liberties in the Congregational way as they have enjoyed in New England . . . without any disturbance, impediment or impositions of any other forms, orders or customs." They insisted that this approval of their churches be acknowledged by some public testimony upon record. 61 Thus far they had asked for nothing that had not already been conceded to others in the Dutch Province, because there was "no difference in the fundamental points of the worship of God betwixt (the Dutch churches) and the churches of New England as only in the Rueling of the same." 62 The church polity of the former was Presbyterian, while that of the latter was Congregational. How- ever now the Provincial government was asked not only to allow a corporate existence to individual churches, but also to allow these English churches planted under the Dutch government "to consociate together for mutual helpfulness," to call a Synod and 47 Rikeb, Annals of Newtown, p. 40. « Eccl. Recs., N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 396. " Ibid.; cf. Doc. Hist., N. Y., Vol. iii, p. 557. 60 Cf. Zwieblein, Religion in New Netherland, p. 176. « Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiii, p. 208. 62 Stuyvesant to Milford, November 28, 1661, Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiii, p. 210. 16 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. establish "by common consent such orders according to scripture as may be requisite for the suppressing of hairesies, schismes and false worships and for the establishment of truth with peace." Stuyvesant was willing to make all possible concessions, again adverting to the fact "that there is noe at the least differency in the fundamentall points of religion, the differency in churches orders and governments so small that wee doe not stick at it, therefore have left and leave still to the freedome off your owne consciences." 53 He even granted them full liberty to plant churches in the Congregational way and to organize them into a Synod. 54 The projected settlement, however, was not realized until after the English conquest of New Netherland, at Milford, soon changed to Newark. 55 II The rise of organized dissent within New Netherland was a by-product of the immigration resulting from the concessions of the charter of the Freedoms and Exemptions of 1640. Yet it contained the prohibition of the public worship of any other religion than the Reformed. The issue, however, was not raised till the administration of Stuyvesant when efforts were made for the first time to organize dissenting worship, especiaUy by Lutherans and Quakers. Both consequently found themselves exposed to persecution, 56 which extended also to Jews for fear that they also might be tempted to do the same. Of course there were also economic reasons that inspired the repression of the Jews. 57 No one disputes the fact of these persecutions, but there is considerable unwillingness to have any one else than Stuyvesant share the responsibility for the same. Nevertheless it was the clergy of the Reformed Church at New Amsterdam that petitioned for the intervention of Stuyvesant when "inhabi- tants and unqualified persons ventured to hold conventicles and gatherings and assumed to teach the Gospel" in Newtown. The ministers feared that this bad example would find imitation and result in quarrels, confusion, and disorders in Church and com- " Same to same, March 11, 1662, ibid., p. 216. "Ibid., p. 281. " Cf. Fiske, Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America, Vol. ii, pp. 12-15. »• Zwieblein, Religion in New Netherland, pp. 187-246. " Ibid., pp. 247-265. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 17 monalty. 68 They could rely upon the Director General's good offices in the matter, as they had already obtained, in answer to their remonstrance against the petition of the Lutherans for the public exercise of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the assurance that "he would rather relinquish his office than grant permission in this matter, since it is contrary to the first article of his commission, which was confirmed by him with an oath, not to permit any other than the Reformed Doctrine." 69 Stuy- vesant now expressed his decision to have placards issued against those persons, who, without either ecclesiastical or secular authority, acted as teachers in interpreting and expounding God's Holy Word. Stuyvesant also felt that this was a violation of the political and ecclesiastical rules of the fatherland, and an occasion for an outbreak of heresy and schism. Consequently all such conventicles, both public and private, were prohibited under heavy penalties in the ordinance of February 1, 1656. 60 Although the ordinance legislated for the repression of the freedom of religious worship in conventicles not within the pale of the Reformed Church, the Director General and Council were careful to include the more liberal provisions of the "Articles" that had been presented by John de Laet in the name of the West India Company to the States General for their approval. They did not "hereby intend to force the conscience of any to the pre- judice of formerly given patents." This can only refer to the patents of Flushing and Gravesend, which grant "Liberty of conscience according to the Custome and manner of Holland, without molestacon or disturbance from any Magistrate or Magistrates, or any other ecclesiastical minister, that may extend jurisdiccon over them." Stuyvesant's interpretation of this liberty of conscience did not include freedom of worship either in public or private conventicles. However, he expressly stated that he had no desire to invade the sanctuary of the home with this legislation, which did not affect "the reading of God's Holy Word, family prayers and worship, each in his own house." Thus the ordinance distinguished three kinds of worship: (1) Worship in •« Bed. Recs.. N. Y., Vol. i, p. 410. »» Bed. Recs.. N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 318. •° Records of New Amsterdam, Vol. i, p. 20; Vol. ii. p. 34; Eccles. Records, N. Y., V«l. i, p. 343. 18 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. public conventicles; (2) worship in private conventicles, and (3) worship within the family. The last was all that was allowed those that were not adherents of the Reformed Religion. This precisely constituted "Liberty of conscience according to the custome and manner of Holland." 61 The publication and execu- tion of the ordinance was entrusted to the fiscal and inferior magistrates and schouts throughout New Netherland, and its presence in town records shows the fidelity with which these orders were fulfilled. 62 In this way the Director General and Council believed that they had made ample provision for "the glory of God, the promotion of the Reformed Religion, and public peace, harmony, and welfare." Nevertheless a Lutheran minister came to New Amsterdam to organize Lutheran worship there. The event called forth a vigorous protest from the Dutch clergy of the town, who sum- marized, in a remonstrance of six points 63 directed to the Burgo- masters and Schepens, the injurious consequences of the exercise of the Lutheran confession not only to the religious, but also to the political interests of this place, as the strife in religious matters resulting therefrom would produce confusion in political matters and thus a united and peaceful people would be transformed into a Babel of confusion. 64 The ministers no doubt had in mind the colony of Rhode Island, which they regarded as the cess-pool of New England, full of erring spirits and enthusiasts. 65 The Burgomasters and Schepens could not believe that the directors of the West India Company, whom the Lutheran preacher represented as favorable to Lutheran worship, would tolerate any other than the true Reformed in this place, inasmuch as the oath of office "to help maintain the true Reformed Religion and to suffer no other religion or sects," had been approved by these directors. The Lutheran minister was accordingly forbidden to hold any public or private conventicles, and the proceedings were 61 Cf. Hobebt, Les Pays-Bas Espagnols et La RSpublique des Provinces Unies, La Question Religieuse, p. 97. 62 Het Bouk Van Het Durp Utrecht, Ad, 1657. Hall of Records, Kings County. Brooklyn. 63 Eccl. Recs., N. Y., Vol. i, pp. 386-88. 64 Ibid. 95 Ibid., Vol. i, p. 400. NEW NETIIERLAND INTOLERANCE 19 reported to the Director General and Council, who commended in every particular the action taken and ordered the strict enforce- ment of the ordinance of February 1, 1656, against conventicles, as this was "necessary for the maintenance and conservation, not only of the Reformed divine service, but also of political and civil peace, quietness, and harmony." 66 The Dutch ministers did not rest easy till the Lutheran preacher was transported from the colony. Throughout the agitation there was no lack of support on the part of the Classis of Amsterdam, the ecclesiastical authority of the Colonial Church in the Fatherland. It was even less tolerant of ecclesiastical differences than the ministers in the colony. 67 In their eyes the concession of the freedom of religious worship to the Lutherans would entail the concession of a similar privilege to the Mennonites and English Independents, and even to the Jews, who had in fact made this request of the governor and had "also attempted to erect a synagogue for the exercise of their blasphemous religion." 68 The Classis expressed, with deep emotion, its realization of the fact that under such circumstances a pastor's work would have greatly increased and his path would have been beset with obstacles and difficulties, which would inter- fere with a minister's good and holy efforts for the extension of the cause of Christ. Under the influence of the Classis of Amsterdam, the directors of the West India Company also classed with the Mennonites the English Independents amongst those who might urge claims for the freedom of religious worship upon the conces- sion of such a privilege to the Lutherans. Some uneasiness was experienced in regard to the States of Holland who might be inclined to grant the Lutheran petition, but these fears of the Classis were set at rest by the promise which the directors of the West India Company gave to resist any such concession. 69 In this matter, the decision of the company was pronounced finally, February 23, 1654, when the directors resolved not to tolerate any Lutheran pastors there, nor any other public worship than the « 8 Eccl. Recs.. N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 390. " The right of English Independents to public worship was never disputed by either Stuyvesant or the ministers of New Amsterdam. • 8 Eccl. Recs.. N. Y., Vol. i, p. 348. •• Ibid., Vol. i, p. 322. 20 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. true Reformed. The Classis of Amsterdam was perfectly satisfied and did not doubt but that henceforth the Reformed Doctrine "would be maintained without being hindered by the Lutherans and other erring spirits." 70 When the directors of the Company announced to Stuyvesant their absolute denial of the Lutheran petition, "pursuant to the customs hitherto observed by us and the East India Company," they recommended him to deny all similar petitions, but "in the most civil and least offensive way, and to employ all possible but moderate means in order to induce them to listen, and finally join the Reformed Church, and thus live in greater love and harmony." 71 When the Lutherans in Amsterdam again interceded in behalf of their fellow believers in New Netherland, and rumors were rife of permission to be granted by the directors of the West India Company and the City of Amsterdam "to all sorts of persuasions ... to exercise their special forms of worship" in their respective colonies, 72 the Classis of Amsterdam immediately directed its deputies on Indian affairs to wait upon these directors and magistrates of Amsterdam and insist on the "injuriousness of the general permission of all sorts of persuasions." 73 When another petition from the New Netherland Lutherans reached the directors of the company, the Classis again instructed these deputies " with all serious arguments . . . to check, at the begin- ning, this toleration of all sorts of religions, and especially of the Lutherans, lest God's Church come to suffer more and more injury as time goes on." 74 The deputies of the Classis soon learned that the directors of the West India Company had in fact resolved to connive at the free exercise of dissenting worship. Their representations against the adoption of this religious policy influenced the directors finally to abide by the resolution of the previous year. 75 The petitioners were told that the concession of religious worship to the Lutherans exceeded the powers of the West India Company and depended on the States-General, to 70 Ibid., Vol. i, p. 323. 71 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 250. 72 Eccl. Recs., N. Y., Vol. i, p. 357. '« Ibid., Vol. i, p. 360. 74 Ibid., Vol. i, p. 372. » Ibid., Vol. i, p. 375. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 21 whom they were referred. 78 The deputies were not so successful with the burgomasters of the City of Amsterdam, from whom they could only extort the indefinite promise that they would attend to the matter at the proper time, when information should arrive that the sects carried on the exercise of their religions. The magistrates of Amsterdam declared that they could not force the consciences of men, and the ministers denied that this was the purpose of their intervention. Under these circumstances, the Classis, not feeling entirely at ease, resolved to encourage "the consistory in New Netherland to continue their good zeal to check these evils in every possible way ; diligence and labor are required to prevent false opinions and foul heresies from becoming preju- dicial to the pure truth." This is also the burden of the letter," which the Classis of Amsterdam sent the consistory of New Netherland, to introduce the Reverend Everardus Welius, the first minister to the city's colony of New Amstel. They were justified in their feeling of anxiety when they learned of the departure of a Lutheran minister, whose final expulsion from the colony of New Netherland must have been as great a relief to them as to the colonial clergy. Meanwhile the Classis saw the incon- sistency of the concession of freedom of worship to the Swedish Lutherans on the South River and of its denial to the Dutch Lutherans on the North River at New Amsterdam. The minis- ters therefore resolved that the directors were to be urged to correct this abuse in the territory of the West India Company and the burgomasters requested to instruct their vice-director Alrichs to oppose the Lutherans and other sects in the district subject to the authority of the City of Amsterdam. 78 Both promised to be on their guard, and not permit, but rather endeavor to prevent the public exercise of the Lutheran worship. 79 Stuyvesant, 78 Ibid., Vol. i, p. 378. Stuyvesant was officially informed that the Lutherans were given no more liberty in their worship than "the permission quietly to have their exercises at their houses." Col. Docs., N. Y '., Vol. xiv, pp. 386-388. The Classis observed: "We cannot interprete this in any other way than that every one must have freedom to serve God quietly within his dwelling in such manner as his religion may prescribe, without instituting any public conventicles or gatherings. When this interpretation is recognized, our complaints will cease." " Eccl. Recs., N. Y., Vol. i, p. 378. 78 Ibid., Vol. i, p. 377. »> Ibid., Vol. i, p. 382. 22 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. nevertheless, faithfully fulfilled the stipulation of the treaty with the Swedes, which guaranteed them freedom of Lutheran worship even after the conquest of New Sweden, and there is no evidence that the clergy of New Amsterdam made any attempt to change his policy in this regard. 80 The Classis was gratified with better results from the commissioners of the City's colony, who, August 22, 1659, resented "the bold undertaking of the Swedish parson to preach there in the colony without permission," and ordered the vice-director "by proper means to put an end to or prevent such presumption on the part of other sectaries," because "as yet no other religion but the Reformed can or may be tolerated there." 81 While the directors of the West India Company maintained the exclusive privilege of the Dutch Reformed Church in New Netherland, they tried to make some concessions to the Lutherans by ordering the administration of baptism according to an older but admitted form. Now the ministers of the colony again found earnest support and encouragement in their opposition from the Classis of Amsterdam, but the directors persisted in their demands, 82 and manifested so much displeasure, that the deputies of the Classis on Indian affairs delayed addressing them on the subject until further correspondence with the brethren in New Netherland. 83 The directors were not satisfied with the fact that the Lutherans were now again taking part in the divine service of the Reformed Church; they wished to exclude any possibility of another separation, that might arise if they should continue such precise forms and expressions, as the Lutherans could very easily obtain from the authorities in the Fatherland the right of organizing separate Divine Service, which the directors would then be powerless to prevent. Stuyvesant was, therefore, again directed, December 29, 1659, to admonish 80 This fact should not be forgotten by those historians who wish to throw all the responsibility for the policy of religious repression on Stuyvesant. It is all the more noteworthy since the concession to the Swedes was due to the force of circum- stances at the time of the conquest. 81 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. ii, p. 61. However the official orthodoxy of the New Amstel began to give way in 1662 to the urgent necessity of obtaining colonists to repel English encroachments from Maryland. Cf. Zwieelein, Religion in New Netherland, p. 130. 82 Eccl. Recs., N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 440; Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 429. 83 Eccl. Recs., N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 442. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 23 the ministers to employ the old formula of baptism without wait- ing for further orders from the Classis of Amsterdam. Thus all dissensions in the Church and State of New Netherland would cease. 84 The directors of the Company had lost patience "with scruples about unnecessary forms, which cause more division than edification." Before their departure from Holland, the directors gave to two newly appointed preachers for New Nether- land books containing the old formula which they had to promise to use in the exercise of their clerical office. 86 When Megapolensis and Drisius, the two ministers at New Amsterdam, learned this, they also resolved to use the old formula, prescribed by the direc- tors, "with the design of avoiding any division in the churches of the country." 86 One of the points made against the concession of Lutheran worship was the consequent necessity of also giving liberty of worship to the Jews, who had forced their way into the colony in spite of the opposition of Stuyvesant. The directors of the Amsterdam Chamber confessed their desire to exclude the Jews, but they were sorely in need of Jewish capital, and so had to allow Jewish immigration into New Netherland. As soon as a rumor arose that the Jews would erect a synagogue for the exercise of their worship, the Dutch minister, Megapolensis, was immediately alive to the dangers of such a toleration of the Jews, "who have no other God than the unrighteous Mammon and no other aim than to get possession of Christian property, and to ruin all other merchants by drawing all trade to themselves." He earnestly requested the Classis of Amsterdam to use its influence with the directors of the Company to have "these godless rascals, who are of no benefit to the country, but look at everything for their own profit," removed from the Province. 87 Nevertheless the Jews remained, though Stuyvesant and his Council did all in their power to oust them. Here again the need of Jewish capital saved the Jews, and the directors at Amsterdam granted some relief from various disabilities under which Stuyvesant put the Jews. Thus the Director General failed to win over the directors to his 84 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 451. 86 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 461. 88 Eccl. Recs., N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 486. 87 Eccl. Recs., N Y., Vol. i, p. 335. 24 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. anti-Semitic policy by pointing out the dangers connected with further commercial concessions to the Jews. "To give liberty to the Jews will be very detrimental there, because the Christians there will not be able at the same time to do business. Giving them liberty, we cannot refuse the Lutherans and Papists." 88 Here Stuyvesant confounded religion and trade, and the directors insisted that the privileges granted by the company to the Jews in New Netherland were restricted to civil and political rights without giving them a right to claim the privilege of exercising their religion in a synagogue or at a gathering. 89 The directors were therefore greatly displeased on learning that Stuyvesant had refused the Jews permission to trade at Fort Orange and on the South River and also to purchase real estate which had been granted this Nation in the Netherlands. To show that his anxiety had not been premature, Stuyvesant informed the directors that the Jews had many times requested "the free and public exercise of their abominable religion . . . What they may obtain from your Honors, time will tell." 90 However, the Jews never obtained more than was granted to other forms of dissent outside of conquered New Sweden and Amsterdam's colony of New Amstel. They were allowed in all tranquillity their religion in their houses, which were, therefore, to be built " close together in a convenient place on one or the other side of New Amsterdam — at their own choice, as they have done here." 91 Some respect was also shown to their manner of life. In June 1658, two cases against Jacob Barsimson were called before the municipal court of New Amsterdam. "Though the defendant is absent, yet no default is entered against him, as he was summoned on his Sabbath." 92 When the instructions for sworn butchers were framed, a special oath was presented to the Jews, Asser Levy and Moses Lucena, that exempted them from killing hogs, which their religion did not allow. 93 No special law was necessary to frustrate all efforts at the organization of Lutheran or Jewish worship besides the placard 88 Oppenheim, Early Hist, of Jews in New York, p. 30. 8 » Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 341. 90 Oppenheim, op. cit., p. 21. 81 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 351. 82 Records af New Amsterdam, Vol. ii, p. 396. 83 Ibid., Vol. vii, pp. 259, 261. NEW NETHEELAND INTOLERANCE 25 against conventicles, but this ordinance was not thought suffi- ciently severe to repress the Quakers who found no favor in the eyes of either the New Amsterdam clergy or government. The ministers saw in the Quakers the instruments of Satan to disturb the churches in America as well as in Europe, "wandering to and fro sowing their tares" among the people of the Province, but they trusted that God would baffle the designs of Satan; 94 the Director General and Council regarded them as anarchists, whose doings tended not only to the subversion of the Protestant religion, but also to the abolition of law and order, and to the contempt of civil authority. 96 For the repression of these "seducers of the people, who are destructive unto magistracy and ministry," an ordinance was at length issued, which made vessels bringing Quakers into the Province subject to confiscation and persons entertaining a Quaker a single night, liable to a fine of fifty pounds, of which one-half was to go to the informer. 96 The proclamation of this ordinance met with open resistance from the people of Flushing, who were unwilling to infringe and violate the patent of the town, granted in the name of the States- General, guaranteeing "Liberty of Conscience according to the custom and manner of Holland, without molestacon or distur- bance, from any magistrate or magistrates that may extend juris- diccon over them." 97 Stuyvesant immediately instituted vigorous proceedings against the remonstrants, who were all brought to retract the principles which they had advanced in contradiction to the government's policy. Although they had espoused the cause of religious liberty, they had not the heroic fortitude that made the Quakers seal their testimony with their blood. 98 During these proceedings, twelve of the principal inhabitants of Jamaica informed the Director General and Council that the Quakers had unusual correspondence at the house of Henry Townsend, where they and their followers had also been "lodged and provided with meat and drink." 99 About the same time the Schout of Grave- send charged the former town clerk, John Tilton, with the crime 94 Eccl. Bees., N. Y., Vol. i, p. 400. 95 Records af New Amsterdam, Vol. ii, p. 346. 86 Bhodhead, History of State of New York, Vol. i, p. 637. 97 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, pp. 402-04. 98 Cf. Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland, pp. 219-223. 98 Col. Docs. N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 405. 26 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. of having lodged a Quakeress with some others of that abominable sect, 100 but nowhere did Stuyvesant find so much support in the repression of this sect as in Hempstead. The magistrates of the town had learned "by woeful experience that of late a sect hath taken such ill effect amongst us to the seducing of certain of the inhabitants, who by giving heed to the seducing spirits under the notion of being inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, have drawn away with their error and misguided light those which together with us did worship God in spirit and truth, and more unto our grief to separate from us : and unto the great dishonor of God, and in violation of the established laws and the Christian order, that ought to be observed with love, peace, and concord, have broke the Sabbath, and neglected to join with us in the true worship and service of God, as formerly they have done." The inhabitants of the town and to the uttermost bounds thereof were therefore ordered to give no entertainment, nor to have any converse with the Quakers, who at the very most "are permitted for one night's lodging in the parish, and so to depart quietly without dispute or debate the next morning." 101 The opposition thus early mani- fested by the magistrates to the Quakers was the policy pursued without alteration in Hempstead. When Thomas Terry and Samuel Dearing petitioned for leave to settle some families at Matinecock within the jurisdiction of Hempstead, the magis- trates of the town drew up a contract, dated July 4, 1661, which bound the petitioners to observe the laws of Hempstead, to admit only inhabitants possessing letters of commendation and appro- bation from the magistrates, elders or selected townsmen of their former place of residence, and finally "to bring in no Quakers or any such like opinionists, but such as are approved by the inhabi- tants of Hempstead." This contract was confirmed and still more specified as late as June 23, 1663. 102 In spite of persecution, the Quaker movement gained strength on Long Island. When some inhabitants of Jamaica asked for a minister from New Amsterdam to preach and baptize, Stuyvesant instructed the minister Drisius, the deputy sheriff Resolved 100 Ibid., p. 406. 101 Thompson, History of Long Island, Vol. ii, p. 11. 102 Records of North and South Hempstead, Vol. i, pp. 143-45; Col. Docs., N. Y Vol. xiv, p. 528. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 27 Waldron, and the clerk Nicholas Bayard to go to Jamaica and obtain minute information on the violation of the ordinance against private conventicles by the Quakers and other sects. 10 ' Stuyvesant then found it necessary to purify the authorities in the town of unfaithful elements who "connive with the Sect, giving entertainment unto their scattering preachers, leave and way unto their unlawful meetings and prohibited conventicles." 104 The three new magistrates, Richard Everett, Nathaniel Denton, and Andrew Messenger, whose zeal for the good of the country and the Protestant cause would ensure the observance of the ordinance against conventicles, were ordered to call the inhabi- tants of the town together to sign a written statement, by which they bound themselves to inform the authorities about any meetings and conventicles of Quakers within the town and also to assist them against the Quakers in the case of need. 105 Only six refused to subscribe, upon whom finally soldiers were quartered with the promise of relief from this burden as soon as they would sign the pledge. 106 However the Jamaica authorities could do little to stamp out the Quakers as long as they assembled outside of their jurisdiction at the house of John Bowne in Flushing, who was accordingly arrested, tried, and sentenced. When the Quaker refused to submit to the judgment of the court, he was finally transported to Holland. 107 Stuyvesant sent a report of the case to the directors at Amsterdam, in which he complained of John Bowne as a disturber of the peace, who "obstinately persisted in his refusal to pay the fine imposed by the Court of the Province of New Netherland, and who now was banished" in the hope that other dissenters might be discouraged. The Director General also declared that he was determined to adopt "more severe prosecutions," if this example should fail to deter these sectarians from further contempt of authority in Church and State. 108 When the directors at Amsterdam received Stuyvesant's letter, they felt that it was time again to restrain the religious zeal 103 Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 489. 1M Ibid., Vol. xii, p. 490. 106 Ibid., p. 492; Jamaica Record, Vol. i, p. 120. 108 Ibid., Vol. xiv, p. 493; Amer. Hist. Rec, Vol. i, p. 210. 107 Cf. Zwieblein, Religion in New Netherland, pp. 234-241. 108 O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, Vol. ii, p. 456. 28 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. of the Director General within the limits which they thought would not injure the interests of their colony. While they were also heartily desirous of seeing the Province free from Quakers and other sectarians, their zeal for the religious unity of the Province was tempered by the fear that a too rigorous policy might diminish the population and stop immigration, which had to be favored at this early stage of the development of the colony. Stuyvesant was, therefore, told by the directors, April 16, 1663, that he might shut his eyes to the presence of dissent in New Netherland, or at least that he was not to force the conscience, but to allow every one to have his own belief as long as he behaved quietly and legally, gave no offence to his neighbors, and did not oppose the government. The directors referred Stuyvesant to the moderation practiced toward all forms of dissent in the City of Amsterdam, which made it the asylum of the persecuted and oppressed from every country, with the result of a large increase of its population. The same blessing would follow an imitation of this policy of moderation in the colony of New Netherland. 109 The letter of the directors has generally been interpreted in the light of an edict of toleration extended to the Province of New Netherland, with which all persecution of the Quakers ceased until the termination of the Dutch rule. 110 A normal trip across the Atlantic in those days took about six weeks, so that the acts of repression, executed by the Council of New Netherland during the month of May, probably preceded the arrival of this letter in New Amsterdam. Thus on May 7th, the Fiscal was ordered to make an inventory of the property of John Tilton of Gravesend, who was then in prison. 111 Ten days later, a warrant was granted to remove the prisoner and his wife, Mary Tilton, from the province. 112 On the same day, a new ordinance was issued by the provincial government which inflicted heavy penalties upon skippers and barques, smuggling into the country any of those "abominable imposters, runaways, and strolling people called Quakers." 113 There is no doubt, however, that the Dutch >°» Col. Docs., N. Y., Vol. xiv, p. 526. 110 Brodhead, History of New York, Vol i, p. 707; O'Callaghan, op. cit.. Vol. ii, p. 457. 111 O'Callaghan, Cal. Hist. Mss. (Dutch), Vol. i, p. 246. MlUd., p. 247. 113 Thompson, History of Long Island, Vol. ii, p. 295. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 29 minister Polhemius of Midwout, who in all his correspondence keeps himself free from the persecuting spirit of his fellow ministers in New Amsterdam, referred to some common measure of repres- sion adopted against Quakers, when he wrote to the Classis of Amsterdam only four months before Stuyvesant's capitulation to the English: "They will have the Quakers . . . before Court under oath, which the Lord taught not." 114 In fact, the letter of the directors only requests Stuyvesant to connive at dissent within his jurisdiction, but at the same time entertain the thought that such connivance might not be possible, and in this event it merely reiterates the command given repeatedly in previous letters of the directors on similar occasions, at least to admit freedom of conscience, to allow every inhabitant of the Province to have his own belief. A more liberal interpretation of the letter also makes the conduct of the directors toward John Bowne unintelligible. 116 When Bowne petitioned the Directors of the 111 Eccl. Recs., N. Y ., Vol. i, p. 544; cf. correction of text in A. Eekhof, De Her- vormde Kerk in N. Amerilca, Vol. ii, p. 86 2 . Though "Religion in New Netherland" appeared in 19-10, Dr. Eekhof still writes in 1913, op. cit., Vol. i, p. 26, that "the history of the Reformed Church in North America is not yet written with the use of the latest discovered sources and based on the original documents." As he acknow- ledged my work to be "fluently written and well documented" and as he cites no other records than I do, except in one particular, Dr. Eekhof means, by original, untranslated documents. It is true that a careful study of his work discloses about twenty corrections of documentary material translated into English, of which seven rectify mistakes in dating letters made by Dr. Corwin in the Ecclesiastical Records of New York, and the remainder correct mistranslated words or phrases, but in neither case are the corrections of any importance as usually it is a question of only a trifling matter. So far as I have seen, his work has no corrections to offer of any translations in the Colonial Documents of New York, and but of one word in Fernow's Records of New Amsterdam. Though differently arranged, Dr. Eekhof's narrative of the growth of the Dutch Reformed Church in New Netherland and of the repression of organized dissent is a close parallel to my own exposition of these matters. This is the case, not because he is dependent on my work, except here and there and that duly acknowledged in his footnotes, but because he makes as honest a use of the data drawn from the source material as I have done. Yet Dr. Eekhof takes occasion to remark anent "Religion in New Netherland" that " the cult and church persuasion of the author peeps around the corner at every turn." (Op. cit., Vol. i, p. 26.) The only new contribution by Dr. Eekhof is found in the documentary sources dealing with the relations of the Amsterdam Consistory with the West India Company in his book, Bastiaen Jansz Crol, which were not available in print before and make some corrections necessary in "Religion in New Netherland." This data has been utilized in this article. On the other hand Dr. Eekhof fails to take due account of the English immigration as a religious factor in New Netherland history; his point of view is too restricted, i. e., national and provincial without sufficient regard to the outside world. 116 Journal of John Bowne, Amer. Hist. Record, Vol. i, pp. 4-8. 30 FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN, D.SC.M.H. West India Company for a pass to permit him to return to New Netherland, he was asked whether he intended to return to the colony to bring his wife and children to Holland. When he stated that his intention was to labor and maintain them there as he had done before, he was told that the directors thought it best for him to stay in Holland and to send for his wife and children, as the Company does not give liberty there. Bowne then appealed to the liberty guaranteed by the Flushing charter, but Director Perkins claimed that this patent was granted when nothing or little was heard in the colony of people of his persua- sion. Bowne urged that the Quakers were a peaceable people, but he was told that their opposition to the laws of the Province proved the contrary to be the case. Although Bowne retorted that these laws were contrary to justice and righteousness and a violation of the privileges of their patent, the directors insisted that all those, who were unwilling to become subject to the ordinances of the colony, would not be permitted to live there. Nevertheless they drew up the conditions under which they would allow him to return to New Netherland. When Bowne received this paper to sign, he found the terms to be contrary to his con- science, faith, and religion. 116 He immediately wrote a letter to the West India Company in reply. He had expected justice from the directors, but only beheld additional oppression. As late as June 9th, he complained in his letter to his wife that the Company detained his goods and denied him a passage home except on conditions so gross and unreasonable that he chose to suffer the want of the dear company of his wife, the ruin of his estate in his absence there, and the loss of his goods here rather than yield or consent to such injustice. 117 At length Bowne did become quite free of the directors and he tells us in his journal that he again arrived at New Amsterdam early in the year 1664. He immediately proceeded to his home in Flushing, which was the first house he entered in the country. It is said that John Bowne again met the old Governor after the establishment of the English rule, as a private citizen, who then seemed ashamed of what he had done and glad to see the Quaker safe home again. 118 1U Thompson, History of Long Island, Vol. ii, p. 887. "' Ibid.. Vol. ii, p. 386. 118 Bbsbb, Sufferings of the Quakers, Vol. ii, p. 287. Besse's account of the Bowne case is inaccurate. NEW NETHERLAND INTOLERANCE 31 Demonstration has, therefore, established that the policy of religious repression pursued in the Province of New Netherland on the outbreak of organized dissent was not merely local or tem- porary in character or personal to Stuyvesant. The colonial clergy, the natural custodians of the colony's orthodoxy, merited for their zeal in this regard the commendation of their ecclesias- tical superiors in Holland, the Classis of Amsterdam, which insisted quite as vigorously with the directors of the West India Company in the Amsterdam Chamber on the repression of dis- senting worship in private or public conventicles as the colonial clergy did with the civil authorities in the Province of New Netherland. The Director General did not fail to adopt all measures he judged necessary to fulfill the oath which bound him to maintain the exclusive worship of the Reformed Religion, and the directors in Holland did not at any time repudiate the policy of excluding all other worship, but they tried to persuade Stuyvesant to admit some connivance in regard to dissent, if this were possible, as they feared injury to the material interests of the Company, unless the policy of religious repression was tempered by some moderation. To insure this, all repressive ordinances were finally ordered to be submitted to the directors before their promulgation in the Province, but this meant no essential change of religious policy. Frederick J. Zwierlein, D.Sc.M.H. (Louvain), St. Bernard's Seminary, Rochester, N. Y. **'«£ B V MJfc 9? El. /AS. WLtf ' Etaft F" -*M >'* -.W *+/* "St! ^-•v i*%i Dp » 4 J At*' ' w