Stower, Richard. A History of the First Parish Church of Scituate, Massachusetts: Its Life & Times, Scituate, MA: Converpage, nd
Page 1 - On January 18, 1634 a small group of people huddled together near the warm hearth in a simple house along the edge of Scituate Harbor and to the north of the cold brook, the Satuit, that gave the town its Wampanoag name. The house belonged to James Cudworth, a salter, and with him that evening were his wife, Mary, his friend, Timothy Hatherly, and several others who assembled there for a very serious purpose: to gather the first church in the town. Leading them in prayer was the Rev. John Lothrop, newly arrived from London, by way of Boston. Thus was assembled the First Church of Scituate, a settlement in the Plymouth Colony of the Pilgrims.
The Rev. Samuel Deane, in his History of Scituate, Massachusetts (1831) wrote, "Few subjects are more agreeable (at least to many minds) than that of contemplaing the characters of the men who first broke the soil which we now cultivate, and few things can more excite the imagination, than to muse upon the st where hey lighted their domestic fires, or to walk over the green turf that covers their remains."
Page 4 - In order to appreciate the early history of the Scituate church we must understand the historical context in which it came to be gathered, first led by the Rev. Henry Jacob in the Southwark borough of London in 1616 and later by his successor, the Rev. John Lothrop, in Scituate in 1634. This means we must start in sixteenth century England with the rise of the Puritan movement; then to the split between
the two reformist factions: the Puritans, who believed, hoped and prayed that the Church of England could reform itself, not so much in doctrine, as in ritual and governance; and the Separatists, who had given up all hope that the Church could be changed and who decided to travel on their own path returning the church to its origins.
When John Lothrop arrived in Scituate in the fall of 1634, he probably knew a good number of the settlers there because, like him, they had come to the Plymouth Colony by way of Kent, England.
Page 5 - Though born in Yorkshire, Lothrop's first parish assignment was at St. James Parish in Egerton, Kent. The connection between Kent and Scituate was strong. Even Lothrop's predecessor in the Southwark church, the Rev. Henry Jacob, was born in Kent . . .
Kent is one of the more historically important counties in England. . . . Twenty-one miles from Egerton, across the English Channel to the southeast, is France. Fifty miles to the northwest from Egerton is London. . . . In the Middle Ages it was one of the most prosperous regions of England because of a well-established class of crop farmers and sheepherders of moderate means who, as freeman, owned their own land. It was this economic independence that allowed, by the sixteenth century, an easing of economic, social and religious practices that persisted in other areas of England. . . . Its proximity to London placed it at the crossroads of trade and communication with the continent and gave it a competititve advantage in the London markets. After William the Conqueror invaded and ruled England in the eleventh century, Kent had a reputation as an unruly province, a place of periodic unrest, if not outright rebellion. Its acts of resistance gave Kent its motto, "Invictus" (Undefeated). . . .
Non-conformity seems to have appeared naturally in the countryside. The nature of farming, the weakness of manorial authority and the tradition of a life of comparative isolation encouraged individualistic and independent attitudes. . . .
Page 6 - In addition to the farmers, there gradually grew a merchant class trading in textiles and other woven goods. This came about in part during the sixteen[th] century when three waves of skilled Protestant weavers came from the Low Countries on the continent and found refuge in Kent. Their religious views were influential. The clothiers and artificers (manual laborers) of Kent, those who made woolen cloth, excelled at their craft. They dyed their wool before weaving, thus making their cloth renowned for its color and variety. Clothiers traveled to London many times a year and spread their independent social, political and religious views during their commercial dealings with merchants in London who bought their cloth. At home, the weavers, spinners and carders who came to pick up or deliver materials were "easy converts" because their livelihood was dependent on these independent thinkers.
[Ancestral families native to Kent: Bigge, Castlen, Chamberlain, Derret, Exhurst, Hatch, Henley, Hinton, House, Huckstep, King, Roberts, Scudder, Soane, Stoughton, Tilden, Wills]
The London borough of Southwark, at the south end of London Bridge, had been a busy secion of the city since the early Middle Ages. A survey of London, written in 1598, gives the following description of Southwark: "The Borough of Southwark, which is a ward of London without the walls, consisteth of divers streets, ways and winding lanes, all full of buildings at a subsidy to the king this borough yieldeth about eight hundred pounds, which is more than any one city in England payeth, except London. Old London Bridge was the only bridge over the Thames at London and all traffic to and from the City and the South of England and hence the continent of Europe passed through Southwark's Borough High Street . . . "
Page 7 - . . . was the place to go for entertainment. . . . Here, just outside the City of London's jurisdiction, the area had long been known for its bear gardens and the popular sport of bear bating. It was also notorious for its 'stews' or brothels. By the late sixteenth century, however, the neighborhood became the home of entertainment of a very different kind. . . . Here, the Rose Theatre was built in 1588 and the Globe Theater opened in 1599 where many of William Shakespeare's plays were first performed. . . . Near the Globe Theater were both the bear gardens and the bishop's prison, the Clink, where religious dessenters were sent. . . . The prison owed its extreme unpleasantness to its very damp location below the high water mark near th eriver, the common sewer and the bishop's pond. Southwark in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries attracted aspects of life, groups of people and ways of thought not favored by London authorities within its own walls. . . . Dr. Thomas Binney, an eminent nineteenth century English Congregationalist, wrote that "During the latter half of the 16th century some of the most distinguished Puritan confessors and martyrs found in Southwark a home, a church, a prison and a grave.
Henry VIII (1491-1547, ruled 1509-1547) - created Church of England in order to obtain divorce from Catherine of Aragon
Edward VI (1537-1553, ruled 1547-1553) - Protestant leanings
Page 8 - . . . , Act of Uniformity 1549. Written by a committee headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, the act is primarily known for the creation of the English language Book of Common Prayer as the sole legal form of worship in England. . . . led to rioting in some areas, especially areas that continued their loyalty to Rome. . . a new Act of Uniformity was passed in 1552 that introduced a greatly revised Protestant Book of Common Prayer. Anyone who attended a service where this liturgy was not used faced six months imprisonment for a first offence, one year for a second offence, and life for a third.
Page 9 - . . . Church of England . . . was now a national church that was episcopal, that is, governed by bishops. All English people were obligated to support a church that by royal decree was now Protestant. While reforms may have been widespread, they were not deep. [Political not necessarily spiritual.]
Lady Jane Grey (1536/7-1554, ruled 9 days 1553) - treasonous attempt to keep Mary, Henry VIII's Catholic daughter from getting the throne.
Mary I (1516-1558, ruled 1553-1558) - reestablished the Catholic church, many Protestant martyrs.
Elizabeth I (1533-1603, ruled 1558-1603) - Protestant and political
John Lothrop born 1584 in Yorkshire, attending Cambridge in 1601-1605, age 19 when Elizabeth I died
Page 10 - Elizabeth clearly wanted to unify England; however, at one extreme there were those who still upheld the Catholic faith, and at th eother, there were those who felt the Reformation had not gone far enought. Toleration of individual religious belief and practice other than that required by the Church of England was not tolerated. . . . The Act of Supremacy of 1558 declared the Queen, "Supreme Head of the Church of England," and that rebellion agains the established church was considered as rebellion against the throne, a crime of treason.
1571 - Rev. Richard Fitz and congregants imprisoned for refusal to obey the
Act of Uniformity 1558 imposed by Elizabeth I.
. . . A treatise titled, An Admonition to the Parliament (1572), clearly stated the disappointment Puritans had felt with the middle-road Elizabeth was taking between the significant Catholic population and the radical Protestant reformers. "We in England," the Admonition decried, "are so far off, from having a church rightly reformed, according to the prescript of God's word, that as yet we are not come to the outward face of the same. . . .
Page 11 - As the movement matured and gained more followers, they accepted the name "puritan" as a positive expression of their commitment to obey the will of God as they saw it. This meant that they would observe the Sabbath day more strictly than others; they would look upon the sermon as preaching the word of God; and they also preferred the fellowship of "godly" people like themselves even [page 11] if it meant ridicule. With the zeal of any reforming group, the Puritans believed that their mission was not just to save souls. The Church of England, they believed, was called to provide England with moral direction; to be the steward of its culture; and to be the standard-bearer of the international Protestant Reformation on English soil. So focused were they on these four inseparable obligations that "anyone who thought they could be so much as conceived separately was [deemed] no Puritan." If there ever was a single Puritan sentiment that summed up its affirmation, it was given in a New England sermon that read, "If you are heedless of your works, if you will live at random according to your hearts desire you may be sure you are no believer." . . .
Believing that they had a personal call from God, Puritans still needed doctrine to structure and institutionalize their "prophetic fire." Since the movement's leaders were mostly university graduates and academics, their religious stance, as one historian put it, "is generally marked by careful thought; it is an intellectual tradition of great profundity." At the core of the Puritan's belief was the doctrine of "covenant theology," which held that God's design for humanity's fate was not part of some vast impersonal plan. Quite the contrary, it was very individualized due to the covenant of grace that God made with Abraham. Grace was helped along by one's faith, which was deeply personal. Puritans may have disagreed among themselves about how much a person's destiny was God's work and how much was a man's or woman's, but all agreed that the call of [page 12] being God's elect, always initiated by God (the act of grace), would come as a personal encounter with God, therefore more was demanded of a man or woman than just an intellectual undersatnding of divine mercy. The Puritan believed that faith involved inward, outward and obedient preparation, as well as humility, gratitude and a fundamental commitment to walk in God's way according to His law. From this interpretation of the Bible came the Puritan view of human nature, human obligation, and human destiny; their belief about nature and society; and, their vision of the hereafter.
1586 Cambridge educated John Greenwood, clergy & Henry Barrow, lawyer - asserted the right of religious liberty believing that Jesus Christ was the sole head of the Church, not any monarch or bishop. . . . They were called Independents, Separatists or Brownists (named after non-conformist Robert Browne) who planted the idea of a gathered church.
1517 Martin Luther - 95 Theses - original sin that could only be reversed by God's grace, but never completely without sin. Justification because of God's goodness.
Page 14 - But for the more radical reformers, like Greenwood and Barrow, and later Henry Jacob and John Lothrop, the church was made up of a body of "saints" who had sought out and received God in an active way, rather than as a passive vessel receiving God's grace. The sacraments might confirm and consolidate a believer's faith, but they did not create it. What mattered to the radicals "was that each individual had received god spiritually rather than materially." An active, personal relationship with God, from the point of view of the crown and crozier, was a threat to their authority.
1592 - An Act for the Punishment of Persons Obstinately Refusing to Come to Church - The act ordered "all persona above the age of sixteen, refusing to come to church, or persuading others to deny her Majesty's authority in causes ecclesiastical, or disuadng them from coming to church, or being found present at any conventicle or meeting, under pretense of religion, [emphasis added] shall, upon conviction, be committed to prison without bail till they shall conform, and come to church;" and that, should they refuse to recant, "within three months, they shall abjure the realm, and go into perpeutal banishment; and that if they do not [page 15] depart within the time appointed, or if they ever return without the queen's license, they shall suffer death without the benefit of clergy." It was this statute that imprisoned many Separatists including the Rev. John Lothrop and members of his Southwark congregation in 1632. Despite the legal warning, the household was the "basic unit of Puritan religious life," and the Puritans refused to give up homebound religious services. Having Puritan worship in one's home might not have worried the Archbishop of Canterbury bu tthe fear was that household worship would grow into neighborhood meetings. . . .
Page 16 - The Puritans were also quite concerned with the quality of the local clergy. In Kent, for example, the standard of scholarship and preaching among the clergy was much higher than it had been at the accession of Elizabeth I. Puritans, in Kent agreed with all their fellow Christians that a minister was "first and foremost a man who opened and applied the Bible for his audience." But, for the Puritans, their pastor was more. His ministry was not only to the larger church but also to parish life, the caring for the souls, health and well being of his parishioners. It was because of this relationship between pastor and parishioner that the Puritans wanted to have a say in who was called to be their parish vicar. They saw the ritual of a bishop laying his hands on a man and then ordaining him as a priest as a meaningless relic from the Catholic past. On the other hand, for the elders of a congregatino to lay their hands on the man they called their pastor "affecteth the ordeyners [ordainers], when they feel him for whom they pray; and the ordeyned [ordained] when he feeleth a calling and charge from God (as it were) sensibly coming upon him, and the congregation, when they see him separated from the rest, by whom they shall reap much comfort or grief."
Elizabeth I (1533-1603, ruled 1558-1603)
James I (1566-1625, ruled Scotland 1567-1625, ruled England 1603-1625)
Charles I (1600-1649, ruled 1625-1649, executed)
Southwark Church 1616-1632 founded by Rev. Henry Jacob, taken over by Rev. John Lothrop
John Lothrop
- attended Cambridge off an on between 1601-1609, BA & MA
- ordained a deacon 1607 Church of England, age 23
- served Bennington, Hertsfordshire 1607-1609 Church of England
- served Egerton, Kent 1609-1622 Church of England, age 25-38
- in Southwark 1625-1632 age 41-48
. . . the Puritans hoped the new monarch, James I, would be more sympathetic to them. Even as James was heading to London from Scotland to be crowned king, Puritans presented to him a document known as the "
Millenary Petition," so-called because it was hoped that there would be a thousand signatures on the petition.
Page 17 - . . . the Puritans asked for changes in church liturgy, such as discontinuing the requirement of the signing of the cross in baptism; changes in clerical dress; a demand that no popish opinion be taught or defended; that no ministers be ordained except scripturally qualified men; that those in the ministry who are unable to preach, be charitably removed; that ministers can marry; that church discipline be administered stricly according to the law of Christ. In response, James convened a conference in January 1604 . . . This however, was not a sincere effort on the part of the king who wanted no part of any form of representative church governement. As the conference was about to begin and as the outnumbered Puritans sat in a waiting anteroom, James met with the primate of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other bishops. He confided to those in the room that he had lived among Puritans since his childhood and that he detested their ways. . . .
Page 19 - The Separatists, always in the minority, were radical Puritans, who shared with the majority of Puritans their aversion to the unchanged Roman Catholic ceremonies and rituals; and to the wearing of sumptuous vestments as well as their antipathy to the authoritarian hierarchy of the Church of England. Where the Separatists went beyond the non-Separatist Puritan position was in repudiating the Church of England as a "false" church. The basis for this view was the Bible. The Separatists saw in the Scriptures the model for a Christian community: small, non-hierarchical and gathered together by a covenant agreed to be members of that community. This "rigid" position of the Separatists was often the reason for their inability to create sustainable congregations since some of their number wanted to keep communion with their Anglican parish, that is, to be free to worship there as well. Not only were the Crown and Church of England hostile to thme, hostile enough to jail them; but the Puritans themselves were antagonistic toward the Separatists. Thus, the Separatists were "doomed . . . to a sterile isolation among the Protestant radicals in England." No so in New England . . .
Rev. Henry Jacob (1563-1624) born in Kent, received BA & MA from Oxford in 1580s. Ordained a minister in the Church of England. 1594 established church in Holland. 1604 wrote
Reasons Taken Out of God's Word resulted in 8 months imprisonment in
Clink prison. Returned to Holland upon his release. 1616 returned to London and founded the Southwark church. Rev. Henry Jacob left England for Virginia in 1622.
Page 28 - In 1610 Jacob defined the form of a church this way: "A true visible and ministerial church of Christ is a number of faithful people joined by their willing consent in a spiritual outward society or body politic, ordinarily coming together in one place, instituted by Christ in his New Testament, and having the power to exercise ecclesiastical government and all God's other spiritual ordinances (the means of salvation) in and for itself immediately from Christ."
Page 30 - Nevertheless, as much as it appeared that Jacob's church was separatist in governance it still permitted its members to have communion with Church of England parishes without censure. He believed that communion between his Southwark congregation and neighboring parish churches was both possible and permissible. This mean that members of both congregations could share communion (called specifically, intercommunion) with each other. While this was the model Jacob sought and implemented, the entire congregation did not embrace it. Almost from the beginning Jacob's [page 31] congregation had been troubled about sharing communion with members of the established Church. Later, in 1630, when a member of the congregation under the leadership of Jacob's successor, Rev. John Lothrop, sought to have his child baptized, not with the Southwark congregation, but in his parish church, the division was clear. Lothrop tried to keep the congregation together by renewing their covenant but a small group of committed separatists left in anger.
Page 32 - The historical significance of the Jacob-Lothrop church, as scholars refer to it, is clear. From 1616 until 1641, it "served as a recruiting agency and training school for some of the most important sectarian leaders" of the English Civil War (1642-1651). The Jacob chruch "harbored within its membership rigid separatists as well as ordinary Independents . . . [It] became progressively more tolerant of variant forms [of governance] and by 1642 stodd in parental relationship both to strict separatist and, to what would become Baptist congregations." "The Jacob church stood at the very center of a new and complex wave of nonconformity that had burst the bounds of puritan orhodoxy long before the [Civil War] had begun in England." . . .
Page 33 - What were the differences between a Separatist congregation and a parish church? Other than the place of worship, a pious visitor might well feel at home. The sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism were available to all members who wished it. What was different was that any member (but men only) could preach from Scripture. Below the surface was a new structure. The pastor was supported by voluntary donations rather than the compulsory tithe that also was used to support poor members. "The Jacob church therefore fulfilled all the needs of Christian worship and fellowship for those members who wished to avoid the parish churches, and from the beginning there were members who were in practice complete Separatists."
Page 34 - By the time Jacob left the congregation for Virginia in 1622 even its most conservative members no longer considered the church a Puritan or reformed church within the Church of England. The Jacob church did not ordain a layperson to lead them though they could have under their own sens of church governance. Lay preachers did "edify one another" but after a two-year hiatus, the Rev. John Lothrop, a "man of a tender heart and a humble and meek spirit" was chosen and ordained as pastor.
John Lothrop was a Cambridge University graduate who was the vicar in Egerton, until he renounced his ordination in the Church of England and moved with his family to London. In Egerton, he labored faithfully as long as he accepted the rituals and government of the Anglican Church. But Lothrop got into trouble for ignoring The Book of Common Prayer in favor of scripturally based sermons, long ones at that. When he could bear it no longer, he renounced his orders to fulfill the ministry to which his conscience an dhis heart had called him. In 1623, at the age of thirty-nine, with five children o support -- a sixth died in infancy -- John left the Church of England and subscribed to the teachings of the Separtists.
. . . In 1633, [King] Charles chose the Bishop of London, William Laud, to become the Archbishop of Canterbury and empowered him to reform the entire Church of England. Laud was equal to his king in his opposition to the Purian movement as he sought to root out the Puritan's form of worship. For Laud, uniformity was the rallying cry and he sought to make it "clear once and for all that the Church of England, no the individual (Puritan) conscience," was the body [page 35] authorized to determine what practice that uniformity would take. Bishop Laud, with the concurrence of King James I and then, Charles I, had rules decreed for the excommunication of all who opposed him and his doctrines and who did not affirm that the Church of England was the true apostolic church. Any persons who separated themselves from the Church "and [took] unto themselves the names of another church no established by law" could be accused of heresy. If a person was arrested repeatedly for this offence they could be put to death. . . . He outloawed unadorned buildings and simple services and his subordinates reviewed and licensed all publications. . . . Laud ordered inspection tours of all parishes to determine the orthodoxy of the clergy and the use of The Book of Common Prayer. He directed constables and other authorities to seek out groups who were having religious meetings not in conformity with Anglican liturgy. . . .
Page 36 - Laud was particularly interested in keeping a special watch on eleven congregations in London, one of which was John Lothrop's group. He dispatched agents to find Lothrop and his congregation in the act of illegal worship.
Page 37 - On April 22, 1632 Reverend Lothrop's congregation met for worship as usual, in the house of Humphrey Barnet, a berwer's clerk in the Blackfriars area of London. Suddenly, a group of men led by Tomlinson, Bishop Laud's warrant officer, invaded the room. They overpowered the group and seized forty-two members including Rev. Lothrop while eighteen escaped. Those who were arrested lingered for months in Clink prison.
On May 3rd John Lothrop . . . Pennina Howse [Penniah House, John's sister-in-law] . . . were brought to trial by the Anglican Church High Commission Court, an ecclesiastical court [page 38] established to deal with religious dissenters. . . .
Page 38 - In 1634, in a letter to a friend, Laud described his commitment to this task, "I found in my own Diocese . . . divers[e] professed Separatists, with whom I shall take the best and most present Order that I can . . . " The account of the Southwark congregation's trial that follows is taken from the court transcript that reveals the dangers to which religious dissenters were subjected if they did not conform to the practice of the Church of England.
The court intended to begin the inquiry by questioning Rev. Lothrop, but Mr. Lothrop, the Minister, did not appear at the first, but kept himself out of the way awhile."
Page 40 - At last, Reverend Lothrop was brought before the Commission. He was asked by what authority he preached and held religious meetings. Bishop Laud, made a far more insulting remark. "How many women sat crossed-legged upon the bed, whilest you sat on one side and preached and prayed most devotedly?"
Page 41 - John Lothrop was angered: "I keep no such evil company, they were no such women."
The Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury asked him the same question, "Are you a Minister?"
The Bishop of St. David's, Theophilus Field, interrupted with a question about Lothrop's past involvment in the Church of England, which must have caused Rev. Lothrop some pang of conscience: "were you not Doctor King's, the Bishop of London's [assistant] in Oxford? I take it you were; and you show your thankfulness by this?"
Lothrop's response to these two questions was that he was a minister, to which Laud asked, "How and by whom qualified?"
John Lothrop responded, "I am a Minister of the gospel of Christ, and the Lord hath qualified me." He, like the others was asked if he would lay his hand on the Bible and take the oath [of allegiance] but he refused.
After the court dealt with cases other than those from the Southwark congregation, Samuel Eaton and three women, Sara Jones, Pennina Howes and Sara Barbone, all members of the Southwark church, returned to the court and were questioned. The high commissioners demanded to know why the defendants were at the forbidden church service when they should have been at Anglican meetings.
"We were not assembled in contempt . . . " responded Eaton. . . .
Page 43 - Having no more success with these individuals than all the others, Laud turned his anger on the three principal leaders of the group, Henry Dod, Humphrey Barnet and Reverend Lothrop. . . .
Still failing in his attempt, the persistent Laud turned to Lothrop, again. "Mr. Lothrop, hath the Lord qualified you? What authority; what order have you? The Lord hath qualified you, is that a sufficient answer? You must give a better answer before you and I part."
"I do not know that I have done anything which might cause me justly to be brought before the judgment seat of man, and for this oath I do not know the nature of it," Lothrop responded.
The court then got to the heart of the matter, "The manner of the oath is that you shall answer to that you are accused of, for schism," the King's Advocate charged.
The court's impatience at the whole proceeding became clear when the Archbishop of York threatened, "If he will not take his oath, away with him."
Page 44 - To which Lothrop responded, "I desire that other passage may be remembered; I dare not take this oath."
At this, the court ordered that the defendants be kept "in straight custody, especialy Lothrop, for the Bishop of London said he had more to answer for that he knew of." . . .
Samuel Howe [House? probably brother-in-law of John Lothrop] was called to take the oath and answer to the articles, to which he replied, "I have served the King both by sea and by land, and I had been at sea if this restraint had been made upon me and do not know what this oath is."
The King's Advocate replied that the king desired his service in obeying his laws.
Then quickly in succession, twelve of those arrested at Blackfriars were brought in again to testify and take their oath. Bishop Laud asked Pennina Howes, after she again refused to take the oath, "Will you trust Mr. Lothrop and believe him rather than the Church of England?"
"I refer myself to the word of God, whether I may take this oath or not," she stated.
The others each in turn refused to take the oath, and each remarked why they would not take the oath. Elizabeth Melborne's remark is interesting. "I do not know any such thing as a Conventicle, we did meet to pray and talk of the word of Go, which is according to the law of the land."
To this remark the Archbishop of York addressed the issue directly, "God will be served in public, not in your private house." . . .
Page 48 - The most severe treatment by the High Commission was directed at Rev. Lothrop. E. B. Huntington, a Lothrop descendent, wrote of the death of Lothrop's wife, Hannah [(House) Lothrop]. While he was confined to prison, "a fatal sickness was preying upon his wife, and bringing her fast toward her end." Huntington continues by quoting the
New England Memorial, by Nathaniel Morton, published in 1669, "His wife fell sick . . . of which sickness she died. He procured liberty of the bishop [William Laud, who had become Archbishop in 1633] to visit his wife before her death, and commended her to God by prayer, who soon gave up the ghost. At his return to prison, his poor children, being many, repaired to the bishop at Lambeth, and made known unto him their miserable condition, by reason of their good father's being continued in close durance, who commiserated their condition so far as to grant him liberty, who soon afer came over to New England. During 1633, while Lothrop and others were in prison, the membership of the Southwark church increased, so much so as to be a real disadvantage to the welfare of the congregation because of loose lips and the bishop's spies.
The Public Record Office London records show that Rev. Lothrop was released from prison on April 24, 1634. Henry Jessey, [page 49] who succeeded John Lothrop as minister of the Southwark congregation, wrote a series of rellections known as the "Jessey Memoranda," which recorded the early years of the congregation. From the memorandum we have a contemporary account of the final days of John Lothrop with his congregation in Southwark:
At last . . . there being no hopes that Mr. Lathrop should do them any further Services in ye Church, he having many motives to go to New England if it might be granted after the death of his wife, he earnestly desiring ye Church would release him of that office which (to his grief) he could in now way perform & that he might have their consent to go to New England, after serious consideration had about it, it was freely granted to him.
The discussion with his congregation became a serious threat to Lothrop being arrested again, since he was in violation of his parole. Lothrop went into hiding and warrants for the arrest of Lothrop and Samuel Eaton were issued on three separate occasions.
The final entry in the state papers pertaining to John Lothrop, dated February 19, 1635, noted that the defendants failed to appear on the warrants, and they should be imprisoned again. However, the search by the authorities for John Lothrop was in vain, for he had set sail for the American colonies in late July or early August. He arrived in Boston on September 18, 1634 on the ship Griffin. . . .
In was on the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean that, according to one account, John Lothrop was reading his Bible and fell asleep when a spark from his candle fell upon an open page and burned a hole through several pages. He repaired the damaged pages and then, according to family tradition, supplied the missing texts from memory, since no other Bible was accessible to him. Today, the Bible is on display in the Sturgis Library in Barnstable, Massachusetts. Although tradition has it that the damage to the Bible was aboard the Griffin, Mary Briggs, in her work, We and Our Kinfolks, presents another theory on where the Lothrop Bible was burned. "Either on shipboard, or, as is more probable, in Lambeth Gaol [Jail], a spark from his candle fell upon its open page and burned a ragged hole through many leaves. He patched this with paper onwhich he supplied the missing words. If, [as] familky tradition has it, these restorations of the text were from memory, there being no other Bible accessible, we cannot believe that the accident occurred on shipboard, for such a scarcity of the Word of God in a company including so many church members is no more credible than creditable."
No comments:
Post a Comment