Aug. 24. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



201 



Hickson's interpretation of this passage. But is 

 it necesssary that delighted should have the same 

 signification in all the three passages ? I think 

 not. 



These are only suggestions, of course ; but the 

 passage from Sidney is certainly curious, and, from 

 the correct and careful manner in which the book 

 is printed, does not appear to be a corruption. I 

 have not seen the earlier editions. I have only 

 further to remark, that none of our old authorities 

 favour Dr. Kennedy's suggestion, " that the word 

 represents the Latin participle delectus." 



Since the above was written, Mr. Hickson's 

 reply to Me. Halliwell has reached me, upon 

 which I have only to observe that he will find to 

 guile was used as a verb. Thus in Gower, Confessio 

 Amantis, fo. 135. ed. 1532 : 



" For often he that will begyle. 

 Is gijled with the same gyle. 

 And thus the gyler is begyled." 



"We most probably had the word from the old 

 French Guiller = tYom^eT, and the proverb is to 

 the purpose : — 



" Qui croit de GaiUer Guillot, GulUot le Guile." 



Horne Tooke's fanciful etymology cannot be 

 sustained. Mr. Hickson's explanation of " guiled 

 shore " is, however, countenanced by the follow- 

 ing passage in Tarqidn and Lucrece : — 



" To me came Tarquin armed, so beguiVd 

 With outward honesty, hut yet defil'd 

 With inward vice." 



Me. Hickson has, I think, conferred a singular 

 favour in calling attention to these perplexing 

 passages in our great poet ; and these remarks, 

 like his own, are merely intended as hints which 

 may serve to elicit the true interpretation. 



S. W. SiNGEE. 



Mickleham, August 20. 1850. 



FAMILY OF LOVE. 



I do not know whether the following Notes on 

 "The Family of Love" will be deserving a pl.ace 

 in the pages of "Notes and Queries;" as I may 



fossibly have been anticipated in much of what 

 send. 



The Family of Love attracted notice as early as 

 1575, but not in such a manner as to call ibr direct 

 coercion. An apology was published for them, 

 from which it might be inferred tiiat they possessed 

 no distinct opinions, but merely bound tiiemsclves 

 to a more exalted interpretation of Christian 

 duties, on the princi])le of imitating the great love 

 of Ciod manifested in their creation and redemption. 

 This j)rinciple, unrestrained by any confession of 

 faith or system of discipline, naturally attracted to 

 it the loose and irregular sj)irits tiiat were at that 

 time 80 prevalent, and the sect became the re- 



ceptacle for every variety of opinion and disorder, 

 exposing itself to more particular notice from its 

 contempt for outward observances, and its oppo- 

 sition to the civil government. The Evangelium 

 Regni of Henry Nicholas, the acknowledged 

 founder of the sect, is written in such a manner as 

 to include all religious persuasions, and permits all 

 parties to hold whatever sentiments they please, 

 if they merely declare themselves members of the 

 Family of Love. 



" Omnes vos, O amatores veritatis ! qui amabilem 

 vitam charitatls diligitis vocamini et invitamini." 

 (cap. 41.) . . . . " Oinnes peribunt, qui extra Chris- 

 tum extra communionem charitatis maneut." (Ibid.) 



A confutation of this sect was written in the 

 year 1579 ; the privy council called upon the con- 

 vocation of the year 1580 to notice it. We find 

 the sect still described in the publications of 1641, 

 and continuing under the same name with its 

 preachers and congregations in 1645. 



Bp. Cooper, in speaking of the sect in 1589 

 {Admonition, ^'C, p. 146.), terms them " that 

 peevish faction of the ' Familie of Love,' which 

 have been breeding in this realm the space of these 

 thirty years." 



Fuller (Ch.Hist., I7th cent., p. 610.) says that 

 in his time " they had obtained the name of 

 Ranters." 



Leslie, in bis Wo7'ks (vol. ii. p. 609.), considers 

 the sect " identical with that of the Quakers." 



That this was not the case is evident, I conceive, 

 from George Fox, the father of the Quakers, 

 having severely chastised this " Family of Love.," 

 because they would take an oath, dance, sing, and 

 be cheerful. See Sewel's History of the Quakers, 

 iii. pp. 88, 89. 344. 



The founder of the sect, Henry Nicolai, was 

 born at Munster, and commenced his career about 

 1546 in the Netherlands ; thence he passed over 

 to England, in the latter years of Edward VI.'s 

 life, and joined the Dutch congregation. But his 

 sect did not become visible till some time in the 

 reign of Elizabeth. 



In 1575 they presented a confession of their 

 faitli to parliament, along with a number of their 

 books, and prayed toleration. 



Nicolai, or Nicolas, their founder, published a 

 number of tracts and letters in Dutch, for the 

 edification of hi.s followers : and now I will propose 

 a Query, in hopes that some of your correspondents 

 will solve it. Is there extant any list of their 

 writings as presented to parliament in 1575, and 

 has their confession been published, and when ? 

 Perhaps the following works, none of which I am 

 able to consult, woulil furnish the means of solving 

 my Query, all of which treat of the subject : — 

 J. Ilomljcck's Siimina Contruversiarum. 

 GodtV. Arnold's Kirchen- iind Kitztr-historie. 

 Ant. Wilh. IJohin's Eni/lisc/ie licformations-historie. 

 Schru-'kli's Kirclieiigesch. scit der Reformation. 



