1. Studies on the Dutch Reformation in the city have been written By de Jong, O. J. (Culemborg, 1957),Google Scholarten Boom, H. (Rotterdam, 1987),Google ScholarSpaans, J. (Haarlem, 1989),Google Scholarvan der Pol, F. (Kampen, 1990),Google ScholarElliot, J. (Dordrecht, Ph.D. diss., Columbia University 1990),Google ScholarAbels, P. and Wouters, T. (Delft, 1994),Google ScholarKaplan, B. (Utrecht, 1995),Google ScholarMarnef, G. (Antwerpen, 1996),Google ScholarCh. de Mooij, (Bergen op Zoom, 1998).Google Scholar

2. Spaans, J., “Zeventiende-eeuwse kerkgeschiedenis en interdisciplinariteit,” De zeventiende eeuw. Cultuur in de Nederlanden in interdisciplinair perspectief 14 (1998): 2, 206–17, esp. 207.Google Scholar

3. Exalto, K., “Simon Oomius (1630–ca. 1707),” in De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerd Piëtisme, Brienen, T. et al. ('s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1989), 149–80.Google Scholar

4. van Gent, W., “De Zwanenzang van Simon Oomius,” Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie [henceforth DNR] 1 (1977): 42–66;Google Scholarvan der Haar, J., “Aanvulling op ‘De Zwanenzang van Simon Oomius,‘” DNR 2 (1978): 117–20;Google Scholarvan der Haar, J., Schatkamer van de Gereformeerde theologie in Nederland c. 1600– c. 1800: Bibliografisch onderzoek (Veenendaal: Kool, 1987).Google Scholar

5. Buijs, P., “Van zonde naar ziekte: Nederlandse opvattingen over zelfmoord ten tijde van de Verlichting,” De Gids 125 (1992): 301–12;Google ScholarHaitink, R. J., De bepaalde levensduur. Opvattingen over het levenseinde in 17e-eeuwse medische teksten (masters thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, 1993), 97–108.Google Scholar

6. van den Berg, J., Het Geopende en Wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom. Beschrijving van een werk van Simon Oomius (1630–1706) (masters thesis, Theologische Universiteit Kampen, 1998), with informative conclusion on 47–50.Google Scholar

7. The total number of Oomius's publications comes to nearly forty. Van der Aa's somewhat out-of-date biographical dictionary—the only one in which Oomius's name is mentioned—already names him as one of the most prolific writers of his age. van der Aa, A. J., Biographisch Woordenboek der Nederlanden (Haarlem: Van Brederode, 1867), 14:127–29.Google Scholar

8. Spaans, “Zeventiede-eeuwse kerkgeschiedenis en interdisiplinariteit,” 211, 212. An exception is van Lieburg, F. A., “From Pure Church to Pious Culture: The Further Reformation in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic,” in Graham, W. F., ed., Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, vol. 22 of Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994), 409–29.Google Scholar

9. Amsterdam, 1666 kl.80, Hieronymus Sweerts (24), 328 pp. A specimen of the treatise may be found at Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Universiteit van Amsterdam, and Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar

10. Oomius, S., Schriftuerlijcke Prognosticatie [henceforth SP], 143–51.Google Scholar

11. SP 132–34.Google Scholar

12. SP 105, 106.Google Scholar

13. SP 182.Google Scholar

14. SP 198–205.Google Scholar

15. SP 134, 135.Google Scholar

16. SP 119 ff.Google Scholar

17. SP 183–88.Google Scholar

18. Gemeente Archief Kampen (GAK), Archief Hervormde Gemeente Kampen (AHGK) 11, 19.9.1690 (date references hereafter follow the format “day.month.year“).Google Scholar

19. For instance GAK, AHGK 11, 27.5.1687 (3x).Google Scholar

20. GAK, AHGK 13, 12.8.1681.Google Scholar

21. GAK, AHGK 11, consistory meeting after 2.7.1680 and before first following Communion.Google Scholar

22. GAK, AHGK 11, 9.4.1680.Google Scholar

23. GAK, AHGK 13, 16.6.1676. Other examples: refusal to the hostess of the tavern In den Eenhoorn and to Maria Cornelia, GAK, AHGK 11, 12.1.1680 and 26.6.1680.Google Scholar

24. GAK, AHGK 13, 24.3.1676; 11.10.1676 (2x); GAK, AHGK 11, 13.6.1679; 20.6.1679; 22.9.1682 (2x); 20.7.1684; 17.7.1687; 23 and 30.3.1694 (2x). The Judicial Archive (Rechterlijk Archief [henceforth RA]) of the town shows over this period all sorts of violence in the urban society. A few cases from the end of December 1677 to the beginning of 1679: “condemned, because in furious anger he has whipped out a knife and has injured a man”; because he “has knocked a person with a stick very sadly”; because he “in furious anger has grasped and pulled a person's hair.” GAK, RA 47: Liber Sententiarum, 209r, 214r.Google Scholar

25. For instance GAK, AHGK 11, 1.4.1681; 22.9.1682; 22.6.1683; 17.7.1687 (2x); 13.4.1693 (2x); 29.7.1696.Google Scholar

26. GAK, AHGK 11, 18.4.79; 13, 24.3.76. A young member was refused too, for “she had moved away with a lover, without her father's knowledge and consent.” GAK, AHGK 11, 26.7.1680.Google Scholar

27. GAK, AHGK 11, 21.4.1682.Google Scholar

28. GAK, AHGK 11, 22.9.1682 and 22.6.1683.Google Scholar

29. GAK, AHGK 13, 23.6.1676 and 11, 9.4.1680.Google Scholar

30. GAK, AHGK 11, 26.11.1680.Google Scholar

31. GAK, AHGK 13, 27.9.1676 (2x); 11.10.1676 (2x); 11, 22.9.1682 (which was connected with a “family quarrel”). A church member, who was allowed to the Lord's Supper with a positive testimony after a period of prohibition, however, was at once seriously admonished and warned against strong drinking. GAK, AHGK 11, 26.6, 1680; 2.12.1683; 23 and 30.3.1694.Google Scholar

32. For instance, the above-mentioned hostess of the tavern In den Sint Joris. GAK, AHGK 11, 19.12.1679. Several times the hostess of De Hollandse Tuin was summoned in the consistory of elders because of profaning the Sunday by tapping and playing. In a most serious way she was admonished to leave this off, otherwise they would be obliged to proceed against her. GAK, AHGK 13, 24.3.1676.Google Scholar

33. Other examples include the case of Arent Willemsz: After some period of absence in the Lord's Supper, now he requests the admission of his participation. But the consistory is of opinion that first he had to begin with paving attention to his life for the time being.” GAK, AHGK 13, 20.12.1678. Also a man who has reconciled with his wife “shall not be admitted for the Lord's Supper in this time yet.” GAK, AHGK 11, 19.12.1679. And another man, who “lived peacefully again with his wife and behaved reasonably well, shall be informed in a friendly manner that he should be tested still for a quarter of a year.” GAK, AHGK 11,9.4.1680, art. 4. See also GAK, AHGK 11,12.3 and 9.4.1680, art. 1.Google Scholar

34. GAK, AHGK 11, 14.6.1694.Google Scholar

35. GAK, AHGK 11, 6.9, 13.12.1695.Google Scholar

36. GAK, AHGK 11, consistory meeting connected with the Communion after 2.7.1680.Google Scholar

37. GAK, AHGK 11, 26.9.1679.Google Scholar

38. GAK, AHGK 11, 13.4, 20.4, 25.5, 14.6, and 29.9.1694.Google Scholar

39. GAK, AHGK 11, 9.1682; 15.12 and 22.12.1682; see also 6.4.1683 and 20.4.1685.Google Scholar

40. GAK, AHGK 11, 14.4.1682, art. 2: “Kept from the table because of family quarrel, however still going on in his wicked life, even more and more; is approved to inform the respectable magistrates his case.”Google Scholar

41. Autobiographical remarks in S. Oomius, Cierlijke Kroon en krans des grijsen en goeden ouderdoms. Leiden, 1707 80, Daniel van den Dalen (12), 498 pp. A specimen of the treatise may be found at Koninklijke Bibliotheek'-Gravenhage, Stads- of Athenaeumbibliotheek Deventer. The quotations are from 335, 336, 350, 351, 362, 363, and 365.Google Scholar

42. van der Pol, F., De refortnatie te Kampen in de zestiende eeuw (Ph.D. diss., Theologische Universiteit Kampen, 1990), 345, 346.Google Scholar

43. GAK, AHGK 13, 11.10.1676.Google Scholar

44. Van der Pol, De reformatie te Kampen, 312–14.Google Scholar

45. Reitsma, J. and van Veen, S. D., Acta der Provinciate en Particuliere Synoden, gehouden in de Noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620 (Groningen: Wolters, 1896), 5:207, 215, 226, 233, 242, 247, 248, 260, 267, 277, 293.Google Scholar

46. van Deursen, A. Th., Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 83–90.Google Scholar

47. GAK, AHGK 13, 3 and 6.12.1677.Google Scholar

48. GAK, AHGK 11, 22.7.1685; 19 and 26.9.1690; 3.10.1690.Google Scholar

49. GAK, RA 47: Liber Sententiarum, 225rv.Google Scholar

50. GAK, Oud Archief (OA) 245: 158rv, 13.11.1689.Google Scholar

51. GAK, AHGK 13, 12.5.1676.Google Scholar

52. GAK, RA 3: 13v.Google Scholar

53. This concerns (1) Thomas Goswinius (1596–1619), born in Kampen, because of Remonstrantism deposited on 24 Apr. 1619 by the synod of Dordt; (2) Everardus Voscuilius (1610–19, deposited 22 May 1619); (3) Johannes Schotlerus (1616–19, deposited the same date); and (4) Assuerus Mat(t)hisius (1617–19, deposited 24 Apr. 1619).Google Scholar

54. The document consists of twenty pages in small 4°, printed in two columns and divided into fifteen paragraphs. The arguments of the four ministers in Kampen in the left column are supported by the citations from Scripture, and the citations from the theologians who were rejected by them stand in the right column. A specimen of the treatise (printed in Kampen by Willem Berendtsz, 1617) is in the city archive of Kampen. The synod of Dordrecht indicated this document. During the synod a parcel with one hundred copies of this treatise was seized.Google ScholarBrandt, G., Historie der Reformatie (Rotterdam: Barent Bos, 1704), 3:193.Google Scholar

55. About Gualtherus, see Lohmeier, D., “Marcus Gualtherus, erste Stadtsekretär von Friedrichstadt,” Nordfriesisches fahrbuch, Neue Folge, Bnd 14 (1978): 161–77.Google Scholar

56. Uitterdijk, J. Nanninga, “Het album amicorum van Marcus Gualtherus, 1593–1649,” Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis van Overijssel [BGO], (Zwolle: Tijl, 1876), 3:1–32, 89–109; citation on 2.Google Scholar

57. The album amicorum of the headmaster, which has been preserved (Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 's-Gravenhage 133L8), contains the inscriptions of prominent Remonstrant leaders. Their inscriptions testify that there was a good relationship between the writers and the headmaster: “D. Marco Gualtero Gymnasiarchae Campensi viro doctissimo et vigilantissinto hoc amicitiae christianae monumentum apposui” (The learned minister of the court Johannes Wtenbogaert); “Amicitiae testandae ergo clarissimo doctissimoque viro D. Marco Gualtero, Gijmnasij Campensis rectori, sic petenti, manu haec apposui” (The learned Coenraad Vorstius in Gouda); “Benevolentiae amicitiaeaue Christianae tesseram adscripsi” (The Remonstrant minister Johannes Arnoldus Corvinus in Leiden); “Amicitiae Christianae syngrapham hanc exaravi” (The Remonstrant minister Bernardus Dwinglo in Leiden); “in arrham benevolentiae syncerae adscripsi” (The Remonstrant minister Adrianus van den Borre in Leiden); “Scribebam…in amicitiae contesserationem” (The Remonstrant minister Caspar Van Baerle in Leiden); “Haec…fidei et amoris symbolum scribebam” (The professor of philosophy Petrus Bertius in Leiden).Google Scholar

58. Reitsma, and Van Veen, , Acta, 5:298, 314.Google Scholar

59. Revius, J., Daventriae Ilustratae, sive Historiae Urbis Daventriensis (Lugduni Batavorum: Petri Leffen, 1651), 588.Google Scholar

60. Report of the town council in GAK, RA 3: 37v, 20.6.1621.Google Scholar

61. GAK, OA 2275: Minutes of the epistles of burgomasters, magistrates and council of Kampen, concerning the illicit meetings of the Remonstrants, 1618–1620.Google Scholar

62. GAK, OA 23: 162, a stipulation dating from 1608.Google Scholar

63. GAK, OA 23: 153, 12.1.1622.Google Scholar

64. Several measures of the civil authorities against Remonstrants in: GAK, RA 3: 33v, 2.11.1620; 36rv, 1621; 37r, 6.6.1621; 39r, 8.2.1621; 46v–47r, 26.7.1623; 20.12.1628; 20.1 and 15.5.1638.Google Scholar

65. GAK, RA 3: 45r–46r, 31.5.1623.Google Scholar

66. Uitterdijk, J. Nanninga, Register van Charters en Bescheiden in het Oude Archief van Kampen, 9 vols. (Kampen, 1862–1908) 6:5515, 5.6.1623. Fining of other Remonstrant pastors in GAK, RA 3: 30r, 25.2.1620 and 31r–32v, 29.7.1620.Google Scholar

67. GAK, AHGK 10. For instance, the consistory records of 6 and 13.1.1630; 5.11.1634; 27.2, 29.7, 12 and 26.8, 2.9 and 4.11.1635; 22.6.1638; 19 and 22.5.1639.Google Scholar

68. Concrete examples by Passchier de Fyne in the matter of the Remonstrant in Kampen may be found in van Gelderen, J., “Kerkelijke geschiedenis: zeventiende en achttiende eeuw,” in Geschiedenis van Kampen, ed. Lenferink, H. J. J. (Kampen: IJsselakademie, 1993), 1:188–94. The expressive events that Passchier de Fyne mentioned were, however, all connected with the first period up to the year of 1523.Google Scholar

69. The same as the Remonstrant preacher Gideon de Corseillies, who preached in several houses at the end of the 1640s; fined two hundred guilders and expelled: GAK, RA 3, 6.7.1648.Google Scholar

70. GAK, RA 3, 20.10 and 30.10.1650.Google Scholar

71. GAK, AHGK 11, 23.9.1681.Google Scholar

72. GAK, AHGK 11,14.4.1682, art. 3 and AHGK 11, 21.4.1682, art. 1. A few months later, we read in the consistory records again: “Sir elder-burgomaster Harweijer is asked to propose in the assembly of the Respectables that the ‘arminiaanerij’ should be restrained too. The chairman and the secretary of the consistory also will approach the burgomasters about this matter.” AHGK 11, 15.9.1682.Google Scholar

73. van Heiningen, H., “Tolerantie met een dubbele bodem,” in Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis [TNK] 3 (2000): 39.Google Scholar

74. Personal communication from DrHaitsma, J., Boskoop.Google Scholar

75. Van Gelderen, , “Kerkelijke geschiedenis,” 188, 192.Google Scholar

76. GAK, AHGK 11, 1.4.1681.Google Scholar

77. GAK, AHGK 11, 21.4.1682.Google Scholar

78. GAK, AHGK 11, 18.8.1682.Google Scholar

79. GAK, AHGK 13, 7.11.1679.Google Scholar

80. In the classis meeting was reported that “a papist” was coming regularly in Emmeloord, who took away the inhabitants from the Reformed preaching. GAK, Archief Classis Kampen (ACK) 19, Acta Classis (AC) 4.4.1687, art. 17.Google Scholar

81. GAK, ACK 20, AC 6.6.1693, art. 2.Google Scholar

82. Compare the Acta of the provincial Synods Kampen 1682, sessio 6, art. 45; Deventer 1685, sessio 6, art. 41; Steenwijk 1688, sessio 4, arts. 29 and 30; Kampen 1702, sessio 4, art. 19. GAK, ACK 2 and 3: Acta Synods of Overijssel [AS].Google Scholar

83. Compare GAK, ACK 2, AS Kampen 1682, sessio 2, art. 2 and Deventer 1685, sessio 2, art. 2.Google Scholar

84. GAK, AHGK 13, 2.1676.Google Scholar

85. Van Gelderen, , “Kerkelijke geschiedenis,” 197.Google Scholar

86. GAK, OA 243: 264, 265, publication 29.3.1612.Google Scholar

87. Van der Pol, , De reformatie te Kampen, 387.Google Scholar

88. GAK, RA 3, 18.4.1612.Google Scholar

89. GAK, OA 24: 58, 15.11.1615.Google Scholar

90. GAK, RA 3: 38–40, 7.2.1622 56v, 1624. A moderate fining of the Roman Catholic nobility also in RA 3, 18.5.1635.Google Scholar

91. GAK, RA 3, 11.12.1641; 2.2, 15.2 and 25.2.1645; 3.1 and 12.2.1650; 16.3.1661. GAK, AHGK 13, 19.6.1668; 1.2.1671. Van Gelderen, “Kerkelijke geschiedenis,” 199.Google Scholar

92. GAK, OA 245: 151v, 152r, publication 22.6.1686.Google Scholar

93. Van Gelderen, , “Kerkelijke geschiedenis,” 198.Google Scholar

94. Bergsma, W., Tussen Gideonsbende en publieke kerk. Een studie over het gereformeerd protestantisme in Friesland, 1580–1650 (Hilversum: Verloren/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy, 1999), 420, 421.Google Scholar

95. Chr. Kooi, , “Katholieken en tolerantie in de Gouden Eeuw,” TNK 2 (1999): 114.Google Scholar

96. Spaans, J., Haarlem na de Reformatie. Stedelijke cultuur en kerkelijk leven 1577–1620 ('s-Gravenhage: Stichting Hollandse Historische Reeks, 1989), 11:199.Google Scholar

97. Van der Pol, , “De Gildebrief van 't Severiusgilde, 1621,” Kamper Almanak (Kampen: Frans Walkate Archief - Zalsman, 1978/1979), 220, 224; Van der Pol, De reformatie te Kampen, 69, 203, 206, 227, 228; Van Gelderen, “Kerkelijke geschiedenis,” 201, 202.Google Scholar

98. Brandt, G., Onpartydigh Chronijxken der voornaamste Nederlandsche Geschiedenissen, zoo kerkelyk als politycq, 5th ed. (Utrecht: P. van der Veer and J. Servaas Bosch, 1730), 68. It had already been proclaimed much earlier that children ought not to be presented anywhere except in the Reformed Church. GAK, OA 243: 287, 9.3.1617. The latter publication was also applied to the Contra-Remonstrant community that assembled separately in that year, 1617.Google Scholar

99. Zijlstra, S., “De Dopersen in Groningen 1530–1795,” in Geloven in Groningen, Capita Selecta uit de geloofsgeschiedenis van een stad, eds. van Halsema Thz, G. et al. , (Kampen: Kok, 1990), 125.Google Scholar

100. Bergsma, Tussen Gideonsbende en publieke kerk, 201.Google Scholar

101. GAK, OA 243: 322, publication 29.2.1625.Google Scholar

102. GAK, AHGK 12, 26.9, 1.10.1662.Google Scholar

103. GAK, AHGK 12, 9.4.1656; 29.6.1659, 24 and 26.9.1662.Google Scholar

104. GAK, AHGK 12, 17.7, 23.7.1657; on 9 May 1660 the magistrate was once again addressed on issues concerning the proclamations and weddings of the Anabaptists.Google Scholar

105. A task that it performed in dealing with the issue of the so-called Socinian Anabaptists. GAK, AHGK 13, 4 and 16.12.1668.Google Scholar

106. GAK, AHGK 13, 19.7.1671.Google Scholar

107. GAK, AHGK 13, 12.6.1676.Google Scholar

108. Abels, P. H. A. M., Nieuw en ongezien. Kerk en samenleving in de classis Delft en Delfland 1572–1621 (Delft: Eburon, 1994), 2:157.Google Scholar

109. GAK, AHGK 11, 22.6 and 27.7.1645, 30.7, 8.11, 19.11.1648; AHGK 12, 25.1.1654, 1.2.1654, 27.6.1655, 20.6, 13.8, 29.8, 8.10.1656; 5, 11 and 18.2, 24.3, 17 en 21.6.1657; 2.4, 20.5, 25.6, 1 and 24.9, 8.12.1658; 1.4, 1.9.1659; 15.5.1661; 3.7.1663.Google Scholar

110. The provincial Synods Kampen, June 1596; Deventer, May 1598; Steenwijk, July 1600; Zwolle, August 1604. Reitsma, and Van Veen, , Acta, 5:248, 236, 245, 270.Google ScholarIn the same way the national Synod Middelburg 1581 speaks about “Anabaptists and other error spirits”; “Anabaptists…[and] all other sects.” Acta van de Nederlandsche Synoden, ed. Rutgers, F. L. (2d ed.Dordrecht: J. P. van den Tol, 1980), 432.Google Scholar

111. The provincial Synod Kampen, June 1596. There were four ministers, two burgomasterelders, and still two burgomasters present on behalf of the town council of Kampen. Reitsma, and Van Veen, , Acta, 5:233, 234, 236.Google Scholar

112. GAK, OA 2518: 316.Google Scholar

113. GAK, ACK 2, AS Deventer 1685, sessio 2, art. 8 and sessio 5, art. 24; Zwolle 1691, sessio 2, art. 6; Kampen 1694, sessio 3, art. 6; and Steenwijk 1696, sessio 3, art. 8.Google Scholar

114. GAK, AHGK 10, 4.1. and 22.2.1632.Google Scholar

115. GAK, RA 3, 1635, between 28.7 and 18.8.Google Scholar

116. GAK, RA 3, 18.8.1635; 29.12.1640.Google Scholar

117. GAK, RA 3, 22.12.1642; 19.8.1643.Google Scholar

118. GAK, AHGK 11, 11.1, 29.3, 26.4, 23.8, 29.10 and 6.12.1643.Google Scholar

119. GAK, AHGK 11, 17.9.1645; 14.1 and 28.1.1646.Google Scholar

120. GAK, RA 3, 14.1.1652. GAK, Evangelisch Lutherse Gemeente Kampen [ELGK] 1, 7.9 and 1.12.1646; 30.1, 5.2, 6.2, 10.2, 12.3 and 13.3.1647; ELGK 1, 24.1 and 26.1.1652.Google Scholar

121. The Kampen church council subsequently sought to contact the Reformed Church in Zwolle in order to inform its consistory about the order by the Kampen magistrate to close the Lutheran Church. According to the Kampen church council, the civic authorities in Zwolle should do the same. A delegation from both church councils visited a number of members of the Zwolle magistrate in order to discuss this affair. The civic leaders of Zwolle were not unwilling to follow the example of the Kampen magistrate. GAK, AHGK 12, 1.5.1661.Google Scholar

122. GAK, AHGK 12, 12 and 14.6.1661.Google Scholar

123. GAK, RA 3, 13.4.1668.Google Scholar

124. From 11.1666 to 15.4.1668 the records were kept by Johan Gaspar Gharias, “preacher for this parish, devoted to the unaltered Confession of Augsburg.” GAK, ELGK 1, 11.1666–15.4.1668; then there is a gap until 1.3.1679. Then pastor Valthuis Coenradi continued the records. For the resolution of the magistrate and the intervention of the Reformed Church: GAK, AHGK 13, 6.5, 20.5, 22.5, 19.6, 4.10, 11.11 and 16.12.1668. Signs of alarm were also emitted by the Reformed consistory in the fifties: GAK, AHGK 12, 22.2, 4.10 and 6.10.1654; 13.6, 29.6 and 12.12.1655; 23.1, 4.4, 9.4, 20.6.1656; 10.7.1657.Google Scholar

125. Bik, J. G. W. F., “Kroniek van de Evangelischse gemeente van Gouda,” in Abels, P. H. A. M. et al. , eds., In en om de Sint-Jan. Bijdragen tot de Goudse kerkgeschiedenis (Delft: Eburon, 1989), 92, 93.Google Scholar

126. Spaans, Haarlem, 104.Google Scholar

127. GAK, RA 47: Liber Sententiarum, 26.2.1679.Google Scholar

128. GAK, AHGK 13, 14.6.1676.Google Scholar

129. GAK, AHGK 11, 2.11, 16.11 and 17.11.1642; 1.2 and 22.2, 19.3, 4.10 and 8.11.1643; 13.9.1644; 25.4 and 17.6.1659.Google Scholar

130. GAK, RA 3: 53v–54r, 8.9.1624Google Scholar

131. GAK, RA 3, 29.6.1659.Google Scholar

132. Bekker, Balthasar, Betoverde Weereld, 4th ed. (Deventer: Marinus de Vries, 1739), 81–90; Van Gelderen, “Kerkelijke geschiedenis,” 166.Google Scholar

133. GAK, AHGK 13, 29.11.1678.Google Scholar

134. GAK, AHGK 13, 24.3.1676.Google Scholar

135. GAK, OA 245: 153v, summer 1686.Google Scholar

136. GAK, OA 245: 164r–165v, 4.1692.Google Scholar

137. GAK, OA 246: llrv, 11.11.1704.Google Scholar

138. GAK, ACK 2, AS Deventer 1693, sessio 2, art. 8.Google Scholar

139. In 1688 the deputies of the synod reported that the civil authorities of Overijssel (Ridderschap en Steden) had reprinted the placard against cursing and falsely swearing and that they had sent the placard to the deputies of the synod. GAK, ACK 2, AS Steenwijk 1688, sessio 3, art. 9.Google Scholar

140. About this, Oomius as a deputy of the synod also petitioned. GAK, ACK 2, AS Kampen 1682, sessio 4, art. 27; Deventer 1685, sessio 5, art. 27; Steenwijk 1688, sessio 4, art. 21; and Zwolle 1691, sessio 4, art. 18.Google Scholar

141. In 1702 the deputies reported that the almanacs had not yet been altered on the issue of the cattle-markets on Sunday. GAK, ACK 2, AS Kampen 1702, sessio 6, art. 38.Google Scholar

142. In 1691 the synodal deputies reported that they had done their duty in this matter, as appears from an “appointment“ of Ridderschap en Steden. GAK, ACK 2, AS Zwolle 1691, sessio 2, art. 3.Google Scholar

143. GAK, ACK 2, AS Zwolle 1691, sessio 2, art. 8.Google Scholar

144. GAK, OA 245: 142rv, publication 1682.Google Scholar

145. GAK, OA 245: 162r.Google Scholar

146. GAK, AHGK 11, 17.10, 19.11.1656; also 14.11.1657.Google Scholar

147. GAK, OA 2239, 2d par.Google Scholar

148. GAK, AHGK 11, 18.1, 19.3, 14.5, 8.11.1643; 26.5.1644.Google Scholar

149. GAK, AHGK 11, 29.1; 7, 12 and 30.3, 2.4.1645.Google Scholar

150. GAK, AHGK 12, 27.2, 6 and 29.8.1656; 10.7.1657. Other, later petitions: GAK, AHGK 13, 24.5.1671; AHGK 11, 29.11.1676.Google Scholar

151. GAK, AHGK 12, 14, 19 and 26.6.1661.Google Scholar

152. GAK, AHGK 12, 24.9 and 15.10.1662.Google Scholar

153. GAK, RA 2, 3 and 4.Google Scholar

154. GAK, RA 3, 31.12.1619.Google Scholar

155. GAK, AHGK 11, 26.1.1642.Google Scholar

156. GAK, AHGK 11, 16.1.1642.Google Scholar

157. GAK, OA 2239, ordinance on orderliness in the city, ca. 1625, par. 8: No one is allowed to enter into concubinage; no one is permitted to abandon the person to whom he is married. Marriages must be performed in public and in an orderly manner. GAK, RA 2 records some instances of adultery: 9.2.1602 (2x); 13.11.1604 (2x); GAK, RA 3 records cases of various transgressions: illicit sexual acts: 9 and 29.1, 26.8.1624 (2x); 6.12.1625; 28.1.1626(2x); 31.8.1633; 28.7 and 19.12.1635; 28.2.1640; 18.8.1651; 30.8.1653; 30.12.1654; 6.1, 4.2.1660; 6.4, 29.6.1665; 11.4.1668; 25.6.1673; keeping or visiting a brothel: 8 and 16.1.1612; 26.8.1624; 30.7.1627; 4.5.1642; 6.4.1665; living together outside of marriage: 12.3.1608; 8.8.1622; 3.1.1632 (2x); 1.11, 19.12.1635; breaking marriage vows: 3.1.1632; adultery: 8.1.1612; 13.7.1614; 27.12.1616; 8.4.1622; 28.1.1626; 11.2, 30.7.1627; 1631 (day and month not indicated); 18.7.1638; 4.5.1642; 17.1.1643; 23.9.1644 (2x); 29.4.1695.Google Scholar

158. GAK, AHGK 12, 10.11.1654 (three cases of divorce) and 26.3.1656 (one divorce).Google Scholar

159. GAK, RA 3, 12.3.1608.Google Scholar

160. GAK, AHGK 11, 25 and 27.10.1643.Google Scholar

161. GAK, RA 3, 3.1.1632.Google Scholar

162. GAK, AHGK 11, 5.1.1642: three women in a house on the Burgwal; 1.7.1642: brothel in Brunnepe.Google Scholar

163. GAK, AHGK 13, 19.6.1668. The case involved Willem Peterz, residing on Geerstraat.Google Scholar

164. The civic authorities asked for the consistory's advice on the casus matrimonialis of a citizen who wanted to marry his niece. The church authorities were asked if any fundamental objections to permitting such a marriage to children of a brother or a sister could be found in God's Word. The church council pronounced its judgment that, in God's Word, such a marriage is not forbidden. GAK, AHGK 13, 1.2.1671.Google Scholar

165. GAK, RA 3, 26.8.1606; 8.4.1607; 25.9.1650; 6.8.59.Google Scholar

166. GAK, AHGK 11, 29.4.1642.Google Scholar

167. GAK, AHGK 11, 16 and 24.1, 4.2.1644.Google Scholar

168. GAK, AHGK 11, 30.9.1642; 29.3, 26.4.1643; 30.3, 27.7, 17.9.1645.Google Scholar

169. GAK, AHGK 11, 5, 10 and 26.7.1644.Google Scholar

170. GAK, RA 3: 24r, 1613.Google Scholar

171. GAK, OA 2275, 10.12.1620: minute from a letter sent by the magistrate to the civic delegate Casper ter Borchorst in 's-Gravenhage.Google Scholar

172. GAK, AHGK 12, 25.4.1659; AHGK 13, 12.6.1676.Google Scholar

173. Abels, P. H. A. M. establishes that something similar was happening in Delft: “Sunday observance had an already long pre-Reformation tradition and was enforced with the help of numerous laws that were not any less strict than the new regulations enacted after the break with Spain.” Abels, Nieuw en ongezien, 2:167.Google Scholar

174. Van der Pol, , De reformatie te Kampen, 366–69, gives all sorts of examples, both before and after the Reformation.Google Scholar