Preservings $20 No. 25, December, 2005 - Plett Foundation

In the same year the elders from Haarlem
came to Franeker. With them came Jan Alberts
and representatives from several other
congregation. In this context the names of the
congregations at Dokkum, Sneek, Harlingen,
Leeuwarden, Vlieland, Amsterdam, Haarlem,
Dordrecht, Rotterdam, Vlissingen, Groningen,
Emden, Cologne and Danzig are mentioned.
They found the congregation in great “sadness.”
The three Diener presented their case, as did
Byntgens. The conclusion of the elders and the
other visitors was that the restored peace should
be continued and that they couldn’t improve
it. The three Diener refused, but after they had
been threatened with expulsion, they withdrew
their objections. They agreed voluntarily to step
down from their office, and Byntgens remained
as elder of the congregation. Four new Diener
were elected.
After this, Hans Busschaert and his party
traveled to Leeuwarden, Sneek and other towns
in Friesland to proclaim the good news of the
restored peace. The three Diener sent messengers
after him to persuade him to take their side. Busschaert
refused and warned them not to separate
from the main body. But this is exactly what the
three Diener and their adherents did. They set up
their own meeting place and did not allow others
to come to their gatherings. In 1587, when the
three Diener refused to return, all three were
banned. Busschaert was in agreement with this
decision. This action was later considered to be
a mistake by Jacob Pieters van der Meulen, and
Busschaert himself denied at Harlingen that the
three had been banned.
Nine months passed. Still in the year 1587, a
meeting at Franeker was organized, where representatives
of Amsterdam, Dordrecht, Haarlem,
Vlissingen, Dokkum and the surrounding Frisian
towns met. After the three Diener had been
chided for leaving the main body, they returned
to the congregation. But even this peace did not
last. After the refusal to accept their offering to
give the goods for the poor back to the congregation,
they again separated from the congregation
of Bytngens. The three Diener were ordained by
a “backslidden” person from Bolsward.
It was during a meeting at Franeker from January
9 th until January 24 th , 1588, that the conflict
ran totally out of hand. Until that moment it had
still been possible to reach an agreement between
the parties. But during the meeting something
unexpected happened. Haarlem elder Jacob Pieters
van der Meulen expressed as his opinion that
the matter not be decided by the brethren, but by
the elders. Busschaert, Roelants and Byntgens
concurred. The conflict headed in a new direction.
More and more the main subject of the
discussion shifted from the events at Franeker
to the question: who had the authority to decide.
In my opinion, Van der Meulen deviated from
the teachings, practice and customs among the
Flemish. Busschaert was too weak to oppose
him. Representatives from Amsterdam, Haarlem,
Dokkum and others disagreed fervently with Van
der Meulen and company.
The matter still being unsolved, again a meeting
was held at Amsterdam in January 1589. It
decided to invite all congregations to a general
conference. The elders of Groningen, who were
also present at the meeting, were summoned by
Haarlem to appear before the elders and brethren.
Because of the circumstances, the Groninger
elders refused. Thereupon the elders of Haarlem
accused them of unwillingness (arrogance) to
listen to their congregation.
In January 1590 the congregation of Thomas
Byntgens invited all congregations to Franeker
for a general conference. Byntgens wrote that he
was willing to hear all opinions. If others could
prove by Scripture that he had done wrong, he
would submit himself to Scripture. At that time
at least, the churches in the province of Groningen,
Amsterdam, Dokkum and some delegates
of Haarlem were convinced of the wrongdoing
of Byntgens. Some persons at Haarlem let their
elders be known that they intended to accept
the invitation. The Haarlem elders were furious
and put the case before the brethren. There upon
Jacques Outerman, Cornelis de Cuper, Jaques
Gerrits of Haarlem, Willem Jans Buys and
Cornelis van Tongerloo of Amsterdam and elder
Laurens Verniers were banned. This was done
against the warning of several congregations not
to be overzealous.
The above-mentioned persons arrived at
Franeker on May 13 th , 1590 and stayed there
until May 20 th . Notwithstanding his invitation,
Byntgens refused to talk with them. He not only
refused to listen to the banned persons, but also to
those that hadn’t yet chosen sides. Instead, Byntgens
summoned Jan Alberts, elder of Dokkum to
appear before the brethren of Franeker. He was
not allowed to take any company with him. When
Alberts refused, he banned him on Sunday May
20 th , 1590. By these acts the assembled delegates
understood that further attempts would be futile,
and left Franeker. On September, 3 rd , 1590 they
wrote down the events and their experiences in
a Cort en warachtich Verhael.
A group of Flemish congregations in the
northern Province of Groningen had taken a
neutral stance. Their leading elders Brixtius
Gerrits, Pieter Cornelis and Claes Ganglofs
disagreed with Byntgens acts, but they also
disagreed with the pressure that Vermeulen and
Busschaert applied to them to take sides. They
were summoned by the congregation of Emden,
Germany, and delegates of the Haarlem congregation
to appear at Emden. The Groninger elders
and preachers refused to show up. As a result,
these congregations, numbering ten to eleven,
as well as the congregation of Leer, Germany,
were banned by the Old-Flemish on September
8th and 6th, 1592.
What conclusions can be drawn from this
account? The simple conflict could have been
solved by the Franeker congregation. Even
when other churches became involved, peace
could have been restored. The breach between
Flemish and Old-Flemish had nothing to do
with a supposed difference between natives
and persons of a Flemish background. The key
players all shared the same background. The
conflict also cannot be explained by more or
less strictness. Both Flemish and Old-Flemish
wanted to protect the Gemeinde. Both rejected
all that could harm the “pure Bride of Christ.” It
would take some forty years before there would
be a noticeable difference on strictness between
the two branches.
The buying of the house was nothing more
than an occasion. On this point most historians
agree. So, what caused the division? On the level
of the local Flemish congregation of Franeker,
personal animosities played an important role.
At another level, the doubting attitude of elder
Hans Busschaert made it possible for Jacob
Pieters van der Meulen to play a key role. Van
der Meulen introduced a “novelty” by reserving
the decision in the Franeker case to the elders.
By this he “ruled” over the congregation and
diminished the democratic character of decision-making.
Fortunately, this new policy was
not made general by the Old-Flemish. Van der
Meulen, and his adherent Jan Roelants were
overzealous in banning and shunning those who
disagreed with them.
Those in favour of Byntgens became known
as Huiskopers (Hauskäufer) or Old-Flemish.
Their adversaries went by the name of
Contra-Huiskopers, Young-Flemish or simply
Flemish. 23
The spread of the Old-Flemish congregations
at the end of the 16th and beginning of the
17th centuries
In the period from 1598 to 1632, about
thirty congregations belonged to the Old-Flemish
branch in the Netherlands. In the Province
of Holland, Alkmaar, Amsterdam, Landsmeer,
Haarlem, Leiden, Gouda, Rotterdam, Delfshaven,
Dordrecht, Gorkum, Zaltbommel, Brielle,
Oud-Beyerland and Bommel/Ooltgensplaat
belonged to the Hauskäufer. 24 The Province of
Zeeland had Vlissingen and probably Sommelsdijk
on the border with Holland. In the Province
of Utrecht the village of Vianen and the town
of Utrecht can be counted. A concentration of
congregations could be found in the Province
of Overijssel: Blokzijl, Giethoorn, Oldemarkt
and Zuidveen. These places had played an
important role in the Frisian-Flemish conflict.
There further were congregations in Arnhem,
Breda, Leeuwarden, Franeker and on the isle
of Vlieland. The town of Haarlem had three
Old-Flemish congregations: the Vermeulenfolk
or Bankroetiers had their meetinghouse at the
Bakkenessergracht. The Lucas Philipsfolk or
Borstentasters gathered at the Helmbrekersteeg,
and the Vincent de Hontsfolk had their meetinghouse
at the Oude Gracht. 25
In Germany there were Hauskäufer congregations
at Emden, Hamburg, Emmerich/Kleef,
Danzig and Friedrichstadt. 26 The Prussian congregations
of the Mariënburger Gross Werder,
Elbing and Heubuden at this time can probably
also be counted to belong to the Old-Flemish,
but they could not be ascertained as such in the
period under discussion.
The first cracks
Already ten years after the beginning of the
branch, the first cracks in the Old-Flemish building
appeared. It was a quarrel over boundaries
between the founding fathers of the movement.
Most probably it also was a clash of personali-
Preservings No. 25, December 2005 - 31