#johnthomas — Public Fediverse posts

Challenge of Tracing the Ancestry of James Brooks (bef. 1720 – 1779) of Frederick County, Virginia: A Thought-Provoking New Clue

Or, Subtitled: “The chain carriers were often kin to the person for whom the land was being surveyed” (Judy G. Russell, “A Matter of Measure,“ Legal Genealogy)

I have posted previously about an elusive ancestor named James Brooks, who died prior to 2 November 1779 in Frederick County, Virginia, when his widow Mary and son Thomas presented his will to court for probate.[1] As the posting I’ve just linked states, the court responded to Mary and Thomas’ motion to have James Brooks’ will probated by granting them a certificate “for obtaining a probate there of [sic] in due form.”

That is, the will was not probated and recorded on 2 November 1779, but Mary and Thomas were instructed to have it probated “in due form.” The court minutes state explicitly that after witness Meredith Helm proved the will, it was “Ordered to be for further proof.” One would expect this set of court minutes to be followed by another set not far down the road showing the will definitively proven with Mary and Thomas obtaining probate and having it recorded. (To read the rest of this posting, please click the numeral 2 below.)

But sadly, this notice that James Brooks’ will was brought to Frederick County court for probate on 2 November 1779 is the last mention I can find of this will anywhere in Frederick County records. It seems never to have been probated or recorded.

James Brooks remains a very elusive ancestor. I can find almost next to no information about him. His son Thomas first appears in Frederick County records in 1767, so this family seems to have been in that county by that date. His children’s dates of birth suggest a birth date of 1720 or earlier for James and wife Mary. Mary outlived James by some ten years, leaving a will written 9 July 1786, which was probated on 4 April 1787.[2] The will names her children Mary Hollingsworth, Elizabeth Rice, Sarah Asdill (i.e., Ashdale), Susanna Haynes, and Thomas and James Brooks. A transcript of Mary Brooks’ will and an overview of what’s known about her children is found at this previous posting.

When James Brooks and wife Mary arrived in Frederick County, Virginia, where they were living prior to coming there (I’m assuming they were not born there), where they were born, what Mary’s maiden name was: I have been unable to find any scrap of information to answer those questions. I have, however, now turned up a very valuable new clue possibly pointing to James’ background that I want to discuss here.

On 22 November 1752, John Baylis surveyed 247 acres of land for Hugh Haynes on Opequon Creek in Frederick County. This was a Northern Neck survey.[3] The chain carriers for this survey were Matthew Brooks and James Brooks. The survey document states that Hugh Haynes lived on the east side of Opequon and that the land surveyed was on both sides of that creek. The land bordered Robert Hutchins, John Baylis, and Thomas Wyatt.[4]

Quite a bit of information is available about Matthew Brooks, who died in 1754 in Frederick County. I’ll discuss some of that information in a moment. But meanwhile, who is this James Brooks? Matthew Brooks had a son named James. But Matthew’s son James is not the man acting as a chain carrier in November 1752 when Hugh Haynes had land surveyed. Matthew’s son James Brooks was born in 1748.

I have found no James Brooks living in Frederick County in the period 1752-1779 other than the James Brooks who died there prior to 2 November 1779. I’m fairly confident that the James Brooks acting as a chain carrier with Matthew Brooks when Hugh Haynes’ land was surveyed in November 1752 is the man who died in November 1779 with wife Mary. 

When land was surveyed, chain carriers were frequently relatives of the person whose land was being surveyed. They were also very often relatives of each other — i.e., a chain carrier duo might be father and son or two brothers. This November 1752 survey document suggests to me some kind of connection, very likely a kinship one, between James Brooks with wife Mary and Matthew Brooks.

In a previous posting, I provided an overview of what I know about Matthew Brooks and another Brooks man, Jacob Brooks, who was living in Frederick County in the period in which Matthew and James Brooks lived there. This posting notes that there are some strong indicators that Matthew and Jacob were related to each other, and both families had some Quaker connections.

Salient information about Matthew Brooks:

• Matthew was baptized 10 February 1704 in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia, with the baptismal record stating that his mother was Sara Brooks, and Matthew was illegitimate.[5]

Though some researchers have questioned whether the Matthew Brooks who appears in Frederick County records by the 1740s and died there before 1 October 1754 is the Matthew Brooks of this baptismal record, it’s clear to me that the two Matthews are the same person. There’s a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of this conclusion. In particular, it’s important to note that Jacob Brooks, to whom the Matthew Brooks found in Frederick County records is linked, was also baptized in Christ Church parish on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[6]

In addition, as a previous posting notes (with documentation cited), before appearing in Frederick County records, both Matthew and Jacob Brooks are found in records of Spotsylvania County, Virgina, both with connections to the family of Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth married Matthew Brooks.[7]

• Matthew Brooks was in Frederick County prior to 7 May 1748, when he was appointed a constable in that county.[8]

• After a warrant was issued on 22 January 1750 for a survey of 400 acres on the east side of Opequon for John Baylis of Prince William County, Matthew Brooks and Simeon Taylor were chain carriers.[9] The land bordered Hugh Haynes, Robert Hutchins and Lewis Neale. Simeon Taylor, who was the first clerk of Hopewell Friends’ Monthly Meeting in Frederick County, witnessed the 12 December 1758 will of Matthew Brooks’ wife Elizabeth.[10]

• On 10 October 1752, Matthew Brooks witnessed a deed of Jacob Brooks to John Briscoe for 400 acres on the Opequon, with John Wilkeson as the other witness.[11]

• On 6 March 1753, Matthew Brooks was appointed overseer of the road from Ross’s to John Smith’s old place in room of John Thomas.[12]

• Matthew Brooks died by 1 October 1754 when his widow Elizabeth was given a certificate by Frederick County court for administration of his estate.[13] The court appointed as estate appraisers John Lindsey, gent., Evan Thomas Jr., William Dillon, and John Milbourn.

• On 4 March 1755, an estate appraisement by William Dillon, Evan Thomas, and John Milbourn, all Quakers, was recorded.[14]

• On 12 December 1759 (the date is written as the twelfth day of the twelfth month called December), Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth made her will in Frederick County.[15] The will was probated 6 February 1760. A digital copy of Elizabeth’s will is at this previous posting, which also has information about Matthew and Elizabeth’s ten children, noting that they included sons named James and Thomas.

• On 1 November 1768, a deed of Edmond Lindsey Jr. of Frederick County to Robert Rutherford of Winchester for land on the east side of Opequon notes that the land bordered land surveyed for Matthew Brooks.[16]

Points to note here:

1. Matthew Brooks was baptized in 1704 in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, where two years earlier Jacob Brooks was baptized.

2. Both men subsequently appear in Spotsylvania County records with ties to Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth Matthew married.

3. In the 1740s, both Matthew and Jacob then begin appearing in Frederick County records. In October 1752, Matthew witnesses a deed made by Jacob.

4. Both Matthew and Jacob had ties to the Quaker community of Frederick County, though it appears neither man was himself a Friend.

5. And not to be forgotten: on 22 November 1752, Matthew and James were chain carriers for John Baylis’ survey of land on the Opequon for Hugh Haynes.

It certainly looks to me as if Jacob, Matthew, and James Brooks may be related to each other. And if that’s the case, then it seems worth asking whether, as in the case of Jacob and Matthew, James’ roots lie in Middlesex County, Virginia, prior to his family’s appearance in Frederick County records.

Salient information about Jacob Brooks:

• Jacob was baptized in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[17]

• On 30 May 1725 in Spotsylvania County, Jacob witnessed a deed of land for love and affection by Thomas Warren to his daughter Rachel Askew.[18] This is Thomas Warren, father of Elizabeth who married Matthew Brooks, whose 13 April 1749 will in Spotsylvania County names among other children daughters Rachel Askew and Elizabeth Brooks.[19]

• Frederick County court minutes for 14 September 1744 show the court ordering Leonard Harper to pay Jacob Brooks’s wife Rosanna/Rosannah and Mary Brooks for appearing in court to testify on his behalf.[20] The court directed Harper to pay Rosannah and Mary Brooks, along with several other witnesses, 100 pounds of tobacco each for their appearance in court. Harper was sued by Francis Fowler and found guilty on 12 July 1744 of fornicating with Ann Fowler.[21]

Jacob and Rosanna Brooks had no daughter named Mary. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks had a daughter Mary, however. The birth year of that Mary Brooks has been estimated as around 1738. On 22 October 1759, she married Benjamin Thornburgh at Hopewell Friends Meeting in Frederick County.[22] On 6 April 1758, this Mary Brooks had witnessed the marriage of Henry Rees of Frederick County to Martha Thomas at the Opeckan (i.e., Opequon) Friends Meeting, under the supervision of Hopewell Meeting.[23] Martha Thomas was a daughter of the Evan Thomas who was an appraiser of the estates of both Matthew Brooks and his wife Elizabeth. He was perhaps the first minister of the Hopewell meeting.[24]

The only Mary Brooks about which I find information in Frederick County records who was of age in 1744 was Mary, wife of James Brooks. This September 1744 court record allocating payment for witnesses on behalf of Leonard Fowler links James Brooks’ wife Mary with Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna.

• By 13 October 1744, Jacob Brooks was serving as a juror in Frederick County.[25]

• As noted above, on 10 October 1752, Jacob Brooks deeded to John Briscoe 400 acres on the Opequon, with Matthew Brooks one of the two witnesses.[26]

• By September 1753, Jacob had moved to Orange County, North Carolina, and by 1768, to what would later become Newberry County, South Carolina, where he died after making his will in September 1770.[27] The will names wife Rosanna, daughter Milly and husband William Gary, with their daughter Sarah, along with sons Jacob and John Brooks.

To sum up:

1. The Matthew-James Brooks connection: On 22 November 1752 in Frederick County, Virginia, Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers for a survey of land for Hugh Haynes. This document links Matthew and James, and this James Brooks is clearly the man who died in Frederick County in 1779.

2. The Matthew-Jacob Brooks connection: There are multiple links between Matthew Brooks, who was born in 1704, and a Jacob Brooks found in Frederick County records, who was born in 1702. If Matthew and Jacob are linked, and if Matthew and James are linked, then it’s likely all three of these Brooks men are linked to each other.

3. The Middlesex County connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks were both born in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia. On 29 January 1771, while living in Frederick County, Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, married Margaret Beaumont/Beamon in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County. Middlesex is several counties east of Frederick. The marriage of a man in Frederick County to a bride in Middlesex County suggests some connection that goes beyond geographical proximity: if the two Brooks men born in Middlesex County and later living in Frederick County are connected to Matthew’s father James, then this connection may explain Thomas Brooks’ choice to marry a bride in Middlesex County.

4. The multiple kinship network connections linking these three Brooks families: When Mary and Thomas Brooks brought James Brooks’ will to Frederick County court in November 1779 to be probated, the court ordered four men (or any three of these) including John Lindsey to appraise James Brooks’ estate. When Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth obtained probate from Frederick County court in October 1754 for Matthew’s estate, the court ordered four men (or any three of them) including John Lindsey, gent., to appraise the estate.

John Lindsey, gent., who was ordered to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate is very likely the John Lindsey (abt. 1700-1786) whom Lindsey researcher Susan Grabek calls John “the patriarch.”[28] Because the name John was replicated among several interrelated Lindsey families living in the Long Marsh area of Frederick County in this period, it’s difficult to be certain which particular John Lindsey was ordered to appraise James Brooks’ estate in 1779. The likeliest candidate is, I think, a nephew of John Lindsey, gent., a son of Thomas Lindsey (abt. 1720-1769), another of the Lindsey patriarchs of the Long Marsh community.[29]

There were multiple connections between this Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County and the kinship network of James Brooks’ family. James Brooks’ daughter Elizabeth (1747/1750 – 1816) married George Rice, son of Patrick Rice and Elizabeth Decow. As a previous posting notes, on 25 April 1764, Thomas Rutherford surveyed 669 acres on the Opequon for George Rice in Frederick County, with George’s brothers Edmund and John Rice acting as chain carriers and George Rice and Edmund Lindsey as markers. Edmund Lindsey was yet another of the Lindsey brothers whom Susan Grabek calls patriarchs of the Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County: Edmund was a brother of John Lindsey, gent., and Thomas Lindsey mentioned above.

As another previous posting also shows, when Thomas Rutherford surveyed 410 acres for George Rice’s father Patrick Rice on 19 March 1761, the land plat showed the land joining Patrick’s patent line, John McCormick, George Martin, Lord Fairfax, and Edmund Lindsey, and listed the chain carriers as Patrick Rice himself and Captain John Lindsey. Captain John Lindsey was the John Lindsey, gent., ordered by the court to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate. The linked posting also notes a Long Marsh grant of 244 acres to Edmund Lindsey on 4 August 1766, with the land adjoining George Neville, Joseph Reeder, George Rice, Patrick Rice, and Edmund Lindsey.

Also noted in the posting I’ve just linked: on 2-3 March 1767, Patrick Rice sold land to his son John Rice with Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, listed as one of the witnesses to this deed. This deed shows a direct link between the Rice family and the family of James and Mary Brooks, whose daughter Elizabeth married Patrick Rice’s son George about 1769.

As stated above, Patrick Rice held land adjoining both John McCormick and Edmund Lindsey. John McCormick’s grandson William McCormick married Elizabeth, daughter of George Rice and Elizabeth Brooks. As a previous posting has noted, when John McCormick acquired 456 acres on Long Marsh Creek on 8 July 1760, the survey and grant records show the land joining Patrick Rice and Thomas Lindsey (1720-1769). A 2 April 1751 Northern Neck grant to John Lindsey, Thomas’s brother, for 750 acres in Long Marsh in Frederick County shows his tract adjoining Patrick Rice.

Note, too, that John McCormick’s son Francis McCormick was among the four men appointed by Frederick County court in November 1779 to appraise the estate of James Brooks. The posting I linked in the previous paragraph points out that a 1782 tax list for Frederick County shows that three of the four men appointed by the county court to appraise James Brooks’ estate in November 1779 — Meredith Helm, Francis McCormick, and John Lindsey (son of Thomas) — all lived in Captain Nobles’ tax district of Frederick County in 1782 along with James Brooks’ son Thomas Brooks.

5. The Haynes/Haines connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks both lived on the Opequon where Matthew and James helped survey land for Hugh Haynes in 1752. This was a few miles west of the west of the Long Marsh area in which the Lindsey and Rice families lived (though Patrick Rice had land on both Long Marsh Run and Opequon Creek).

The Haynes name deserves further attention for this reason: as noted above, James and Mary Brooks had a daughter identified in Mary’s will as Susanna Haines. I have not been able to find the name of Susanna’s husband or any further information about her. The posting I’ve just linked notes the presence of Haynes/Haines families in Frederick County in the 18th century whose roots lie in the Quaker communities of New Jersey. As I indicated above, the Hugh Haynes for whose survey Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers in 1752 moved back from Virginia to New Jersey, dying there in May 1772 as a Quaker. Was the Haines family into which James Brooks’ daughter Susanna married connected to the Haynes family to which this Hugh Haynes belonged? This seems to be a research avenue worth exploring.

6. The connection between Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna and James Brooks’ wife Mary: Another connection that shouldn’t be overlooked: James Brooks’ wife Mary and Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna both provided testimony for Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744.

Frederick County court minutes provide some additional interesting information about Leonard Harper. On 7 December 1756, administration of his estate was given by the court to William Locks or Locke.[30] Giving bond with Locks/Locke for this administration were Benjamin Grubb and John Milbourn. At the same time, the court appointed the following appraisers (or any three of them) for Harper’s estate: John Lindsey, Benjamin Grubb, Joseph [Hill?], and John McCormick (with the surname spelled McCormack here). Note the names John Milbourn, John Lindsey, and John McCormick. As we’ve seen, John Milbourn and John Lindsey were two of those appointed to appraise the estate of Matthew Brooks in October 1754. And on the connections between John McCormick and the Lindsey and Rice families and the family of James and Mary Brooks, see above.

7. The Quaker connections: Though Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks appear not to have been Quakers, the families of all these Brooks men had ties to Quakers in Frederick County and the middle colonies. The will of Matthew’s wife Elizabeth uses Quaker terminology in stating its date: twelfth day of twelfth month, and it was witnessed by Simeon Taylor, clerk of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks’ son David daughter Mary were both Quakers.

Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester note that when Rosanna and Mary Brooks affirmed the debt owed to them for testifying on behalf of Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744, both did so by solemn affirmation rather than by making an oath. Kellam and Lester take this to mean that the two women had Quaker affiliation, though neither appears in the records of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting.

When Jacob Brooks left Virginia for South Carolina, he settled among Quakers who had moved to South Carolina from Frederick County, Virginia, and appears in records linked to the Hollingsworth family, which arrived in Delaware as a Quaker family with members then appearing in minutes of Quaker meetings in Pennsylvania and Frederick County, Virginia. The family of James and Mary Brooks also connects to the Hollingsworths: Mary Brooks, the oldest daughter of James and Mary Brooks, married Jacob Hollingsworth whose parents Samuel Hollingsworth and Barbara Shewing were members of the Old Kennett Friends Monthly Meeting in Chester County, Pennsylvania. George Rice, who married Mary Brooks’ sister Elizabeth, had a sister Susannah Rice who also married a Hollingsworth spouse. George Rice’s mother Elizabeth Decow, belonged to a Quaker family that immigrated from Yorkshire, England, to Burlington County, New Jersey, where she married George Rice’s father Patrick Rice before the couple settled in Frederick County, Virginia.

7. Connections that may be suggested by naming patterns: Both Matthew and James Brooks named sons James and Thomas. And James named a daughter Elizabeth, the name of Matthew’s wife, while Matthew had a daughter Mary, the name of James’ wife. Admittedly, none of these names is particularly uncommon in Virginia in this period, and Matthew’s father-in-law was Thomas Warren, so that may account for his use of the given name Thomas as he named a son. But the possibility that overlap in given names in the two families may indicate some kind of connection between them should also not be entirely discounted, it seems to me.

In conclusion, one or two connections may be a coincidence. Multiple connections suggest more than coincidence. With Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, there are manifold connections, overlapping ones. These connections suggest to me shared roots, though since Matthew is recorded as illegitimate in his baptismal record and he has his mother’s Brooks surname, the Y-DNA of his descendants might well not match the Y-DNA of proven male descendants of other Brooks families.

[1] Frederick County, Virginia, Chancery Court Order Book 17 (1778-1781), p. 251.

[2] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 5, p. 158.

[3] Survey for Hugh Haynes, 22 November 1752, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed for this land was made 2 April 1760. On 1 October 1767, living in Salem, New Jersey, Hugh Haynes sold the 247 acres to Michael Headley of Frederick County, with wife Ann signing and releasing dower: Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, pp. 23-4, 27.

[4] The order given on 20 November 1749 for John Baylis to survey 400 acres for Thomas Wyatt states that Wyatt was living on the land and that it adjoined Lewis Neill: ibid., survey for Thomas Wyatt, 1749/1750, available digitally at FamilySearch. The survey by John Baylis shows the land joining Hugh Haynes, John Baylis, and Captain Neile.

[5] National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the Commonwealth of Virginia, The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812 (Richmond: W.E. Jones, 1897), p. 67, transcribing the original parish register.

[6] Ibid., p. 60. On Jacob Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, records as the Jacob baptized in 1702 in Christ Church parish, see Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester, Brooks and Kindred Families (priv. publ., 1950), pp. 310-313.

[7] See Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Will Bk. B, p. 56; Thomas Warren made the will on 13 April 1749 and it was probated 4 December 1750. In The Rev. John Johnson and His Home: An Autobiography (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publ. Co., 1869), pp. 10-11, Susannah Brooks Johnson, a granddaughter of Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks, states, “My grandmother’s maiden name was Elizabeth Warren; my grandfather, Matthew Brooks, a native of Virginia, was born of English parentage, and lived near Richmond.”

[8] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 3, p. 45.

[9] Survey of John Baylis, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. No date is recorded for the survey, nor does it state the name of the surveyor.

[10] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, pp. 368-370. On Taylor as the first clerk of Hopewell, see Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History 1734-1934, Frederick County, Virginia (Strausburg, Virginia: Shenandoah Publishing, 1936), pp. 181-2, noting that Simeon and his wife were issued a certificate by East Nottingham Monthly Meeting on 28th of 4th month 1738, and lived on the east side of Opequon at Yorkshireman’s Branch, now called Litler’s Run, until they obtained a certificate for removal to New Garden Monthly Meeting in North Carolina on 2nd of 4th month 1764.

[11] Survey of John Briscoe, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed is recorded as a note of Jacob Brooks wrote to Lord Fairfax deeding the land to Briscoe.

[12] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 4, p. 406.

[13] Ibid., Bk. 6, p. 107.

[14] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, p. 150.

[15] See supra, n. 10.  

[16] Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, p. 545.

[17] See supra, n. 5.

[18] Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Bk. A, pp. 165-6.

[19] See supra, n. 7.

[20] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 196.

[21] Ibid., p. 130.

[22] William Wade Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, vol. 6: Virginia (Baltimore: Geneal. Publ. Co., 1973), p. 371, indexing Hopewell meeting minutes.

[23] Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History, p. 29.

[24] Ibid., p. 30.

[25] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 221.

[26] See supra, n. 11.

[27] Charleston County, South Carolina, Will Bk. 1774-9, pp. 54-5.

[28] Susan Grabek, “The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia, ‘The Patriarchs,’” at Lindsay Surname DNA Project Group 2:  The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia.

[29] See ibid.

[30] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order 7, p. 156.

Challenge of Tracing the Ancestry of James Brooks (bef. 1720 – 1779) of Frederick County, Virginia: A Thought-Provoking New Clue

Or, Subtitled: “The chain carriers were often kin to the person for whom the land was being surveyed” (Judy G. Russell, “A Matter of Measure,“ Legal Genealogy)

I have posted previously about an elusive ancestor named James Brooks, who died prior to 2 November 1779 in Frederick County, Virginia, when his widow Mary and son Thomas presented his will to court for probate.[1] As the posting I’ve just linked states, the court responded to Mary and Thomas’ motion to have James Brooks’ will probated by granting them a certificate “for obtaining a probate there of [sic] in due form.”

That is, the will was not probated and recorded on 2 November 1779, but Mary and Thomas were instructed to have it probated “in due form.” The court minutes state explicitly that after witness Meredith Helm proved the will, it was “Ordered to be for further proof.” One would expect this set of court minutes to be followed by another set not far down the road showing the will definitively proven with Mary and Thomas obtaining probate and having it recorded. (To read the rest of this posting, please click the numeral 2 below.)

But sadly, this notice that James Brooks’ will was brought to Frederick County court for probate on 2 November 1779 is the last mention I can find of this will anywhere in Frederick County records. It seems never to have been probated or recorded.

James Brooks remains a very elusive ancestor. I can find almost next to no information about him. His son Thomas first appears in Frederick County records in 1767, so this family seems to have been in that county by that date. His children’s dates of birth suggest a birth date of 1720 or earlier for James and wife Mary. Mary outlived James by some ten years, leaving a will written 9 July 1786, which was probated on 4 April 1787.[2] The will names her children Mary Hollingsworth, Elizabeth Rice, Sarah Asdill (i.e., Ashdale), Susanna Haynes, and Thomas and James Brooks. A transcript of Mary Brooks’ will and an overview of what’s known about her children is found at this previous posting.

When James Brooks and wife Mary arrived in Frederick County, Virginia, where they were living prior to coming there (I’m assuming they were not born there), where they were born, what Mary’s maiden name was: I have been unable to find any scrap of information to answer those questions. I have, however, now turned up a very valuable new clue possibly pointing to James’ background that I want to discuss here.

On 22 November 1752, John Baylis surveyed 247 acres of land for Hugh Haynes on Opequon Creek in Frederick County. This was a Northern Neck survey.[3] The chain carriers for this survey were Matthew Brooks and James Brooks. The survey document states that Hugh Haynes lived on the east side of Opequon and that the land surveyed was on both sides of that creek. The land bordered Robert Hutchins, John Baylis, and Thomas Wyatt.[4]

Quite a bit of information is available about Matthew Brooks, who died in 1754 in Frederick County. I’ll discuss some of that information in a moment. But meanwhile, who is this James Brooks? Matthew Brooks had a son named James. But Matthew’s son James is not the man acting as a chain carrier in November 1752 when Hugh Haynes had land surveyed. Matthew’s son James Brooks was born in 1748.

I have found no James Brooks living in Frederick County in the period 1752-1779 other than the James Brooks who died there prior to 2 November 1779. I’m fairly confident that the James Brooks acting as a chain carrier with Matthew Brooks when Hugh Haynes’ land was surveyed in November 1752 is the man who died in November 1779 with wife Mary. 

When land was surveyed, chain carriers were frequently relatives of the person whose land was being surveyed. They were also very often relatives of each other — i.e., a chain carrier duo might be father and son or two brothers. This November 1752 survey document suggests to me some kind of connection, very likely a kinship one, between James Brooks with wife Mary and Matthew Brooks.

In a previous posting, I provided an overview of what I know about Matthew Brooks and another Brooks man, Jacob Brooks, who was living in Frederick County in the period in which Matthew and James Brooks lived there. This posting notes that there are some strong indicators that Matthew and Jacob were related to each other, and both families had some Quaker connections.

Salient information about Matthew Brooks:

• Matthew was baptized 10 February 1704 in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia, with the baptismal record stating that his mother was Sara Brooks, and Matthew was illegitimate.[5]

Though some researchers have questioned whether the Matthew Brooks who appears in Frederick County records by the 1740s and died there before 1 October 1754 is the Matthew Brooks of this baptismal record, it’s clear to me that the two Matthews are the same person. There’s a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of this conclusion. In particular, it’s important to note that Jacob Brooks, to whom the Matthew Brooks found in Frederick County records is linked, was also baptized in Christ Church parish on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[6]

In addition, as a previous posting notes (with documentation cited), before appearing in Frederick County records, both Matthew and Jacob Brooks are found in records of Spotsylvania County, Virgina, both with connections to the family of Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth married Matthew Brooks.[7]

• Matthew Brooks was in Frederick County prior to 7 May 1748, when he was appointed a constable in that county.[8]

• After a warrant was issued on 22 January 1750 for a survey of 400 acres on the east side of Opequon for John Baylis of Prince William County, Matthew Brooks and Simeon Taylor were chain carriers.[9] The land bordered Hugh Haynes, Robert Hutchins and Lewis Neale. Simeon Taylor, who was the first clerk of Hopewell Friends’ Monthly Meeting in Frederick County, witnessed the 12 December 1758 will of Matthew Brooks’ wife Elizabeth.[10]

• On 10 October 1752, Matthew Brooks witnessed a deed of Jacob Brooks to John Briscoe for 400 acres on the Opequon, with John Wilkeson as the other witness.[11]

• On 6 March 1753, Matthew Brooks was appointed overseer of the road from Ross’s to John Smith’s old place in room of John Thomas.[12]

• Matthew Brooks died by 1 October 1754 when his widow Elizabeth was given a certificate by Frederick County court for administration of his estate.[13] The court appointed as estate appraisers John Lindsey, gent., Evan Thomas Jr., William Dillon, and John Milbourn.

• On 4 March 1755, an estate appraisement by William Dillon, Evan Thomas, and John Milbourn, all Quakers, was recorded.[14]

• On 12 December 1759 (the date is written as the twelfth day of the twelfth month called December), Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth made her will in Frederick County.[15] The will was probated 6 February 1760. A digital copy of Elizabeth’s will is at this previous posting, which also has information about Matthew and Elizabeth’s ten children, noting that they included sons named James and Thomas.

• On 1 November 1768, a deed of Edmond Lindsey Jr. of Frederick County to Robert Rutherford of Winchester for land on the east side of Opequon notes that the land bordered land surveyed for Matthew Brooks.[16]

Points to note here:

1. Matthew Brooks was baptized in 1704 in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, where two years earlier Jacob Brooks was baptized.

2. Both men subsequently appear in Spotsylvania County records with ties to Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth Matthew married.

3. In the 1740s, both Matthew and Jacob then begin appearing in Frederick County records. In October 1752, Matthew witnesses a deed made by Jacob.

4. Both Matthew and Jacob had ties to the Quaker community of Frederick County, though it appears neither man was himself a Friend.

5. And not to be forgotten: on 22 November 1752, Matthew and James were chain carriers for John Baylis’ survey of land on the Opequon for Hugh Haynes.

It certainly looks to me as if Jacob, Matthew, and James Brooks may be related to each other. And if that’s the case, then it seems worth asking whether, as in the case of Jacob and Matthew, James’ roots lie in Middlesex County, Virginia, prior to his family’s appearance in Frederick County records.

Salient information about Jacob Brooks:

• Jacob was baptized in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[17]

• On 30 May 1725 in Spotsylvania County, Jacob witnessed a deed of land for love and affection by Thomas Warren to his daughter Rachel Askew.[18] This is Thomas Warren, father of Elizabeth who married Matthew Brooks, whose 13 April 1749 will in Spotsylvania County names among other children daughters Rachel Askew and Elizabeth Brooks.[19]

• Frederick County court minutes for 14 September 1744 show the court ordering Leonard Harper to pay Jacob Brooks’s wife Rosanna/Rosannah and Mary Brooks for appearing in court to testify on his behalf.[20] The court directed Harper to pay Rosannah and Mary Brooks, along with several other witnesses, 100 pounds of tobacco each for their appearance in court. Harper was sued by Francis Fowler and found guilty on 12 July 1744 of fornicating with Ann Fowler.[21]

Jacob and Rosanna Brooks had no daughter named Mary. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks had a daughter Mary, however. The birth year of that Mary Brooks has been estimated as around 1738. On 22 October 1759, she married Benjamin Thornburgh at Hopewell Friends Meeting in Frederick County.[22] On 6 April 1758, this Mary Brooks had witnessed the marriage of Henry Rees of Frederick County to Martha Thomas at the Opeckan (i.e., Opequon) Friends Meeting, under the supervision of Hopewell Meeting.[23] Martha Thomas was a daughter of the Evan Thomas who was an appraiser of the estates of both Matthew Brooks and his wife Elizabeth. He was perhaps the first minister of the Hopewell meeting.[24]

The only Mary Brooks about which I find information in Frederick County records who was of age in 1744 was Mary, wife of James Brooks. This September 1744 court record allocating payment for witnesses on behalf of Leonard Fowler links James Brooks’ wife Mary with Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna.

• By 13 October 1744, Jacob Brooks was serving as a juror in Frederick County.[25]

• As noted above, on 10 October 1752, Jacob Brooks deeded to John Briscoe 400 acres on the Opequon, with Matthew Brooks one of the two witnesses.[26]

• By September 1753, Jacob had moved to Orange County, North Carolina, and by 1768, to what would later become Newberry County, South Carolina, where he died after making his will in September 1770.[27] The will names wife Rosanna, daughter Milly and husband William Gary, with their daughter Sarah, along with sons Jacob and John Brooks.

To sum up:

1. The Matthew-James Brooks connection: On 22 November 1752 in Frederick County, Virginia, Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers for a survey of land for Hugh Haynes. This document links Matthew and James, and this James Brooks is clearly the man who died in Frederick County in 1779.

2. The Matthew-Jacob Brooks connection: There are multiple links between Matthew Brooks, who was born in 1704, and a Jacob Brooks found in Frederick County records, who was born in 1702. If Matthew and Jacob are linked, and if Matthew and James are linked, then it’s likely all three of these Brooks men are linked to each other.

3. The Middlesex County connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks were both born in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia. On 29 January 1771, while living in Frederick County, Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, married Margaret Beaumont/Beamon in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County. Middlesex is several counties east of Frederick. The marriage of a man in Frederick County to a bride in Middlesex County suggests some connection that goes beyond geographical proximity: if the two Brooks men born in Middlesex County and later living in Frederick County are connected to Matthew’s father James, then this connection may explain Thomas Brooks’ choice to marry a bride in Middlesex County.

4. The multiple kinship network connections linking these three Brooks families: When Mary and Thomas Brooks brought James Brooks’ will to Frederick County court in November 1779 to be probated, the court ordered four men (or any three of these) including John Lindsey to appraise James Brooks’ estate. When Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth obtained probate from Frederick County court in October 1754 for Matthew’s estate, the court ordered four men (or any three of them) including John Lindsey, gent., to appraise the estate.

John Lindsey, gent., who was ordered to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate is very likely the John Lindsey (abt. 1700-1786) whom Lindsey researcher Susan Grabek calls John “the patriarch.”[28] Because the name John was replicated among several interrelated Lindsey families living in the Long Marsh area of Frederick County in this period, it’s difficult to be certain which particular John Lindsey was ordered to appraise James Brooks’ estate in 1779. The likeliest candidate is, I think, a nephew of John Lindsey, gent., a son of Thomas Lindsey (abt. 1720-1769), another of the Lindsey patriarchs of the Long Marsh community.[29]

There were multiple connections between this Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County and the kinship network of James Brooks’ family. James Brooks’ daughter Elizabeth (1747/1750 – 1816) married George Rice, son of Patrick Rice and Elizabeth Decow. As a previous posting notes, on 25 April 1764, Thomas Rutherford surveyed 669 acres on the Opequon for George Rice in Frederick County, with George’s brothers Edmund and John Rice acting as chain carriers and George Rice and Edmund Lindsey as markers. Edmund Lindsey was yet another of the Lindsey brothers whom Susan Grabek calls patriarchs of the Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County: Edmund was a brother of John Lindsey, gent., and Thomas Lindsey mentioned above.

As another previous posting also shows, when Thomas Rutherford surveyed 410 acres for George Rice’s father Patrick Rice on 19 March 1761, the land plat showed the land joining Patrick’s patent line, John McCormick, George Martin, Lord Fairfax, and Edmund Lindsey, and listed the chain carriers as Patrick Rice himself and Captain John Lindsey. Captain John Lindsey was the John Lindsey, gent., ordered by the court to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate. The linked posting also notes a Long Marsh grant of 244 acres to Edmund Lindsey on 4 August 1766, with the land adjoining George Neville, Joseph Reeder, George Rice, Patrick Rice, and Edmund Lindsey.

Also noted in the posting I’ve just linked: on 2-3 March 1767, Patrick Rice sold land to his son John Rice with Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, listed as one of the witnesses to this deed. This deed shows a direct link between the Rice family and the family of James and Mary Brooks, whose daughter Elizabeth married Patrick Rice’s son George about 1769.

As stated above, Patrick Rice held land adjoining both John McCormick and Edmund Lindsey. John McCormick’s grandson William McCormick married Elizabeth, daughter of George Rice and Elizabeth Brooks. As a previous posting has noted, when John McCormick acquired 456 acres on Long Marsh Creek on 8 July 1760, the survey and grant records show the land joining Patrick Rice and Thomas Lindsey (1720-1769). A 2 April 1751 Northern Neck grant to John Lindsey, Thomas’s brother, for 750 acres in Long Marsh in Frederick County shows his tract adjoining Patrick Rice.

Note, too, that John McCormick’s son Francis McCormick was among the four men appointed by Frederick County court in November 1779 to appraise the estate of James Brooks. The posting I linked in the previous paragraph points out that a 1782 tax list for Frederick County shows that three of the four men appointed by the county court to appraise James Brooks’ estate in November 1779 — Meredith Helm, Francis McCormick, and John Lindsey (son of Thomas) — all lived in Captain Nobles’ tax district of Frederick County in 1782 along with James Brooks’ son Thomas Brooks.

5. The Haynes/Haines connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks both lived on the Opequon where Matthew and James helped survey land for Hugh Haynes in 1752. This was a few miles west of the west of the Long Marsh area in which the Lindsey and Rice families lived (though Patrick Rice had land on both Long Marsh Run and Opequon Creek).

The Haynes name deserves further attention for this reason: as noted above, James and Mary Brooks had a daughter identified in Mary’s will as Susanna Haines. I have not been able to find the name of Susanna’s husband or any further information about her. The posting I’ve just linked notes the presence of Haynes/Haines families in Frederick County in the 18th century whose roots lie in the Quaker communities of New Jersey. As I indicated above, the Hugh Haynes for whose survey Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers in 1752 moved back from Virginia to New Jersey, dying there in May 1772 as a Quaker. Was the Haines family into which James Brooks’ daughter Susanna married connected to the Haynes family to which this Hugh Haynes belonged? This seems to be a research avenue worth exploring.

6. The connection between Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna and James Brooks’ wife Mary: Another connection that shouldn’t be overlooked: James Brooks’ wife Mary and Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna both provided testimony for Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744.

Frederick County court minutes provide some additional interesting information about Leonard Harper. On 7 December 1756, administration of his estate was given by the court to William Locks or Locke.[30] Giving bond with Locks/Locke for this administration were Benjamin Grubb and John Milbourn. At the same time, the court appointed the following appraisers (or any three of them) for Harper’s estate: John Lindsey, Benjamin Grubb, Joseph [Hill?], and John McCormick (with the surname spelled McCormack here). Note the names John Milbourn, John Lindsey, and John McCormick. As we’ve seen, John Milbourn and John Lindsey were two of those appointed to appraise the estate of Matthew Brooks in October 1754. And on the connections between John McCormick and the Lindsey and Rice families and the family of James and Mary Brooks, see above.

7. The Quaker connections: Though Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks appear not to have been Quakers, the families of all these Brooks men had ties to Quakers in Frederick County and the middle colonies. The will of Matthew’s wife Elizabeth uses Quaker terminology in stating its date: twelfth day of twelfth month, and it was witnessed by Simeon Taylor, clerk of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks’ son David daughter Mary were both Quakers.

Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester note that when Rosanna and Mary Brooks affirmed the debt owed to them for testifying on behalf of Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744, both did so by solemn affirmation rather than by making an oath. Kellam and Lester take this to mean that the two women had Quaker affiliation, though neither appears in the records of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting.

When Jacob Brooks left Virginia for South Carolina, he settled among Quakers who had moved to South Carolina from Frederick County, Virginia, and appears in records linked to the Hollingsworth family, which arrived in Delaware as a Quaker family with members then appearing in minutes of Quaker meetings in Pennsylvania and Frederick County, Virginia. The family of James and Mary Brooks also connects to the Hollingsworths: Mary Brooks, the oldest daughter of James and Mary Brooks, married Jacob Hollingsworth whose parents Samuel Hollingsworth and Barbara Shewing were members of the Old Kennett Friends Monthly Meeting in Chester County, Pennsylvania. George Rice, who married Mary Brooks’ sister Elizabeth, had a sister Susannah Rice who also married a Hollingsworth spouse. George Rice’s mother Elizabeth Decow, belonged to a Quaker family that immigrated from Yorkshire, England, to Burlington County, New Jersey, where she married George Rice’s father Patrick Rice before the couple settled in Frederick County, Virginia.

7. Connections that may be suggested by naming patterns: Both Matthew and James Brooks named sons James and Thomas. And James named a daughter Elizabeth, the name of Matthew’s wife, while Matthew had a daughter Mary, the name of James’ wife. Admittedly, none of these names is particularly uncommon in Virginia in this period, and Matthew’s father-in-law was Thomas Warren, so that may account for his use of the given name Thomas as he named a son. But the possibility that overlap in given names in the two families may indicate some kind of connection between them should also not be entirely discounted, it seems to me.

In conclusion, one or two connections may be a coincidence. Multiple connections suggest more than coincidence. With Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, there are manifold connections, overlapping ones. These connections suggest to me shared roots, though since Matthew is recorded as illegitimate in his baptismal record and he has his mother’s Brooks surname, the Y-DNA of his descendants might well not match the Y-DNA of proven male descendants of other Brooks families.

[1] Frederick County, Virginia, Chancery Court Order Book 17 (1778-1781), p. 251.

[2] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 5, p. 158.

[3] Survey for Hugh Haynes, 22 November 1752, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed for this land was made 2 April 1760. On 1 October 1767, living in Salem, New Jersey, Hugh Haynes sold the 247 acres to Michael Headley of Frederick County, with wife Ann signing and releasing dower: Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, pp. 23-4, 27.

[4] The order given on 20 November 1749 for John Baylis to survey 400 acres for Thomas Wyatt states that Wyatt was living on the land and that it adjoined Lewis Neill: ibid., survey for Thomas Wyatt, 1749/1750, available digitally at FamilySearch. The survey by John Baylis shows the land joining Hugh Haynes, John Baylis, and Captain Neile.

[5] National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the Commonwealth of Virginia, The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812 (Richmond: W.E. Jones, 1897), p. 67, transcribing the original parish register.

[6] Ibid., p. 60. On Jacob Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, records as the Jacob baptized in 1702 in Christ Church parish, see Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester, Brooks and Kindred Families (priv. publ., 1950), pp. 310-313.

[7] See Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Will Bk. B, p. 56; Thomas Warren made the will on 13 April 1749 and it was probated 4 December 1750. In The Rev. John Johnson and His Home: An Autobiography (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publ. Co., 1869), pp. 10-11, Susannah Brooks Johnson, a granddaughter of Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks, states, “My grandmother’s maiden name was Elizabeth Warren; my grandfather, Matthew Brooks, a native of Virginia, was born of English parentage, and lived near Richmond.”

[8] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 3, p. 45.

[9] Survey of John Baylis, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. No date is recorded for the survey, nor does it state the name of the surveyor.

[10] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, pp. 368-370. On Taylor as the first clerk of Hopewell, see Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History 1734-1934, Frederick County, Virginia (Strausburg, Virginia: Shenandoah Publishing, 1936), pp. 181-2, noting that Simeon and his wife were issued a certificate by East Nottingham Monthly Meeting on 28th of 4th month 1738, and lived on the east side of Opequon at Yorkshireman’s Branch, now called Litler’s Run, until they obtained a certificate for removal to New Garden Monthly Meeting in North Carolina on 2nd of 4th month 1764.

[11] Survey of John Briscoe, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed is recorded as a note of Jacob Brooks wrote to Lord Fairfax deeding the land to Briscoe.

[12] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 4, p. 406.

[13] Ibid., Bk. 6, p. 107.

[14] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, p. 150.

[15] See supra, n. 10.  

[16] Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, p. 545.

[17] See supra, n. 5.

[18] Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Bk. A, pp. 165-6.

[19] See supra, n. 7.

[20] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 196.

[21] Ibid., p. 130.

[22] William Wade Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, vol. 6: Virginia (Baltimore: Geneal. Publ. Co., 1973), p. 371, indexing Hopewell meeting minutes.

[23] Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History, p. 29.

[24] Ibid., p. 30.

[25] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 221.

[26] See supra, n. 11.

[27] Charleston County, South Carolina, Will Bk. 1774-9, pp. 54-5.

[28] Susan Grabek, “The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia, ‘The Patriarchs,’” at Lindsay Surname DNA Project Group 2:  The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia.

[29] See ibid.

[30] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order 7, p. 156.

Challenge of Tracing the Ancestry of James Brooks (bef. 1720 – 1779) of Frederick County, Virginia: A Thought-Provoking New Clue

Or, Subtitled: “The chain carriers were often kin to the person for whom the land was being surveyed” (Judy G. Russell, “A Matter of Measure,“ Legal Genealogy)

I have posted previously about an elusive ancestor named James Brooks, who died prior to 2 November 1779 in Frederick County, Virginia, when his widow Mary and son Thomas presented his will to court for probate.[1] As the posting I’ve just linked states, the court responded to Mary and Thomas’ motion to have James Brooks’ will probated by granting them a certificate “for obtaining a probate there of [sic] in due form.”

That is, the will was not probated and recorded on 2 November 1779, but Mary and Thomas were instructed to have it probated “in due form.” The court minutes state explicitly that after witness Meredith Helm proved the will, it was “Ordered to be for further proof.” One would expect this set of court minutes to be followed by another set not far down the road showing the will definitively proven with Mary and Thomas obtaining probate and having it recorded. (To read the rest of this posting, please click the numeral 2 below.)

But sadly, this notice that James Brooks’ will was brought to Frederick County court for probate on 2 November 1779 is the last mention I can find of this will anywhere in Frederick County records. It seems never to have been probated or recorded.

James Brooks remains a very elusive ancestor. I can find almost next to no information about him. His son Thomas first appears in Frederick County records in 1767, so this family seems to have been in that county by that date. His children’s dates of birth suggest a birth date of 1720 or earlier for James and wife Mary. Mary outlived James by some ten years, leaving a will written 9 July 1786, which was probated on 4 April 1787.[2] The will names her children Mary Hollingsworth, Elizabeth Rice, Sarah Asdill (i.e., Ashdale), Susanna Haynes, and Thomas and James Brooks. A transcript of Mary Brooks’ will and an overview of what’s known about her children is found at this previous posting.

When James Brooks and wife Mary arrived in Frederick County, Virginia, where they were living prior to coming there (I’m assuming they were not born there), where they were born, what Mary’s maiden name was: I have been unable to find any scrap of information to answer those questions. I have, however, now turned up a very valuable new clue possibly pointing to James’ background that I want to discuss here.

On 22 November 1752, John Baylis surveyed 247 acres of land for Hugh Haynes on Opequon Creek in Frederick County. This was a Northern Neck survey.[3] The chain carriers for this survey were Matthew Brooks and James Brooks. The survey document states that Hugh Haynes lived on the east side of Opequon and that the land surveyed was on both sides of that creek. The land bordered Robert Hutchins, John Baylis, and Thomas Wyatt.[4]

Quite a bit of information is available about Matthew Brooks, who died in 1754 in Frederick County. I’ll discuss some of that information in a moment. But meanwhile, who is this James Brooks? Matthew Brooks had a son named James. But Matthew’s son James is not the man acting as a chain carrier in November 1752 when Hugh Haynes had land surveyed. Matthew’s son James Brooks was born in 1748.

I have found no James Brooks living in Frederick County in the period 1752-1779 other than the James Brooks who died there prior to 2 November 1779. I’m fairly confident that the James Brooks acting as a chain carrier with Matthew Brooks when Hugh Haynes’ land was surveyed in November 1752 is the man who died in November 1779 with wife Mary. 

When land was surveyed, chain carriers were frequently relatives of the person whose land was being surveyed. They were also very often relatives of each other — i.e., a chain carrier duo might be father and son or two brothers. This November 1752 survey document suggests to me some kind of connection, very likely a kinship one, between James Brooks with wife Mary and Matthew Brooks.

In a previous posting, I provided an overview of what I know about Matthew Brooks and another Brooks man, Jacob Brooks, who was living in Frederick County in the period in which Matthew and James Brooks lived there. This posting notes that there are some strong indicators that Matthew and Jacob were related to each other, and both families had some Quaker connections.

Salient information about Matthew Brooks:

• Matthew was baptized 10 February 1704 in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia, with the baptismal record stating that his mother was Sara Brooks, and Matthew was illegitimate.[5]

Though some researchers have questioned whether the Matthew Brooks who appears in Frederick County records by the 1740s and died there before 1 October 1754 is the Matthew Brooks of this baptismal record, it’s clear to me that the two Matthews are the same person. There’s a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of this conclusion. In particular, it’s important to note that Jacob Brooks, to whom the Matthew Brooks found in Frederick County records is linked, was also baptized in Christ Church parish on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[6]

In addition, as a previous posting notes (with documentation cited), before appearing in Frederick County records, both Matthew and Jacob Brooks are found in records of Spotsylvania County, Virgina, both with connections to the family of Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth married Matthew Brooks.[7]

• Matthew Brooks was in Frederick County prior to 7 May 1748, when he was appointed a constable in that county.[8]

• After a warrant was issued on 22 January 1750 for a survey of 400 acres on the east side of Opequon for John Baylis of Prince William County, Matthew Brooks and Simeon Taylor were chain carriers.[9] The land bordered Hugh Haynes, Robert Hutchins and Lewis Neale. Simeon Taylor, who was the first clerk of Hopewell Friends’ Monthly Meeting in Frederick County, witnessed the 12 December 1758 will of Matthew Brooks’ wife Elizabeth.[10]

• On 10 October 1752, Matthew Brooks witnessed a deed of Jacob Brooks to John Briscoe for 400 acres on the Opequon, with John Wilkeson as the other witness.[11]

• On 6 March 1753, Matthew Brooks was appointed overseer of the road from Ross’s to John Smith’s old place in room of John Thomas.[12]

• Matthew Brooks died by 1 October 1754 when his widow Elizabeth was given a certificate by Frederick County court for administration of his estate.[13] The court appointed as estate appraisers John Lindsey, gent., Evan Thomas Jr., William Dillon, and John Milbourn.

• On 4 March 1755, an estate appraisement by William Dillon, Evan Thomas, and John Milbourn, all Quakers, was recorded.[14]

• On 12 December 1759 (the date is written as the twelfth day of the twelfth month called December), Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth made her will in Frederick County.[15] The will was probated 6 February 1760. A digital copy of Elizabeth’s will is at this previous posting, which also has information about Matthew and Elizabeth’s ten children, noting that they included sons named James and Thomas.

• On 1 November 1768, a deed of Edmond Lindsey Jr. of Frederick County to Robert Rutherford of Winchester for land on the east side of Opequon notes that the land bordered land surveyed for Matthew Brooks.[16]

Points to note here:

1. Matthew Brooks was baptized in 1704 in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, where two years earlier Jacob Brooks was baptized.

2. Both men subsequently appear in Spotsylvania County records with ties to Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth Matthew married.

3. In the 1740s, both Matthew and Jacob then begin appearing in Frederick County records. In October 1752, Matthew witnesses a deed made by Jacob.

4. Both Matthew and Jacob had ties to the Quaker community of Frederick County, though it appears neither man was himself a Friend.

5. And not to be forgotten: on 22 November 1752, Matthew and James were chain carriers for John Baylis’ survey of land on the Opequon for Hugh Haynes.

It certainly looks to me as if Jacob, Matthew, and James Brooks may be related to each other. And if that’s the case, then it seems worth asking whether, as in the case of Jacob and Matthew, James’ roots lie in Middlesex County, Virginia, prior to his family’s appearance in Frederick County records.

Salient information about Jacob Brooks:

• Jacob was baptized in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[17]

• On 30 May 1725 in Spotsylvania County, Jacob witnessed a deed of land for love and affection by Thomas Warren to his daughter Rachel Askew.[18] This is Thomas Warren, father of Elizabeth who married Matthew Brooks, whose 13 April 1749 will in Spotsylvania County names among other children daughters Rachel Askew and Elizabeth Brooks.[19]

• Frederick County court minutes for 14 September 1744 show the court ordering Leonard Harper to pay Jacob Brooks’s wife Rosanna/Rosannah and Mary Brooks for appearing in court to testify on his behalf.[20] The court directed Harper to pay Rosannah and Mary Brooks, along with several other witnesses, 100 pounds of tobacco each for their appearance in court. Harper was sued by Francis Fowler and found guilty on 12 July 1744 of fornicating with Ann Fowler.[21]

Jacob and Rosanna Brooks had no daughter named Mary. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks had a daughter Mary, however. The birth year of that Mary Brooks has been estimated as around 1738. On 22 October 1759, she married Benjamin Thornburgh at Hopewell Friends Meeting in Frederick County.[22] On 6 April 1758, this Mary Brooks had witnessed the marriage of Henry Rees of Frederick County to Martha Thomas at the Opeckan (i.e., Opequon) Friends Meeting, under the supervision of Hopewell Meeting.[23] Martha Thomas was a daughter of the Evan Thomas who was an appraiser of the estates of both Matthew Brooks and his wife Elizabeth. He was perhaps the first minister of the Hopewell meeting.[24]

The only Mary Brooks about which I find information in Frederick County records who was of age in 1744 was Mary, wife of James Brooks. This September 1744 court record allocating payment for witnesses on behalf of Leonard Fowler links James Brooks’ wife Mary with Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna.

• By 13 October 1744, Jacob Brooks was serving as a juror in Frederick County.[25]

• As noted above, on 10 October 1752, Jacob Brooks deeded to John Briscoe 400 acres on the Opequon, with Matthew Brooks one of the two witnesses.[26]

• By September 1753, Jacob had moved to Orange County, North Carolina, and by 1768, to what would later become Newberry County, South Carolina, where he died after making his will in September 1770.[27] The will names wife Rosanna, daughter Milly and husband William Gary, with their daughter Sarah, along with sons Jacob and John Brooks.

To sum up:

1. The Matthew-James Brooks connection: On 22 November 1752 in Frederick County, Virginia, Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers for a survey of land for Hugh Haynes. This document links Matthew and James, and this James Brooks is clearly the man who died in Frederick County in 1779.

2. The Matthew-Jacob Brooks connection: There are multiple links between Matthew Brooks, who was born in 1704, and a Jacob Brooks found in Frederick County records, who was born in 1702. If Matthew and Jacob are linked, and if Matthew and James are linked, then it’s likely all three of these Brooks men are linked to each other.

3. The Middlesex County connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks were both born in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia. On 29 January 1771, while living in Frederick County, Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, married Margaret Beaumont/Beamon in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County. Middlesex is several counties east of Frederick. The marriage of a man in Frederick County to a bride in Middlesex County suggests some connection that goes beyond geographical proximity: if the two Brooks men born in Middlesex County and later living in Frederick County are connected to Matthew’s father James, then this connection may explain Thomas Brooks’ choice to marry a bride in Middlesex County.

4. The multiple kinship network connections linking these three Brooks families: When Mary and Thomas Brooks brought James Brooks’ will to Frederick County court in November 1779 to be probated, the court ordered four men (or any three of these) including John Lindsey to appraise James Brooks’ estate. When Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth obtained probate from Frederick County court in October 1754 for Matthew’s estate, the court ordered four men (or any three of them) including John Lindsey, gent., to appraise the estate.

John Lindsey, gent., who was ordered to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate is very likely the John Lindsey (abt. 1700-1786) whom Lindsey researcher Susan Grabek calls John “the patriarch.”[28] Because the name John was replicated among several interrelated Lindsey families living in the Long Marsh area of Frederick County in this period, it’s difficult to be certain which particular John Lindsey was ordered to appraise James Brooks’ estate in 1779. The likeliest candidate is, I think, a nephew of John Lindsey, gent., a son of Thomas Lindsey (abt. 1720-1769), another of the Lindsey patriarchs of the Long Marsh community.[29]

There were multiple connections between this Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County and the kinship network of James Brooks’ family. James Brooks’ daughter Elizabeth (1747/1750 – 1816) married George Rice, son of Patrick Rice and Elizabeth Decow. As a previous posting notes, on 25 April 1764, Thomas Rutherford surveyed 669 acres on the Opequon for George Rice in Frederick County, with George’s brothers Edmund and John Rice acting as chain carriers and George Rice and Edmund Lindsey as markers. Edmund Lindsey was yet another of the Lindsey brothers whom Susan Grabek calls patriarchs of the Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County: Edmund was a brother of John Lindsey, gent., and Thomas Lindsey mentioned above.

As another previous posting also shows, when Thomas Rutherford surveyed 410 acres for George Rice’s father Patrick Rice on 19 March 1761, the land plat showed the land joining Patrick’s patent line, John McCormick, George Martin, Lord Fairfax, and Edmund Lindsey, and listed the chain carriers as Patrick Rice himself and Captain John Lindsey. Captain John Lindsey was the John Lindsey, gent., ordered by the court to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate. The linked posting also notes a Long Marsh grant of 244 acres to Edmund Lindsey on 4 August 1766, with the land adjoining George Neville, Joseph Reeder, George Rice, Patrick Rice, and Edmund Lindsey.

Also noted in the posting I’ve just linked: on 2-3 March 1767, Patrick Rice sold land to his son John Rice with Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, listed as one of the witnesses to this deed. This deed shows a direct link between the Rice family and the family of James and Mary Brooks, whose daughter Elizabeth married Patrick Rice’s son George about 1769.

As stated above, Patrick Rice held land adjoining both John McCormick and Edmund Lindsey. John McCormick’s grandson William McCormick married Elizabeth, daughter of George Rice and Elizabeth Brooks. As a previous posting has noted, when John McCormick acquired 456 acres on Long Marsh Creek on 8 July 1760, the survey and grant records show the land joining Patrick Rice and Thomas Lindsey (1720-1769). A 2 April 1751 Northern Neck grant to John Lindsey, Thomas’s brother, for 750 acres in Long Marsh in Frederick County shows his tract adjoining Patrick Rice.

Note, too, that John McCormick’s son Francis McCormick was among the four men appointed by Frederick County court in November 1779 to appraise the estate of James Brooks. The posting I linked in the previous paragraph points out that a 1782 tax list for Frederick County shows that three of the four men appointed by the county court to appraise James Brooks’ estate in November 1779 — Meredith Helm, Francis McCormick, and John Lindsey (son of Thomas) — all lived in Captain Nobles’ tax district of Frederick County in 1782 along with James Brooks’ son Thomas Brooks.

5. The Haynes/Haines connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks both lived on the Opequon where Matthew and James helped survey land for Hugh Haynes in 1752. This was a few miles west of the west of the Long Marsh area in which the Lindsey and Rice families lived (though Patrick Rice had land on both Long Marsh Run and Opequon Creek).

The Haynes name deserves further attention for this reason: as noted above, James and Mary Brooks had a daughter identified in Mary’s will as Susanna Haines. I have not been able to find the name of Susanna’s husband or any further information about her. The posting I’ve just linked notes the presence of Haynes/Haines families in Frederick County in the 18th century whose roots lie in the Quaker communities of New Jersey. As I indicated above, the Hugh Haynes for whose survey Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers in 1752 moved back from Virginia to New Jersey, dying there in May 1772 as a Quaker. Was the Haines family into which James Brooks’ daughter Susanna married connected to the Haynes family to which this Hugh Haynes belonged? This seems to be a research avenue worth exploring.

6. The connection between Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna and James Brooks’ wife Mary: Another connection that shouldn’t be overlooked: James Brooks’ wife Mary and Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna both provided testimony for Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744.

Frederick County court minutes provide some additional interesting information about Leonard Harper. On 7 December 1756, administration of his estate was given by the court to William Locks or Locke.[30] Giving bond with Locks/Locke for this administration were Benjamin Grubb and John Milbourn. At the same time, the court appointed the following appraisers (or any three of them) for Harper’s estate: John Lindsey, Benjamin Grubb, Joseph [Hill?], and John McCormick (with the surname spelled McCormack here). Note the names John Milbourn, John Lindsey, and John McCormick. As we’ve seen, John Milbourn and John Lindsey were two of those appointed to appraise the estate of Matthew Brooks in October 1754. And on the connections between John McCormick and the Lindsey and Rice families and the family of James and Mary Brooks, see above.

7. The Quaker connections: Though Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks appear not to have been Quakers, the families of all these Brooks men had ties to Quakers in Frederick County and the middle colonies. The will of Matthew’s wife Elizabeth uses Quaker terminology in stating its date: twelfth day of twelfth month, and it was witnessed by Simeon Taylor, clerk of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks’ son David daughter Mary were both Quakers.

Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester note that when Rosanna and Mary Brooks affirmed the debt owed to them for testifying on behalf of Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744, both did so by solemn affirmation rather than by making an oath. Kellam and Lester take this to mean that the two women had Quaker affiliation, though neither appears in the records of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting.

When Jacob Brooks left Virginia for South Carolina, he settled among Quakers who had moved to South Carolina from Frederick County, Virginia, and appears in records linked to the Hollingsworth family, which arrived in Delaware as a Quaker family with members then appearing in minutes of Quaker meetings in Pennsylvania and Frederick County, Virginia. The family of James and Mary Brooks also connects to the Hollingsworths: Mary Brooks, the oldest daughter of James and Mary Brooks, married Jacob Hollingsworth whose parents Samuel Hollingsworth and Barbara Shewing were members of the Old Kennett Friends Monthly Meeting in Chester County, Pennsylvania. George Rice, who married Mary Brooks’ sister Elizabeth, had a sister Susannah Rice who also married a Hollingsworth spouse. George Rice’s mother Elizabeth Decow, belonged to a Quaker family that immigrated from Yorkshire, England, to Burlington County, New Jersey, where she married George Rice’s father Patrick Rice before the couple settled in Frederick County, Virginia.

7. Connections that may be suggested by naming patterns: Both Matthew and James Brooks named sons James and Thomas. And James named a daughter Elizabeth, the name of Matthew’s wife, while Matthew had a daughter Mary, the name of James’ wife. Admittedly, none of these names is particularly uncommon in Virginia in this period, and Matthew’s father-in-law was Thomas Warren, so that may account for his use of the given name Thomas as he named a son. But the possibility that overlap in given names in the two families may indicate some kind of connection between them should also not be entirely discounted, it seems to me.

In conclusion, one or two connections may be a coincidence. Multiple connections suggest more than coincidence. With Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, there are manifold connections, overlapping ones. These connections suggest to me shared roots, though since Matthew is recorded as illegitimate in his baptismal record and he has his mother’s Brooks surname, the Y-DNA of his descendants might well not match the Y-DNA of proven male descendants of other Brooks families.

[1] Frederick County, Virginia, Chancery Court Order Book 17 (1778-1781), p. 251.

[2] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 5, p. 158.

[3] Survey for Hugh Haynes, 22 November 1752, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed for this land was made 2 April 1760. On 1 October 1767, living in Salem, New Jersey, Hugh Haynes sold the 247 acres to Michael Headley of Frederick County, with wife Ann signing and releasing dower: Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, pp. 23-4, 27.

[4] The order given on 20 November 1749 for John Baylis to survey 400 acres for Thomas Wyatt states that Wyatt was living on the land and that it adjoined Lewis Neill: ibid., survey for Thomas Wyatt, 1749/1750, available digitally at FamilySearch. The survey by John Baylis shows the land joining Hugh Haynes, John Baylis, and Captain Neile.

[5] National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the Commonwealth of Virginia, The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812 (Richmond: W.E. Jones, 1897), p. 67, transcribing the original parish register.

[6] Ibid., p. 60. On Jacob Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, records as the Jacob baptized in 1702 in Christ Church parish, see Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester, Brooks and Kindred Families (priv. publ., 1950), pp. 310-313.

[7] See Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Will Bk. B, p. 56; Thomas Warren made the will on 13 April 1749 and it was probated 4 December 1750. In The Rev. John Johnson and His Home: An Autobiography (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publ. Co., 1869), pp. 10-11, Susannah Brooks Johnson, a granddaughter of Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks, states, “My grandmother’s maiden name was Elizabeth Warren; my grandfather, Matthew Brooks, a native of Virginia, was born of English parentage, and lived near Richmond.”

[8] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 3, p. 45.

[9] Survey of John Baylis, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. No date is recorded for the survey, nor does it state the name of the surveyor.

[10] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, pp. 368-370. On Taylor as the first clerk of Hopewell, see Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History 1734-1934, Frederick County, Virginia (Strausburg, Virginia: Shenandoah Publishing, 1936), pp. 181-2, noting that Simeon and his wife were issued a certificate by East Nottingham Monthly Meeting on 28th of 4th month 1738, and lived on the east side of Opequon at Yorkshireman’s Branch, now called Litler’s Run, until they obtained a certificate for removal to New Garden Monthly Meeting in North Carolina on 2nd of 4th month 1764.

[11] Survey of John Briscoe, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed is recorded as a note of Jacob Brooks wrote to Lord Fairfax deeding the land to Briscoe.

[12] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 4, p. 406.

[13] Ibid., Bk. 6, p. 107.

[14] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, p. 150.

[15] See supra, n. 10.  

[16] Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, p. 545.

[17] See supra, n. 5.

[18] Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Bk. A, pp. 165-6.

[19] See supra, n. 7.

[20] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 196.

[21] Ibid., p. 130.

[22] William Wade Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, vol. 6: Virginia (Baltimore: Geneal. Publ. Co., 1973), p. 371, indexing Hopewell meeting minutes.

[23] Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History, p. 29.

[24] Ibid., p. 30.

[25] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 221.

[26] See supra, n. 11.

[27] Charleston County, South Carolina, Will Bk. 1774-9, pp. 54-5.

[28] Susan Grabek, “The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia, ‘The Patriarchs,’” at Lindsay Surname DNA Project Group 2:  The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia.

[29] See ibid.

[30] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order 7, p. 156.

Challenge of Tracing the Ancestry of James Brooks (bef. 1720 – 1779) of Frederick County, Virginia: A Thought-Provoking New Clue

Or, Subtitled: “The chain carriers were often kin to the person for whom the land was being surveyed” (Judy G. Russell, “A Matter of Measure,“ Legal Genealogy)

I have posted previously about an elusive ancestor named James Brooks, who died prior to 2 November 1779 in Frederick County, Virginia, when his widow Mary and son Thomas presented his will to court for probate.[1] As the posting I’ve just linked states, the court responded to Mary and Thomas’ motion to have James Brooks’ will probated by granting them a certificate “for obtaining a probate there of [sic] in due form.”

That is, the will was not probated and recorded on 2 November 1779, but Mary and Thomas were instructed to have it probated “in due form.” The court minutes state explicitly that after witness Meredith Helm proved the will, it was “Ordered to be for further proof.” One would expect this set of court minutes to be followed by another set not far down the road showing the will definitively proven with Mary and Thomas obtaining probate and having it recorded. (To read the rest of this posting, please click the numeral 2 below.)

But sadly, this notice that James Brooks’ will was brought to Frederick County court for probate on 2 November 1779 is the last mention I can find of this will anywhere in Frederick County records. It seems never to have been probated or recorded.

James Brooks remains a very elusive ancestor. I can find almost next to no information about him. His son Thomas first appears in Frederick County records in 1767, so this family seems to have been in that county by that date. His children’s dates of birth suggest a birth date of 1720 or earlier for James and wife Mary. Mary outlived James by some ten years, leaving a will written 9 July 1786, which was probated on 4 April 1787.[2] The will names her children Mary Hollingsworth, Elizabeth Rice, Sarah Asdill (i.e., Ashdale), Susanna Haynes, and Thomas and James Brooks. A transcript of Mary Brooks’ will and an overview of what’s known about her children is found at this previous posting.

When James Brooks and wife Mary arrived in Frederick County, Virginia, where they were living prior to coming there (I’m assuming they were not born there), where they were born, what Mary’s maiden name was: I have been unable to find any scrap of information to answer those questions. I have, however, now turned up a very valuable new clue possibly pointing to James’ background that I want to discuss here.

On 22 November 1752, John Baylis surveyed 247 acres of land for Hugh Haynes on Opequon Creek in Frederick County. This was a Northern Neck survey.[3] The chain carriers for this survey were Matthew Brooks and James Brooks. The survey document states that Hugh Haynes lived on the east side of Opequon and that the land surveyed was on both sides of that creek. The land bordered Robert Hutchins, John Baylis, and Thomas Wyatt.[4]

Quite a bit of information is available about Matthew Brooks, who died in 1754 in Frederick County. I’ll discuss some of that information in a moment. But meanwhile, who is this James Brooks? Matthew Brooks had a son named James. But Matthew’s son James is not the man acting as a chain carrier in November 1752 when Hugh Haynes had land surveyed. Matthew’s son James Brooks was born in 1748.

I have found no James Brooks living in Frederick County in the period 1752-1779 other than the James Brooks who died there prior to 2 November 1779. I’m fairly confident that the James Brooks acting as a chain carrier with Matthew Brooks when Hugh Haynes’ land was surveyed in November 1752 is the man who died in November 1779 with wife Mary. 

When land was surveyed, chain carriers were frequently relatives of the person whose land was being surveyed. They were also very often relatives of each other — i.e., a chain carrier duo might be father and son or two brothers. This November 1752 survey document suggests to me some kind of connection, very likely a kinship one, between James Brooks with wife Mary and Matthew Brooks.

In a previous posting, I provided an overview of what I know about Matthew Brooks and another Brooks man, Jacob Brooks, who was living in Frederick County in the period in which Matthew and James Brooks lived there. This posting notes that there are some strong indicators that Matthew and Jacob were related to each other, and both families had some Quaker connections.

Salient information about Matthew Brooks:

• Matthew was baptized 10 February 1704 in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia, with the baptismal record stating that his mother was Sara Brooks, and Matthew was illegitimate.[5]

Though some researchers have questioned whether the Matthew Brooks who appears in Frederick County records by the 1740s and died there before 1 October 1754 is the Matthew Brooks of this baptismal record, it’s clear to me that the two Matthews are the same person. There’s a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of this conclusion. In particular, it’s important to note that Jacob Brooks, to whom the Matthew Brooks found in Frederick County records is linked, was also baptized in Christ Church parish on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[6]

In addition, as a previous posting notes (with documentation cited), before appearing in Frederick County records, both Matthew and Jacob Brooks are found in records of Spotsylvania County, Virgina, both with connections to the family of Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth married Matthew Brooks.[7]

• Matthew Brooks was in Frederick County prior to 7 May 1748, when he was appointed a constable in that county.[8]

• After a warrant was issued on 22 January 1750 for a survey of 400 acres on the east side of Opequon for John Baylis of Prince William County, Matthew Brooks and Simeon Taylor were chain carriers.[9] The land bordered Hugh Haynes, Robert Hutchins and Lewis Neale. Simeon Taylor, who was the first clerk of Hopewell Friends’ Monthly Meeting in Frederick County, witnessed the 12 December 1758 will of Matthew Brooks’ wife Elizabeth.[10]

• On 10 October 1752, Matthew Brooks witnessed a deed of Jacob Brooks to John Briscoe for 400 acres on the Opequon, with John Wilkeson as the other witness.[11]

• On 6 March 1753, Matthew Brooks was appointed overseer of the road from Ross’s to John Smith’s old place in room of John Thomas.[12]

• Matthew Brooks died by 1 October 1754 when his widow Elizabeth was given a certificate by Frederick County court for administration of his estate.[13] The court appointed as estate appraisers John Lindsey, gent., Evan Thomas Jr., William Dillon, and John Milbourn.

• On 4 March 1755, an estate appraisement by William Dillon, Evan Thomas, and John Milbourn, all Quakers, was recorded.[14]

• On 12 December 1759 (the date is written as the twelfth day of the twelfth month called December), Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth made her will in Frederick County.[15] The will was probated 6 February 1760. A digital copy of Elizabeth’s will is at this previous posting, which also has information about Matthew and Elizabeth’s ten children, noting that they included sons named James and Thomas.

• On 1 November 1768, a deed of Edmond Lindsey Jr. of Frederick County to Robert Rutherford of Winchester for land on the east side of Opequon notes that the land bordered land surveyed for Matthew Brooks.[16]

Points to note here:

1. Matthew Brooks was baptized in 1704 in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, where two years earlier Jacob Brooks was baptized.

2. Both men subsequently appear in Spotsylvania County records with ties to Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth Matthew married.

3. In the 1740s, both Matthew and Jacob then begin appearing in Frederick County records. In October 1752, Matthew witnesses a deed made by Jacob.

4. Both Matthew and Jacob had ties to the Quaker community of Frederick County, though it appears neither man was himself a Friend.

5. And not to be forgotten: on 22 November 1752, Matthew and James were chain carriers for John Baylis’ survey of land on the Opequon for Hugh Haynes.

It certainly looks to me as if Jacob, Matthew, and James Brooks may be related to each other. And if that’s the case, then it seems worth asking whether, as in the case of Jacob and Matthew, James’ roots lie in Middlesex County, Virginia, prior to his family’s appearance in Frederick County records.

Salient information about Jacob Brooks:

• Jacob was baptized in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[17]

• On 30 May 1725 in Spotsylvania County, Jacob witnessed a deed of land for love and affection by Thomas Warren to his daughter Rachel Askew.[18] This is Thomas Warren, father of Elizabeth who married Matthew Brooks, whose 13 April 1749 will in Spotsylvania County names among other children daughters Rachel Askew and Elizabeth Brooks.[19]

• Frederick County court minutes for 14 September 1744 show the court ordering Leonard Harper to pay Jacob Brooks’s wife Rosanna/Rosannah and Mary Brooks for appearing in court to testify on his behalf.[20] The court directed Harper to pay Rosannah and Mary Brooks, along with several other witnesses, 100 pounds of tobacco each for their appearance in court. Harper was sued by Francis Fowler and found guilty on 12 July 1744 of fornicating with Ann Fowler.[21]

Jacob and Rosanna Brooks had no daughter named Mary. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks had a daughter Mary, however. The birth year of that Mary Brooks has been estimated as around 1738. On 22 October 1759, she married Benjamin Thornburgh at Hopewell Friends Meeting in Frederick County.[22] On 6 April 1758, this Mary Brooks had witnessed the marriage of Henry Rees of Frederick County to Martha Thomas at the Opeckan (i.e., Opequon) Friends Meeting, under the supervision of Hopewell Meeting.[23] Martha Thomas was a daughter of the Evan Thomas who was an appraiser of the estates of both Matthew Brooks and his wife Elizabeth. He was perhaps the first minister of the Hopewell meeting.[24]

The only Mary Brooks about which I find information in Frederick County records who was of age in 1744 was Mary, wife of James Brooks. This September 1744 court record allocating payment for witnesses on behalf of Leonard Fowler links James Brooks’ wife Mary with Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna.

• By 13 October 1744, Jacob Brooks was serving as a juror in Frederick County.[25]

• As noted above, on 10 October 1752, Jacob Brooks deeded to John Briscoe 400 acres on the Opequon, with Matthew Brooks one of the two witnesses.[26]

• By September 1753, Jacob had moved to Orange County, North Carolina, and by 1768, to what would later become Newberry County, South Carolina, where he died after making his will in September 1770.[27] The will names wife Rosanna, daughter Milly and husband William Gary, with their daughter Sarah, along with sons Jacob and John Brooks.

To sum up:

1. The Matthew-James Brooks connection: On 22 November 1752 in Frederick County, Virginia, Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers for a survey of land for Hugh Haynes. This document links Matthew and James, and this James Brooks is clearly the man who died in Frederick County in 1779.

2. The Matthew-Jacob Brooks connection: There are multiple links between Matthew Brooks, who was born in 1704, and a Jacob Brooks found in Frederick County records, who was born in 1702. If Matthew and Jacob are linked, and if Matthew and James are linked, then it’s likely all three of these Brooks men are linked to each other.

3. The Middlesex County connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks were both born in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia. On 29 January 1771, while living in Frederick County, Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, married Margaret Beaumont/Beamon in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County. Middlesex is several counties east of Frederick. The marriage of a man in Frederick County to a bride in Middlesex County suggests some connection that goes beyond geographical proximity: if the two Brooks men born in Middlesex County and later living in Frederick County are connected to Matthew’s father James, then this connection may explain Thomas Brooks’ choice to marry a bride in Middlesex County.

4. The multiple kinship network connections linking these three Brooks families: When Mary and Thomas Brooks brought James Brooks’ will to Frederick County court in November 1779 to be probated, the court ordered four men (or any three of these) including John Lindsey to appraise James Brooks’ estate. When Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth obtained probate from Frederick County court in October 1754 for Matthew’s estate, the court ordered four men (or any three of them) including John Lindsey, gent., to appraise the estate.

John Lindsey, gent., who was ordered to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate is very likely the John Lindsey (abt. 1700-1786) whom Lindsey researcher Susan Grabek calls John “the patriarch.”[28] Because the name John was replicated among several interrelated Lindsey families living in the Long Marsh area of Frederick County in this period, it’s difficult to be certain which particular John Lindsey was ordered to appraise James Brooks’ estate in 1779. The likeliest candidate is, I think, a nephew of John Lindsey, gent., a son of Thomas Lindsey (abt. 1720-1769), another of the Lindsey patriarchs of the Long Marsh community.[29]

There were multiple connections between this Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County and the kinship network of James Brooks’ family. James Brooks’ daughter Elizabeth (1747/1750 – 1816) married George Rice, son of Patrick Rice and Elizabeth Decow. As a previous posting notes, on 25 April 1764, Thomas Rutherford surveyed 669 acres on the Opequon for George Rice in Frederick County, with George’s brothers Edmund and John Rice acting as chain carriers and George Rice and Edmund Lindsey as markers. Edmund Lindsey was yet another of the Lindsey brothers whom Susan Grabek calls patriarchs of the Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County: Edmund was a brother of John Lindsey, gent., and Thomas Lindsey mentioned above.

As another previous posting also shows, when Thomas Rutherford surveyed 410 acres for George Rice’s father Patrick Rice on 19 March 1761, the land plat showed the land joining Patrick’s patent line, John McCormick, George Martin, Lord Fairfax, and Edmund Lindsey, and listed the chain carriers as Patrick Rice himself and Captain John Lindsey. Captain John Lindsey was the John Lindsey, gent., ordered by the court to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate. The linked posting also notes a Long Marsh grant of 244 acres to Edmund Lindsey on 4 August 1766, with the land adjoining George Neville, Joseph Reeder, George Rice, Patrick Rice, and Edmund Lindsey.

Also noted in the posting I’ve just linked: on 2-3 March 1767, Patrick Rice sold land to his son John Rice with Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, listed as one of the witnesses to this deed. This deed shows a direct link between the Rice family and the family of James and Mary Brooks, whose daughter Elizabeth married Patrick Rice’s son George about 1769.

As stated above, Patrick Rice held land adjoining both John McCormick and Edmund Lindsey. John McCormick’s grandson William McCormick married Elizabeth, daughter of George Rice and Elizabeth Brooks. As a previous posting has noted, when John McCormick acquired 456 acres on Long Marsh Creek on 8 July 1760, the survey and grant records show the land joining Patrick Rice and Thomas Lindsey (1720-1769). A 2 April 1751 Northern Neck grant to John Lindsey, Thomas’s brother, for 750 acres in Long Marsh in Frederick County shows his tract adjoining Patrick Rice.

Note, too, that John McCormick’s son Francis McCormick was among the four men appointed by Frederick County court in November 1779 to appraise the estate of James Brooks. The posting I linked in the previous paragraph points out that a 1782 tax list for Frederick County shows that three of the four men appointed by the county court to appraise James Brooks’ estate in November 1779 — Meredith Helm, Francis McCormick, and John Lindsey (son of Thomas) — all lived in Captain Nobles’ tax district of Frederick County in 1782 along with James Brooks’ son Thomas Brooks.

5. The Haynes/Haines connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks both lived on the Opequon where Matthew and James helped survey land for Hugh Haynes in 1752. This was a few miles west of the west of the Long Marsh area in which the Lindsey and Rice families lived (though Patrick Rice had land on both Long Marsh Run and Opequon Creek).

The Haynes name deserves further attention for this reason: as noted above, James and Mary Brooks had a daughter identified in Mary’s will as Susanna Haines. I have not been able to find the name of Susanna’s husband or any further information about her. The posting I’ve just linked notes the presence of Haynes/Haines families in Frederick County in the 18th century whose roots lie in the Quaker communities of New Jersey. As I indicated above, the Hugh Haynes for whose survey Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers in 1752 moved back from Virginia to New Jersey, dying there in May 1772 as a Quaker. Was the Haines family into which James Brooks’ daughter Susanna married connected to the Haynes family to which this Hugh Haynes belonged? This seems to be a research avenue worth exploring.

6. The connection between Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna and James Brooks’ wife Mary: Another connection that shouldn’t be overlooked: James Brooks’ wife Mary and Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna both provided testimony for Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744.

Frederick County court minutes provide some additional interesting information about Leonard Harper. On 7 December 1756, administration of his estate was given by the court to William Locks or Locke.[30] Giving bond with Locks/Locke for this administration were Benjamin Grubb and John Milbourn. At the same time, the court appointed the following appraisers (or any three of them) for Harper’s estate: John Lindsey, Benjamin Grubb, Joseph [Hill?], and John McCormick (with the surname spelled McCormack here). Note the names John Milbourn, John Lindsey, and John McCormick. As we’ve seen, John Milbourn and John Lindsey were two of those appointed to appraise the estate of Matthew Brooks in October 1754. And on the connections between John McCormick and the Lindsey and Rice families and the family of James and Mary Brooks, see above.

7. The Quaker connections: Though Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks appear not to have been Quakers, the families of all these Brooks men had ties to Quakers in Frederick County and the middle colonies. The will of Matthew’s wife Elizabeth uses Quaker terminology in stating its date: twelfth day of twelfth month, and it was witnessed by Simeon Taylor, clerk of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks’ son David daughter Mary were both Quakers.

Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester note that when Rosanna and Mary Brooks affirmed the debt owed to them for testifying on behalf of Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744, both did so by solemn affirmation rather than by making an oath. Kellam and Lester take this to mean that the two women had Quaker affiliation, though neither appears in the records of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting.

When Jacob Brooks left Virginia for South Carolina, he settled among Quakers who had moved to South Carolina from Frederick County, Virginia, and appears in records linked to the Hollingsworth family, which arrived in Delaware as a Quaker family with members then appearing in minutes of Quaker meetings in Pennsylvania and Frederick County, Virginia. The family of James and Mary Brooks also connects to the Hollingsworths: Mary Brooks, the oldest daughter of James and Mary Brooks, married Jacob Hollingsworth whose parents Samuel Hollingsworth and Barbara Shewing were members of the Old Kennett Friends Monthly Meeting in Chester County, Pennsylvania. George Rice, who married Mary Brooks’ sister Elizabeth, had a sister Susannah Rice who also married a Hollingsworth spouse. George Rice’s mother Elizabeth Decow, belonged to a Quaker family that immigrated from Yorkshire, England, to Burlington County, New Jersey, where she married George Rice’s father Patrick Rice before the couple settled in Frederick County, Virginia.

7. Connections that may be suggested by naming patterns: Both Matthew and James Brooks named sons James and Thomas. And James named a daughter Elizabeth, the name of Matthew’s wife, while Matthew had a daughter Mary, the name of James’ wife. Admittedly, none of these names is particularly uncommon in Virginia in this period, and Matthew’s father-in-law was Thomas Warren, so that may account for his use of the given name Thomas as he named a son. But the possibility that overlap in given names in the two families may indicate some kind of connection between them should also not be entirely discounted, it seems to me.

In conclusion, one or two connections may be a coincidence. Multiple connections suggest more than coincidence. With Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, there are manifold connections, overlapping ones. These connections suggest to me shared roots, though since Matthew is recorded as illegitimate in his baptismal record and he has his mother’s Brooks surname, the Y-DNA of his descendants might well not match the Y-DNA of proven male descendants of other Brooks families.

[1] Frederick County, Virginia, Chancery Court Order Book 17 (1778-1781), p. 251.

[2] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 5, p. 158.

[3] Survey for Hugh Haynes, 22 November 1752, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed for this land was made 2 April 1760. On 1 October 1767, living in Salem, New Jersey, Hugh Haynes sold the 247 acres to Michael Headley of Frederick County, with wife Ann signing and releasing dower: Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, pp. 23-4, 27.

[4] The order given on 20 November 1749 for John Baylis to survey 400 acres for Thomas Wyatt states that Wyatt was living on the land and that it adjoined Lewis Neill: ibid., survey for Thomas Wyatt, 1749/1750, available digitally at FamilySearch. The survey by John Baylis shows the land joining Hugh Haynes, John Baylis, and Captain Neile.

[5] National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the Commonwealth of Virginia, The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812 (Richmond: W.E. Jones, 1897), p. 67, transcribing the original parish register.

[6] Ibid., p. 60. On Jacob Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, records as the Jacob baptized in 1702 in Christ Church parish, see Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester, Brooks and Kindred Families (priv. publ., 1950), pp. 310-313.

[7] See Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Will Bk. B, p. 56; Thomas Warren made the will on 13 April 1749 and it was probated 4 December 1750. In The Rev. John Johnson and His Home: An Autobiography (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publ. Co., 1869), pp. 10-11, Susannah Brooks Johnson, a granddaughter of Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks, states, “My grandmother’s maiden name was Elizabeth Warren; my grandfather, Matthew Brooks, a native of Virginia, was born of English parentage, and lived near Richmond.”

[8] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 3, p. 45.

[9] Survey of John Baylis, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. No date is recorded for the survey, nor does it state the name of the surveyor.

[10] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, pp. 368-370. On Taylor as the first clerk of Hopewell, see Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History 1734-1934, Frederick County, Virginia (Strausburg, Virginia: Shenandoah Publishing, 1936), pp. 181-2, noting that Simeon and his wife were issued a certificate by East Nottingham Monthly Meeting on 28th of 4th month 1738, and lived on the east side of Opequon at Yorkshireman’s Branch, now called Litler’s Run, until they obtained a certificate for removal to New Garden Monthly Meeting in North Carolina on 2nd of 4th month 1764.

[11] Survey of John Briscoe, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed is recorded as a note of Jacob Brooks wrote to Lord Fairfax deeding the land to Briscoe.

[12] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 4, p. 406.

[13] Ibid., Bk. 6, p. 107.

[14] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, p. 150.

[15] See supra, n. 10.  

[16] Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, p. 545.

[17] See supra, n. 5.

[18] Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Bk. A, pp. 165-6.

[19] See supra, n. 7.

[20] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 196.

[21] Ibid., p. 130.

[22] William Wade Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, vol. 6: Virginia (Baltimore: Geneal. Publ. Co., 1973), p. 371, indexing Hopewell meeting minutes.

[23] Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History, p. 29.

[24] Ibid., p. 30.

[25] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 221.

[26] See supra, n. 11.

[27] Charleston County, South Carolina, Will Bk. 1774-9, pp. 54-5.

[28] Susan Grabek, “The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia, ‘The Patriarchs,’” at Lindsay Surname DNA Project Group 2:  The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia.

[29] See ibid.

[30] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order 7, p. 156.

Challenge of Tracing the Ancestry of James Brooks (bef. 1720 – 1779) of Frederick County, Virginia: A Thought-Provoking New Clue

Or, Subtitled: “The chain carriers were often kin to the person for whom the land was being surveyed” (Judy G. Russell, “A Matter of Measure,“ Legal Genealogy)

I have posted previously about an elusive ancestor named James Brooks, who died prior to 2 November 1779 in Frederick County, Virginia, when his widow Mary and son Thomas presented his will to court for probate.[1] As the posting I’ve just linked states, the court responded to Mary and Thomas’ motion to have James Brooks’ will probated by granting them a certificate “for obtaining a probate there of [sic] in due form.”

That is, the will was not probated and recorded on 2 November 1779, but Mary and Thomas were instructed to have it probated “in due form.” The court minutes state explicitly that after witness Meredith Helm proved the will, it was “Ordered to be for further proof.” One would expect this set of court minutes to be followed by another set not far down the road showing the will definitively proven with Mary and Thomas obtaining probate and having it recorded. (To read the rest of this posting, please click the numeral 2 below.)

But sadly, this notice that James Brooks’ will was brought to Frederick County court for probate on 2 November 1779 is the last mention I can find of this will anywhere in Frederick County records. It seems never to have been probated or recorded.

James Brooks remains a very elusive ancestor. I can find almost next to no information about him. His son Thomas first appears in Frederick County records in 1767, so this family seems to have been in that county by that date. His children’s dates of birth suggest a birth date of 1720 or earlier for James and wife Mary. Mary outlived James by some ten years, leaving a will written 9 July 1786, which was probated on 4 April 1787.[2] The will names her children Mary Hollingsworth, Elizabeth Rice, Sarah Asdill (i.e., Ashdale), Susanna Haynes, and Thomas and James Brooks. A transcript of Mary Brooks’ will and an overview of what’s known about her children is found at this previous posting.

When James Brooks and wife Mary arrived in Frederick County, Virginia, where they were living prior to coming there (I’m assuming they were not born there), where they were born, what Mary’s maiden name was: I have been unable to find any scrap of information to answer those questions. I have, however, now turned up a very valuable new clue possibly pointing to James’ background that I want to discuss here.

On 22 November 1752, John Baylis surveyed 247 acres of land for Hugh Haynes on Opequon Creek in Frederick County. This was a Northern Neck survey.[3] The chain carriers for this survey were Matthew Brooks and James Brooks. The survey document states that Hugh Haynes lived on the east side of Opequon and that the land surveyed was on both sides of that creek. The land bordered Robert Hutchins, John Baylis, and Thomas Wyatt.[4]

Quite a bit of information is available about Matthew Brooks, who died in 1754 in Frederick County. I’ll discuss some of that information in a moment. But meanwhile, who is this James Brooks? Matthew Brooks had a son named James. But Matthew’s son James is not the man acting as a chain carrier in November 1752 when Hugh Haynes had land surveyed. Matthew’s son James Brooks was born in 1748.

I have found no James Brooks living in Frederick County in the period 1752-1779 other than the James Brooks who died there prior to 2 November 1779. I’m fairly confident that the James Brooks acting as a chain carrier with Matthew Brooks when Hugh Haynes’ land was surveyed in November 1752 is the man who died in November 1779 with wife Mary. 

When land was surveyed, chain carriers were frequently relatives of the person whose land was being surveyed. They were also very often relatives of each other — i.e., a chain carrier duo might be father and son or two brothers. This November 1752 survey document suggests to me some kind of connection, very likely a kinship one, between James Brooks with wife Mary and Matthew Brooks.

In a previous posting, I provided an overview of what I know about Matthew Brooks and another Brooks man, Jacob Brooks, who was living in Frederick County in the period in which Matthew and James Brooks lived there. This posting notes that there are some strong indicators that Matthew and Jacob were related to each other, and both families had some Quaker connections.

Salient information about Matthew Brooks:

• Matthew was baptized 10 February 1704 in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia, with the baptismal record stating that his mother was Sara Brooks, and Matthew was illegitimate.[5]

Though some researchers have questioned whether the Matthew Brooks who appears in Frederick County records by the 1740s and died there before 1 October 1754 is the Matthew Brooks of this baptismal record, it’s clear to me that the two Matthews are the same person. There’s a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of this conclusion. In particular, it’s important to note that Jacob Brooks, to whom the Matthew Brooks found in Frederick County records is linked, was also baptized in Christ Church parish on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[6]

In addition, as a previous posting notes (with documentation cited), before appearing in Frederick County records, both Matthew and Jacob Brooks are found in records of Spotsylvania County, Virgina, both with connections to the family of Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth married Matthew Brooks.[7]

• Matthew Brooks was in Frederick County prior to 7 May 1748, when he was appointed a constable in that county.[8]

• After a warrant was issued on 22 January 1750 for a survey of 400 acres on the east side of Opequon for John Baylis of Prince William County, Matthew Brooks and Simeon Taylor were chain carriers.[9] The land bordered Hugh Haynes, Robert Hutchins and Lewis Neale. Simeon Taylor, who was the first clerk of Hopewell Friends’ Monthly Meeting in Frederick County, witnessed the 12 December 1758 will of Matthew Brooks’ wife Elizabeth.[10]

• On 10 October 1752, Matthew Brooks witnessed a deed of Jacob Brooks to John Briscoe for 400 acres on the Opequon, with John Wilkeson as the other witness.[11]

• On 6 March 1753, Matthew Brooks was appointed overseer of the road from Ross’s to John Smith’s old place in room of John Thomas.[12]

• Matthew Brooks died by 1 October 1754 when his widow Elizabeth was given a certificate by Frederick County court for administration of his estate.[13] The court appointed as estate appraisers John Lindsey, gent., Evan Thomas Jr., William Dillon, and John Milbourn.

• On 4 March 1755, an estate appraisement by William Dillon, Evan Thomas, and John Milbourn, all Quakers, was recorded.[14]

• On 12 December 1759 (the date is written as the twelfth day of the twelfth month called December), Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth made her will in Frederick County.[15] The will was probated 6 February 1760. A digital copy of Elizabeth’s will is at this previous posting, which also has information about Matthew and Elizabeth’s ten children, noting that they included sons named James and Thomas.

• On 1 November 1768, a deed of Edmond Lindsey Jr. of Frederick County to Robert Rutherford of Winchester for land on the east side of Opequon notes that the land bordered land surveyed for Matthew Brooks.[16]

Points to note here:

1. Matthew Brooks was baptized in 1704 in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, where two years earlier Jacob Brooks was baptized.

2. Both men subsequently appear in Spotsylvania County records with ties to Thomas Warren, whose daughter Elizabeth Matthew married.

3. In the 1740s, both Matthew and Jacob then begin appearing in Frederick County records. In October 1752, Matthew witnesses a deed made by Jacob.

4. Both Matthew and Jacob had ties to the Quaker community of Frederick County, though it appears neither man was himself a Friend.

5. And not to be forgotten: on 22 November 1752, Matthew and James were chain carriers for John Baylis’ survey of land on the Opequon for Hugh Haynes.

It certainly looks to me as if Jacob, Matthew, and James Brooks may be related to each other. And if that’s the case, then it seems worth asking whether, as in the case of Jacob and Matthew, James’ roots lie in Middlesex County, Virginia, prior to his family’s appearance in Frederick County records.

Salient information about Jacob Brooks:

• Jacob was baptized in Christ Church parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, on 21 November 1702, with the parish register noting that his parents were William and Sarah Brooks.[17]

• On 30 May 1725 in Spotsylvania County, Jacob witnessed a deed of land for love and affection by Thomas Warren to his daughter Rachel Askew.[18] This is Thomas Warren, father of Elizabeth who married Matthew Brooks, whose 13 April 1749 will in Spotsylvania County names among other children daughters Rachel Askew and Elizabeth Brooks.[19]

• Frederick County court minutes for 14 September 1744 show the court ordering Leonard Harper to pay Jacob Brooks’s wife Rosanna/Rosannah and Mary Brooks for appearing in court to testify on his behalf.[20] The court directed Harper to pay Rosannah and Mary Brooks, along with several other witnesses, 100 pounds of tobacco each for their appearance in court. Harper was sued by Francis Fowler and found guilty on 12 July 1744 of fornicating with Ann Fowler.[21]

Jacob and Rosanna Brooks had no daughter named Mary. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks had a daughter Mary, however. The birth year of that Mary Brooks has been estimated as around 1738. On 22 October 1759, she married Benjamin Thornburgh at Hopewell Friends Meeting in Frederick County.[22] On 6 April 1758, this Mary Brooks had witnessed the marriage of Henry Rees of Frederick County to Martha Thomas at the Opeckan (i.e., Opequon) Friends Meeting, under the supervision of Hopewell Meeting.[23] Martha Thomas was a daughter of the Evan Thomas who was an appraiser of the estates of both Matthew Brooks and his wife Elizabeth. He was perhaps the first minister of the Hopewell meeting.[24]

The only Mary Brooks about which I find information in Frederick County records who was of age in 1744 was Mary, wife of James Brooks. This September 1744 court record allocating payment for witnesses on behalf of Leonard Fowler links James Brooks’ wife Mary with Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna.

• By 13 October 1744, Jacob Brooks was serving as a juror in Frederick County.[25]

• As noted above, on 10 October 1752, Jacob Brooks deeded to John Briscoe 400 acres on the Opequon, with Matthew Brooks one of the two witnesses.[26]

• By September 1753, Jacob had moved to Orange County, North Carolina, and by 1768, to what would later become Newberry County, South Carolina, where he died after making his will in September 1770.[27] The will names wife Rosanna, daughter Milly and husband William Gary, with their daughter Sarah, along with sons Jacob and John Brooks.

To sum up:

1. The Matthew-James Brooks connection: On 22 November 1752 in Frederick County, Virginia, Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers for a survey of land for Hugh Haynes. This document links Matthew and James, and this James Brooks is clearly the man who died in Frederick County in 1779.

2. The Matthew-Jacob Brooks connection: There are multiple links between Matthew Brooks, who was born in 1704, and a Jacob Brooks found in Frederick County records, who was born in 1702. If Matthew and Jacob are linked, and if Matthew and James are linked, then it’s likely all three of these Brooks men are linked to each other.

3. The Middlesex County connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks were both born in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County, Virginia. On 29 January 1771, while living in Frederick County, Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, married Margaret Beaumont/Beamon in Christ Church parish in Middlesex County. Middlesex is several counties east of Frederick. The marriage of a man in Frederick County to a bride in Middlesex County suggests some connection that goes beyond geographical proximity: if the two Brooks men born in Middlesex County and later living in Frederick County are connected to Matthew’s father James, then this connection may explain Thomas Brooks’ choice to marry a bride in Middlesex County.

4. The multiple kinship network connections linking these three Brooks families: When Mary and Thomas Brooks brought James Brooks’ will to Frederick County court in November 1779 to be probated, the court ordered four men (or any three of these) including John Lindsey to appraise James Brooks’ estate. When Matthew Brooks’ widow Elizabeth obtained probate from Frederick County court in October 1754 for Matthew’s estate, the court ordered four men (or any three of them) including John Lindsey, gent., to appraise the estate.

John Lindsey, gent., who was ordered to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate is very likely the John Lindsey (abt. 1700-1786) whom Lindsey researcher Susan Grabek calls John “the patriarch.”[28] Because the name John was replicated among several interrelated Lindsey families living in the Long Marsh area of Frederick County in this period, it’s difficult to be certain which particular John Lindsey was ordered to appraise James Brooks’ estate in 1779. The likeliest candidate is, I think, a nephew of John Lindsey, gent., a son of Thomas Lindsey (abt. 1720-1769), another of the Lindsey patriarchs of the Long Marsh community.[29]

There were multiple connections between this Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County and the kinship network of James Brooks’ family. James Brooks’ daughter Elizabeth (1747/1750 – 1816) married George Rice, son of Patrick Rice and Elizabeth Decow. As a previous posting notes, on 25 April 1764, Thomas Rutherford surveyed 669 acres on the Opequon for George Rice in Frederick County, with George’s brothers Edmund and John Rice acting as chain carriers and George Rice and Edmund Lindsey as markers. Edmund Lindsey was yet another of the Lindsey brothers whom Susan Grabek calls patriarchs of the Lindsey family of the Long Marsh area of Frederick County: Edmund was a brother of John Lindsey, gent., and Thomas Lindsey mentioned above.

As another previous posting also shows, when Thomas Rutherford surveyed 410 acres for George Rice’s father Patrick Rice on 19 March 1761, the land plat showed the land joining Patrick’s patent line, John McCormick, George Martin, Lord Fairfax, and Edmund Lindsey, and listed the chain carriers as Patrick Rice himself and Captain John Lindsey. Captain John Lindsey was the John Lindsey, gent., ordered by the court to appraise Matthew Brooks’ estate. The linked posting also notes a Long Marsh grant of 244 acres to Edmund Lindsey on 4 August 1766, with the land adjoining George Neville, Joseph Reeder, George Rice, Patrick Rice, and Edmund Lindsey.

Also noted in the posting I’ve just linked: on 2-3 March 1767, Patrick Rice sold land to his son John Rice with Thomas Brooks, son of James and Mary Brooks, listed as one of the witnesses to this deed. This deed shows a direct link between the Rice family and the family of James and Mary Brooks, whose daughter Elizabeth married Patrick Rice’s son George about 1769.

As stated above, Patrick Rice held land adjoining both John McCormick and Edmund Lindsey. John McCormick’s grandson William McCormick married Elizabeth, daughter of George Rice and Elizabeth Brooks. As a previous posting has noted, when John McCormick acquired 456 acres on Long Marsh Creek on 8 July 1760, the survey and grant records show the land joining Patrick Rice and Thomas Lindsey (1720-1769). A 2 April 1751 Northern Neck grant to John Lindsey, Thomas’s brother, for 750 acres in Long Marsh in Frederick County shows his tract adjoining Patrick Rice.

Note, too, that John McCormick’s son Francis McCormick was among the four men appointed by Frederick County court in November 1779 to appraise the estate of James Brooks. The posting I linked in the previous paragraph points out that a 1782 tax list for Frederick County shows that three of the four men appointed by the county court to appraise James Brooks’ estate in November 1779 — Meredith Helm, Francis McCormick, and John Lindsey (son of Thomas) — all lived in Captain Nobles’ tax district of Frederick County in 1782 along with James Brooks’ son Thomas Brooks.

5. The Haynes/Haines connection: Matthew and Jacob Brooks both lived on the Opequon where Matthew and James helped survey land for Hugh Haynes in 1752. This was a few miles west of the west of the Long Marsh area in which the Lindsey and Rice families lived (though Patrick Rice had land on both Long Marsh Run and Opequon Creek).

The Haynes name deserves further attention for this reason: as noted above, James and Mary Brooks had a daughter identified in Mary’s will as Susanna Haines. I have not been able to find the name of Susanna’s husband or any further information about her. The posting I’ve just linked notes the presence of Haynes/Haines families in Frederick County in the 18th century whose roots lie in the Quaker communities of New Jersey. As I indicated above, the Hugh Haynes for whose survey Matthew and James Brooks acted as chain carriers in 1752 moved back from Virginia to New Jersey, dying there in May 1772 as a Quaker. Was the Haines family into which James Brooks’ daughter Susanna married connected to the Haynes family to which this Hugh Haynes belonged? This seems to be a research avenue worth exploring.

6. The connection between Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna and James Brooks’ wife Mary: Another connection that shouldn’t be overlooked: James Brooks’ wife Mary and Jacob Brooks’ wife Rosanna both provided testimony for Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744.

Frederick County court minutes provide some additional interesting information about Leonard Harper. On 7 December 1756, administration of his estate was given by the court to William Locks or Locke.[30] Giving bond with Locks/Locke for this administration were Benjamin Grubb and John Milbourn. At the same time, the court appointed the following appraisers (or any three of them) for Harper’s estate: John Lindsey, Benjamin Grubb, Joseph [Hill?], and John McCormick (with the surname spelled McCormack here). Note the names John Milbourn, John Lindsey, and John McCormick. As we’ve seen, John Milbourn and John Lindsey were two of those appointed to appraise the estate of Matthew Brooks in October 1754. And on the connections between John McCormick and the Lindsey and Rice families and the family of James and Mary Brooks, see above.

7. The Quaker connections: Though Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks appear not to have been Quakers, the families of all these Brooks men had ties to Quakers in Frederick County and the middle colonies. The will of Matthew’s wife Elizabeth uses Quaker terminology in stating its date: twelfth day of twelfth month, and it was witnessed by Simeon Taylor, clerk of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting. Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks’ son David daughter Mary were both Quakers.

Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester note that when Rosanna and Mary Brooks affirmed the debt owed to them for testifying on behalf of Leonard Harper in Frederick County court in 1744, both did so by solemn affirmation rather than by making an oath. Kellam and Lester take this to mean that the two women had Quaker affiliation, though neither appears in the records of the Hopewell Friends Monthly Meeting.

When Jacob Brooks left Virginia for South Carolina, he settled among Quakers who had moved to South Carolina from Frederick County, Virginia, and appears in records linked to the Hollingsworth family, which arrived in Delaware as a Quaker family with members then appearing in minutes of Quaker meetings in Pennsylvania and Frederick County, Virginia. The family of James and Mary Brooks also connects to the Hollingsworths: Mary Brooks, the oldest daughter of James and Mary Brooks, married Jacob Hollingsworth whose parents Samuel Hollingsworth and Barbara Shewing were members of the Old Kennett Friends Monthly Meeting in Chester County, Pennsylvania. George Rice, who married Mary Brooks’ sister Elizabeth, had a sister Susannah Rice who also married a Hollingsworth spouse. George Rice’s mother Elizabeth Decow, belonged to a Quaker family that immigrated from Yorkshire, England, to Burlington County, New Jersey, where she married George Rice’s father Patrick Rice before the couple settled in Frederick County, Virginia.

7. Connections that may be suggested by naming patterns: Both Matthew and James Brooks named sons James and Thomas. And James named a daughter Elizabeth, the name of Matthew’s wife, while Matthew had a daughter Mary, the name of James’ wife. Admittedly, none of these names is particularly uncommon in Virginia in this period, and Matthew’s father-in-law was Thomas Warren, so that may account for his use of the given name Thomas as he named a son. But the possibility that overlap in given names in the two families may indicate some kind of connection between them should also not be entirely discounted, it seems to me.

In conclusion, one or two connections may be a coincidence. Multiple connections suggest more than coincidence. With Matthew, Jacob, and James Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, there are manifold connections, overlapping ones. These connections suggest to me shared roots, though since Matthew is recorded as illegitimate in his baptismal record and he has his mother’s Brooks surname, the Y-DNA of his descendants might well not match the Y-DNA of proven male descendants of other Brooks families.

[1] Frederick County, Virginia, Chancery Court Order Book 17 (1778-1781), p. 251.

[2] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 5, p. 158.

[3] Survey for Hugh Haynes, 22 November 1752, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed for this land was made 2 April 1760. On 1 October 1767, living in Salem, New Jersey, Hugh Haynes sold the 247 acres to Michael Headley of Frederick County, with wife Ann signing and releasing dower: Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, pp. 23-4, 27.

[4] The order given on 20 November 1749 for John Baylis to survey 400 acres for Thomas Wyatt states that Wyatt was living on the land and that it adjoined Lewis Neill: ibid., survey for Thomas Wyatt, 1749/1750, available digitally at FamilySearch. The survey by John Baylis shows the land joining Hugh Haynes, John Baylis, and Captain Neile.

[5] National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the Commonwealth of Virginia, The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812 (Richmond: W.E. Jones, 1897), p. 67, transcribing the original parish register.

[6] Ibid., p. 60. On Jacob Brooks of Frederick County, Virginia, records as the Jacob baptized in 1702 in Christ Church parish, see Ida Brooks Kellam and Memory Aldridge Lester, Brooks and Kindred Families (priv. publ., 1950), pp. 310-313.

[7] See Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Will Bk. B, p. 56; Thomas Warren made the will on 13 April 1749 and it was probated 4 December 1750. In The Rev. John Johnson and His Home: An Autobiography (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publ. Co., 1869), pp. 10-11, Susannah Brooks Johnson, a granddaughter of Matthew and Elizabeth Brooks, states, “My grandmother’s maiden name was Elizabeth Warren; my grandfather, Matthew Brooks, a native of Virginia, was born of English parentage, and lived near Richmond.”

[8] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 3, p. 45.

[9] Survey of John Baylis, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, in loose-papers files of Northern Neck surveys, available digitally at FamilySearch. No date is recorded for the survey, nor does it state the name of the surveyor.

[10] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, pp. 368-370. On Taylor as the first clerk of Hopewell, see Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History 1734-1934, Frederick County, Virginia (Strausburg, Virginia: Shenandoah Publishing, 1936), pp. 181-2, noting that Simeon and his wife were issued a certificate by East Nottingham Monthly Meeting on 28th of 4th month 1738, and lived on the east side of Opequon at Yorkshireman’s Branch, now called Litler’s Run, until they obtained a certificate for removal to New Garden Monthly Meeting in North Carolina on 2nd of 4th month 1764.

[11] Survey of John Briscoe, Northern Neck Surveys 1749-1779, available digitally at FamilySearch. The deed is recorded as a note of Jacob Brooks wrote to Lord Fairfax deeding the land to Briscoe.

[12] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 4, p. 406.

[13] Ibid., Bk. 6, p. 107.

[14] Frederick County, Virginia, Will Bk. 2, p. 150.

[15] See supra, n. 10.  

[16] Frederick County, Virginia, Deed Bk. 12, p. 545.

[17] See supra, n. 5.

[18] Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Deed Bk. A, pp. 165-6.

[19] See supra, n. 7.

[20] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 196.

[21] Ibid., p. 130.

[22] William Wade Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, vol. 6: Virginia (Baltimore: Geneal. Publ. Co., 1973), p. 371, indexing Hopewell meeting minutes.

[23] Hopewell Friends, Hopewell Friends History, p. 29.

[24] Ibid., p. 30.

[25] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order Bk. 1, p. 221.

[26] See supra, n. 11.

[27] Charleston County, South Carolina, Will Bk. 1774-9, pp. 54-5.

[28] Susan Grabek, “The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia, ‘The Patriarchs,’” at Lindsay Surname DNA Project Group 2:  The Lindseys of the Long Marsh, Virginia.

[29] See ibid.

[30] Frederick County, Virginia, Court Order 7, p. 156.

https://www.europesays.com/dk/84216/ Case against Gülen-linked New York school fuels concerns of Turkey’s transnational repression in US #BankAsya #BrooklynAmitySchool #CrackdownOnGülenMovement #GÜlenMovement #HumanRights #JohnThomas #NestpointAssociates #oppression #SeizureOfGülenLinkedSchools #Stockholm #Sweden #TheMaarifFoundation #TheNewYorkSun #TheSavingsDepositInsuranceFund(TMSF) #TransnationalRepression #Turkey #USLegalSystem

John Thomas • Girl with a Dog Ca 1885
#photography #JohnThomas

Today in Boston Celtics history: Marvin Barnes passes; John Thomas born https://www.rawchili.com/nba/274103/ #Basketball #Boston #BostonCeltics #BostonCeltics #BuffaloBraves #Celtics #ChaunceyBillups #DetroitPistons #DispersalDraft #JohnThomas #MarvinBarnes #Minnesota #NBA #Philadelphia76ers #ProvidenceCollege #RhodeIsland #ScottBrooks #SpiritsOfSt.Louis #TorontoRaptors

Predator: Badlands

https://frimoulux.com/predator-badlands/

#DanTrachtenberg #5novembre2025 #ÉtatsUnis #2025 #novembre2025 #sciencefiction #action #20thCenturyStudios #DavisEntertainment #ElleFanning #DimitriusSchusterKoloamatangi #Predator #Badlands #Thia #Dek #sagaPredator #planètelointaine #voyage #adversaireultime #futur #clan #exclu #alliance #créature #effetsspéciaux #androidWeylandYutani #JeffCutter #PatrickAison #JohnThomas #JimThomas #IMAX #DolbyCinema #ScreenX

John Thomas is my favorite term to use online in reference to a man's thingy. #JohnThomas

#JohnThomas #fisting #misterpunchguts

@classicalmusic

John Thomas (1826 – 1913)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thomas_(harpist)

"Complete Duos For Harp And Piano, Volume One"
Duo Praxedis
(Toccata Classics 2020)
https://open.spotify.com/album/0gtYxLvr28j4wATzPddSyq?si=S7ox7SXmTGeytC6KbdeQGA

#NowListening #ClassicalMusic #music #musique #ChamberMusic #RomanticPeriod
#JohnThomas
#DuoPraxedis

#Fisting #RewLobo #JohnThomas #DeclanBlake #AidenWard #jockstrap

#JohnThomas #WadeWolfgar #internal #breeding #creampie #insemination

#JohnThomas #Fisting #LoboCarreira

#johnThomas #gape

Happy 100th Birthday, 16mm film!

Image: "Metropolitan," 1990, directed by Whit Stillman & shot by John Thomas on Super 16mm
#SixteenMillimeter #SixteenMillimeterFilm #Film #Movies #Cinema #Hollywood #Metropolitan #MetropolitanMovie #WhitStillman #JohnThomas

Happy 100th Birthday, 16mm film!

Image: "Metropolitan," 1990, directed by Whit Stillman & shot by John Thomas on Super 16mm
#SixteenMillimeter #SixteenMillimeterFilm #Film #Movies #Cinema #Hollywood #Metropolitan #MetropolitanMovie #WhitStillman #JohnThomas

Happy 100th Birthday, 16mm film!

Image: "Metropolitan," 1990, directed by Whit Stillman & shot by John Thomas on Super 16mm
#SixteenMillimeter #SixteenMillimeterFilm #Film #Movies #Cinema #Hollywood #Metropolitan #MetropolitanMovie #WhitStillman #JohnThomas

Happy 100th Birthday, 16mm film!

Image: "Metropolitan," 1990, directed by Whit Stillman & shot by John Thomas on Super 16mm
#SixteenMillimeter #SixteenMillimeterFilm #Film #Movies #Cinema #Hollywood #Metropolitan #MetropolitanMovie #WhitStillman #JohnThomas

Troy Daniels And Derek Kage Spit-roast John Thomas

#gay #porn #gayporn #gaypornvideo #cocksucking #fucking #anal #bareback #groupsex #threesome #3way

#TroyDaniels #DerekKage #JohnThomas

Please follow and reblog!

John Thomas Is A Master Of DP As He Surrenders His Hole To The Massive Cocks Of Maxim Orlov, Diego Mattos And Tim Kruger

(At 02m56s there is even a brief triple penetration!)

#gay #porn #gayporn #gaypornvideo #cocksucking #fucking #groupsex #threesome #3way #doublepenetration #DP

#JohnThomas #TimKruger #MaximOrlov #DiegoMattos

Please reblog and follow!

The Big Conversation – Christadelphians in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom people may find several villages and towns where there reside Christadelphians,  a body of Christians who try to base their beliefs and practices wholly on the Bible, which they regard as God’s word. They try therefore to rid themselves of the various ideas and rituals which have attached themselves to Christendom over the last 2,000 years and to return to the beliefs and practices of the first century apostles.

Being a group of people who want to follow the Nazarene Jew Jeshua, who did not want to do his own will, but always did the Will of his heavenly Father, they as the man born in Bethlehem, are living in this world but not wanting to be of this world following human traditions and human dogmas. That does not make them so popular, because people may look strange at those people who do not want to celebrate Halloween and other pagan festivities.

Because the Christadelphians are a community without the trappings of elaborate buildings, priests or icons, their institutions and fellowship-rooms not be seen straight away. The outer sights are not important for the Christadelphians who prefer to give honour to God and show a deep respect for God’s word and love to have a strong sense of family and fellowship.

On the above map you can see some of the more than 300 ecclesiae in Great Britain and Ireland. They were taken under the loop by brother Jon Downes who on the 10th of October asked

What is happening?

For him the present size & growth or non-growth of UK ecclesiae show there isn’t a, ‘No Change’ option

It’s not that we aren’t trying!

he said to about 350 Christadelphians present at Dudley college.

In this world of figures, comparisons and evaluations it is all about numbers in graphics which have to show an up-going trend and reach high peaks. this for sure can not be said about our very small community. Lots of people may think when it is not big it has no value and can not be good. But people should look at the intrinsic value and to see what a group or church is believing, following up, and how they keep to what they preach. It is true that minorities do not exert influence, and that they should have to contend on the culture or the systems around it.

Christadelphians do not fall in the temptation to pretend to be a majority, even if one is not. They do know they are just a little grain of sand in our religious world. But that does not mean that many more little grains can be put together with water and with clay form a nice vase. Though sometimes it can look like we are coming to sit more in an urn. Especially in Belgium we are in distress and can do with some support form abroad. Though looking at other countries can show us also how important it is to make more work of the announcing or making known of our society.

All over the world people may not forget that the church of Jesus Christ is never a majority, in any fallen culture, even if we happen to outnumber every[one] else around us. They should come to see that the real church of God is the church of Christ were people are willing to follow Jesus his words, his teachings, but also his manners and his aspirations. It is a place where people are willing to share the agapè love of Christ, who was even willing to give his life for others, even for those who turned against him. Would we do that?

Where Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result, and got many sorts of denominations which have lots of rituals people may like very much but which are not according to God’s Law. And that part is the most important in our building community. We should all try to live according God’s Law and love His Words more than the words of man.

Unfortunately, lots of Christians do not closely follow the Bible today and prefer to join churches in which they can keep up their human traditions. They have changed things to how they want them to be.
Since the times of Jesus, there have been small groups of people who believed what the Bible said. Many of these people were cruelly treated in times past as a result of their beliefs. Such believers united in the North of America when in 1864 broke out the Civil War. Dr. Thomas thought up the word “Christadelphian“, a name combining the name “Christ” with the Greek word “adelphi” meaning “brother”. So the name “Christadelphian” means “brothers and sisters in Christ“.

Christadelphians are grateful to John Thomas for his efforts in searching out the message of the Bible. John Thomas was not a prophet or someone special. He read the Bible, just as we try to do. Christadelphians follow Jesus Christ, not John Thomas. Not following just one man or just one human organisation gives that we may have different ideas about certain things, but that doe snot mean we would not have union with each other, though we must agree that there are certain Christadelphian groups who shamefully do not want to have contact with other Christadelphians.  According to the Belgian Free Christadelphians this is also part of the reasons why it is so difficult to show the world a bigger group of religious people under one name: Christadelphians.

Being joined together by our common faith in the Bible, and the way we live, we all should try to meet each other and have contact with each other as loving siblings. All being brothers and sisters in Christ. Though each “ecclesia” has to look after its own affairs, and choose members who determine arrangements and organise activities on behalf of their members they should feel that unity with Christ with other Christadelphians world wide and show the outside world that Jesus Christ is their head of each ecclesia.

Living in this world we do agree that “It’s not about the numbers” … …but the “numbers tell a story”. And those numbers in west Europe may be alarming. Therefore there was the call to come thereto in the UK to discuss that matter of dwindling ciphers.

Like any other western capitalist country in the UK Bible ownership and Bible knowledge has slumped, some english people also do find it a form of indoctrination when parents in their home pray and talk about God in front of their children of that child.

Jon Downes presented the anxious members a snapshot of our society in the UK.

and showed those present how a typical ecclesia looks like.

When we look at the adult baptisms in our community from related people (3,5) and from non related
(1.0) plus counting the (0.5) refellowshipping members, comparing them with the average of 10 people falling asleep and 2 people leaving the fellowship, we might say that such numbers bring the graphic line downwards.

What might happen to the Christadelphian community in the United Kingdom when they do not something to change the coarse.

happened.

Therefore lets look at the United Kingdom as an example.

what might this give to that community, where we find, like everywhere in the world members becoming older and dying, whilst the world is getting less interested in God and commandment.

In case we can bring the Gospel of the Good News to many more ears, we should be able by a co-effort of preaching to increase the interest in God again and get again some people interested in joining a community of lovers of Christ and lovers of God.

We must see that

The lost are our hope

and that there is good reason to try to reach the lost. We as brothers and sisters in Christ should love the people in the world so much that we will be offering some of our spare time for preaching work.

We are the hope of the lost

Luckily it is not all ad  or sad news.

Good News!

tells brother Downes is that we can look at

• 120 baptisms a year (4 average sized ecclesias)
• In the last 40 years, 39 new ecclesias. (Although 96 have closed & some were renamed).
• In the last 15 years,1/4 of all baptisms from non Christadelphian backgrounds were by just 16 ecclesias. (Although 1/3 didn’t baptise any)
• While many ecclesias are shrinking many are growing.
• Numbers in Africa are growing!
• Bible Learning Centres & Learning English are having a big impact

Instead of going for Plan A is it not better that we go for Plan B?

• Current UK Christadelphian population of 8-8500 is based on 223 2015 ALS Diary returns on households & 178 2015 CCH survey returns. 10 Ecclesias had neither return and were estimated on previous diary returns.
• 1985 to 2015 data based on records kept from the back of the Christadelphian, clearly subject to some error, gaps and misreporting. The last 12 months of Magazine entries were analysed separately and yielded results consistent with the records obtained.
• Net loss of 120 per annum and the 10, 5, 1 ratio derived from average of last 10 years data. Approx 240 out and 120 in. These do not include brothers and sisters movement in and out of the UK.
• Forecast from 2015 based on a linear continuation which could easily be a) more dramatic because of rapid closure of small ecclesias, ageing population, reduced home pool to draw from, fewer people to witness, higher rates of leaving the community b) less dramatic as in a smaller community there are fewer people falling asleep each year.

One of the deceases of this time is that too many people want to enjoy their own little cocoon and not getting out of their comfort zone to share life with the spiritually needy. Those who call themselves Christian may not forget that this means to be a follower of Jesus Christ and demands also doing what he required from his followers. Jesus asked us to go out in the world to proclaim the Kingdom of God. We are to make every effort to bring hope and healing in Jesus name to those in need.

We are to see that the tangible goodness of God flows into every nook and cranny of our communities – especially in those places where darkness seems to prevail. {Walking With Intentionality}

+

Preceding articles:

Religious Practices around the world

Manifests for believers #3 Catholic versus Protestant

Ecclesia to exist, grow and communities to have people communicating with each other

The Ecclesia in the churchsystem

Reasons to come together

The Big Conversation

The Big Conversation follow up

Reasons why you may not miss the opportunity to go to a Small Church

Engaging the culture without losing the gospel

Evangelisation, local preaching opposite overseas evangelism

Feeling-good, search for happiness and the church

Members of the ecclesia uniting and seeking God’s help in tribulation

Why we do not have our worship-services in a church building

Belgian Christadelphians 2013 & 2014 in review

Personal thoughts, communication, establishing ecclesia and guest writings

++

Additional reading:

1. People are turning their back on Christianity
2. Looking on what is going on and not being of it
3. London an exaggerated microcosm of the UK at large
4. Parents forbidden to pray in front of their children or to take them to church
5. State and attitude of certain people to blame for radicalisation
6. More Muslim children than Christian children growing up in our cities
7. Will Islam conquer Europe
8. Christianity to be enshrined
9. Halloween custom of the nations
10. Wrong ideas about religious terrorism
11. A call easy to understand
12. Discipleship way of life on the narrow way to everlasting life
13. Many forgot how Christ should be our anchor and our focus
14. The meek one riding on an ass
15. Do not be afraid to learn or to speak
16. Reasons to come together
17. Congregate, to gather, to meet
18. Fellowship
19. Disciple of Christ counting lives and friends dear to them
20. The first on the list of the concerns of the saint
21. Holiness and expression of worship coming from inside
22. To find ways of Godly understanding
23. Perishable non theologians daring to go out to preach
24. Who are the honest ones?
25. Certain people trying to stem freedom of speech
26. Priority to form a loving brotherhood
27. Newsweek asks: How ignorant are you?
28. Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World
29. Some christians do have problems with the Christian connection with Jews
30. American atheists most religiously literate Americans
31. Determine the drive
32. Try driving forward instead of backwards
33. Campbell, Thomas and Bijbelvorsers
34. Looking at older articles series over Russell on the previous Bible-scholar Association
35. Wanting to know more about basic teachings of Christadelphianism
36. Christadelphians or Messianic Christians or Messianic Jews
37. Christadelphian people
38. Who are Christadelphians
39. What are Brothers in Christ
40. Two new encyclopaedic articles
41. Christadelphians today
42. Keeping an ecclesia in modern times
43. Small churches of the few Christadelphians
44. Christianity to be enshrined
45. Christianity is a love affair
46. Intentions of an Ecclesia
47. Character transformed by the influence of our fellowships
48. Love for each other attracting others
49. What makes a consecrated Christian
50. A call easy to understand
51. If you have integrity
52. Work with joy and pray with love
53. To know Christ is filling life with meaning
54. The truth is very plain to see and God can be clearly seen

+++

Other articles of interest:

1. Walking in Total Dependence Upon God
2. What is God’s Will For Your Life?
3. On the Affirmation of Scripture
4. A Snapshot of the Church in America
5. a little church
6. Four Pressing Needs in Rural Communities, and How the Church Should Respond
7. If It’s All About Relationship…
8. Leading a church is not a hands free exercise
9. Walking With Intentionality
10. Living Our Faith in a New Way
11. What’s in It for Me?
12. Deacon Selection In the Small Church
13. Lord’s Day 10: God is in Control
14. Just Try a Few Things
15. “When Faith Goes, All Good Things Go”
16. Growing Deep
17. All the Wrong Reasons
18. Little Church
19. Leading Change
20. Small Groups & Grow A Small Church by Multiplying Its Small Groups
21. Living well
22. Blessed by His Hand
23. Encouragement for the Small
24. How Did You Get Here?
25. How to Impersonate a Big Church
26. What Do You Do Well?
27. Recognize the Facts
28. What are your top two struggles?
29. The Best Thing You Can Do
30. On the road to sainthood and not silent about it
31. Incognito Zone: Where the Church Is Booming
32. House Church Reaches Out to Atheists, Agnostics in California
33. The one religion that’s not part of my spiritual quest
34. Six Ways Not to Forsake the Assembly
35. Tent Making
36. Journey On The Narrow Path

+++

Related articles

• One in three people born in the UK this year will suffer from some form of dementia in their lifetime, the Alzheimer’s Research UK charity has warned. (grumpyelder.com)
• Israel Goldstein Youth Village looking for dates in Europe (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Looking for writers for two Lifestyle Magazines (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Change of name (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)

Rate this:

#AdultBaptism #Agape #BeingInUnion #Belgium #BiblicalTruth #BrothersAndSistersInChrist #BrothersInChrist #CapitalistWorld #Christadelphian #ChristadelphianCommunity #Christadelphians #Christendom #ChristianChurches #ChristianTruth #Christians #ChurchOfJesusChrist #ComfortZone #DwindlingChurch #Ecclesia #Fellowship #FollowerOfChrist #FollowingJesusChrist #FollowingMan #GreatBritain #HopeOfEcclesia #Influence #InterestInGod #Ireland #JohnThomas #JonDownes #LeavingTheFellowship #LivingInThisWorld #LoversOfChrist #LoversOfGod #Minority #NorthOfAmerica #NumbersAmount_ #PaganFestivities #Preaching #PreachingWork #Proclaim #Proclaiming #ReachingTheLost #Refellowshipping #RuleOfPractice #SistersInChrist #SmallCommunity #TeachingsOfChrist #Temptation #Union #UnitedKingdom #Unity #UnityInChrist #UnityInDiversity #WayOfLiving #WordOfMan

The Big Conversation – Christadelphians in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom people may find several villages and towns where there reside Christadelphians,  a body of Christians who try to base their beliefs and practices wholly on the Bible, which they regard as God’s word. They try therefore to rid themselves of the various ideas and rituals which have attached themselves to Christendom over the last 2,000 years and to return to the beliefs and practices of the first century apostles.

Being a group of people who want to follow the Nazarene Jew Jeshua, who did not want to do his own will, but always did the Will of his heavenly Father, they as the man born in Bethlehem, are living in this world but not wanting to be of this world following human traditions and human dogmas. That does not make them so popular, because people may look strange at those people who do not want to celebrate Halloween and other pagan festivities.

Because the Christadelphians are a community without the trappings of elaborate buildings, priests or icons, their institutions and fellowship-rooms not be seen straight away. The outer sights are not important for the Christadelphians who prefer to give honour to God and show a deep respect for God’s word and love to have a strong sense of family and fellowship.

On the above map you can see some of the more than 300 ecclesiae in Great Britain and Ireland. They were taken under the loop by brother Jon Downes who on the 10th of October asked

What is happening?

For him the present size & growth or non-growth of UK ecclesiae show there isn’t a, ‘No Change’ option

It’s not that we aren’t trying!

he said to about 350 Christadelphians present at Dudley college.

In this world of figures, comparisons and evaluations it is all about numbers in graphics which have to show an up-going trend and reach high peaks. this for sure can not be said about our very small community. Lots of people may think when it is not big it has no value and can not be good. But people should look at the intrinsic value and to see what a group or church is believing, following up, and how they keep to what they preach. It is true that minorities do not exert influence, and that they should have to contend on the culture or the systems around it.

Christadelphians do not fall in the temptation to pretend to be a majority, even if one is not. They do know they are just a little grain of sand in our religious world. But that does not mean that many more little grains can be put together with water and with clay form a nice vase. Though sometimes it can look like we are coming to sit more in an urn. Especially in Belgium we are in distress and can do with some support form abroad. Though looking at other countries can show us also how important it is to make more work of the announcing or making known of our society.

All over the world people may not forget that the church of Jesus Christ is never a majority, in any fallen culture, even if we happen to outnumber every[one] else around us. They should come to see that the real church of God is the church of Christ were people are willing to follow Jesus his words, his teachings, but also his manners and his aspirations. It is a place where people are willing to share the agapè love of Christ, who was even willing to give his life for others, even for those who turned against him. Would we do that?

Where Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result, and got many sorts of denominations which have lots of rituals people may like very much but which are not according to God’s Law. And that part is the most important in our building community. We should all try to live according God’s Law and love His Words more than the words of man.

Unfortunately, lots of Christians do not closely follow the Bible today and prefer to join churches in which they can keep up their human traditions. They have changed things to how they want them to be.
Since the times of Jesus, there have been small groups of people who believed what the Bible said. Many of these people were cruelly treated in times past as a result of their beliefs. Such believers united in the North of America when in 1864 broke out the Civil War. Dr. Thomas thought up the word “Christadelphian“, a name combining the name “Christ” with the Greek word “adelphi” meaning “brother”. So the name “Christadelphian” means “brothers and sisters in Christ“.

Christadelphians are grateful to John Thomas for his efforts in searching out the message of the Bible. John Thomas was not a prophet or someone special. He read the Bible, just as we try to do. Christadelphians follow Jesus Christ, not John Thomas. Not following just one man or just one human organisation gives that we may have different ideas about certain things, but that doe snot mean we would not have union with each other, though we must agree that there are certain Christadelphian groups who shamefully do not want to have contact with other Christadelphians.  According to the Belgian Free Christadelphians this is also part of the reasons why it is so difficult to show the world a bigger group of religious people under one name: Christadelphians.

Being joined together by our common faith in the Bible, and the way we live, we all should try to meet each other and have contact with each other as loving siblings. All being brothers and sisters in Christ. Though each “ecclesia” has to look after its own affairs, and choose members who determine arrangements and organise activities on behalf of their members they should feel that unity with Christ with other Christadelphians world wide and show the outside world that Jesus Christ is their head of each ecclesia.

Living in this world we do agree that “It’s not about the numbers” … …but the “numbers tell a story”. And those numbers in west Europe may be alarming. Therefore there was the call to come thereto in the UK to discuss that matter of dwindling ciphers.

Like any other western capitalist country in the UK Bible ownership and Bible knowledge has slumped, some english people also do find it a form of indoctrination when parents in their home pray and talk about God in front of their children of that child.

Jon Downes presented the anxious members a snapshot of our society in the UK.

and showed those present how a typical ecclesia looks like.

When we look at the adult baptisms in our community from related people (3,5) and from non related
(1.0) plus counting the (0.5) refellowshipping members, comparing them with the average of 10 people falling asleep and 2 people leaving the fellowship, we might say that such numbers bring the graphic line downwards.

What might happen to the Christadelphian community in the United Kingdom when they do not something to change the coarse.

happened.

Therefore lets look at the United Kingdom as an example.

what might this give to that community, where we find, like everywhere in the world members becoming older and dying, whilst the world is getting less interested in God and commandment.

In case we can bring the Gospel of the Good News to many more ears, we should be able by a co-effort of preaching to increase the interest in God again and get again some people interested in joining a community of lovers of Christ and lovers of God.

We must see that

The lost are our hope

and that there is good reason to try to reach the lost. We as brothers and sisters in Christ should love the people in the world so much that we will be offering some of our spare time for preaching work.

We are the hope of the lost

Luckily it is not all ad  or sad news.

Good News!

tells brother Downes is that we can look at

• 120 baptisms a year (4 average sized ecclesias)
• In the last 40 years, 39 new ecclesias. (Although 96 have closed & some were renamed).
• In the last 15 years,1/4 of all baptisms from non Christadelphian backgrounds were by just 16 ecclesias. (Although 1/3 didn’t baptise any)
• While many ecclesias are shrinking many are growing.
• Numbers in Africa are growing!
• Bible Learning Centres & Learning English are having a big impact

Instead of going for Plan A is it not better that we go for Plan B?

• Current UK Christadelphian population of 8-8500 is based on 223 2015 ALS Diary returns on households & 178 2015 CCH survey returns. 10 Ecclesias had neither return and were estimated on previous diary returns.
• 1985 to 2015 data based on records kept from the back of the Christadelphian, clearly subject to some error, gaps and misreporting. The last 12 months of Magazine entries were analysed separately and yielded results consistent with the records obtained.
• Net loss of 120 per annum and the 10, 5, 1 ratio derived from average of last 10 years data. Approx 240 out and 120 in. These do not include brothers and sisters movement in and out of the UK.
• Forecast from 2015 based on a linear continuation which could easily be a) more dramatic because of rapid closure of small ecclesias, ageing population, reduced home pool to draw from, fewer people to witness, higher rates of leaving the community b) less dramatic as in a smaller community there are fewer people falling asleep each year.

One of the deceases of this time is that too many people want to enjoy their own little cocoon and not getting out of their comfort zone to share life with the spiritually needy. Those who call themselves Christian may not forget that this means to be a follower of Jesus Christ and demands also doing what he required from his followers. Jesus asked us to go out in the world to proclaim the Kingdom of God. We are to make every effort to bring hope and healing in Jesus name to those in need.

We are to see that the tangible goodness of God flows into every nook and cranny of our communities – especially in those places where darkness seems to prevail. {Walking With Intentionality}

+

Preceding articles:

Religious Practices around the world

Manifests for believers #3 Catholic versus Protestant

Ecclesia to exist, grow and communities to have people communicating with each other

The Ecclesia in the churchsystem

Reasons to come together

The Big Conversation

The Big Conversation follow up

Reasons why you may not miss the opportunity to go to a Small Church

Engaging the culture without losing the gospel

Evangelisation, local preaching opposite overseas evangelism

Feeling-good, search for happiness and the church

Members of the ecclesia uniting and seeking God’s help in tribulation

Why we do not have our worship-services in a church building

Belgian Christadelphians 2013 & 2014 in review

Personal thoughts, communication, establishing ecclesia and guest writings

++

Additional reading:

1. People are turning their back on Christianity
2. Looking on what is going on and not being of it
3. London an exaggerated microcosm of the UK at large
4. Parents forbidden to pray in front of their children or to take them to church
5. State and attitude of certain people to blame for radicalisation
6. More Muslim children than Christian children growing up in our cities
7. Will Islam conquer Europe
8. Christianity to be enshrined
9. Halloween custom of the nations
10. Wrong ideas about religious terrorism
11. A call easy to understand
12. Discipleship way of life on the narrow way to everlasting life
13. Many forgot how Christ should be our anchor and our focus
14. The meek one riding on an ass
15. Do not be afraid to learn or to speak
16. Reasons to come together
17. Congregate, to gather, to meet
18. Fellowship
19. Disciple of Christ counting lives and friends dear to them
20. The first on the list of the concerns of the saint
21. Holiness and expression of worship coming from inside
22. To find ways of Godly understanding
23. Perishable non theologians daring to go out to preach
24. Who are the honest ones?
25. Certain people trying to stem freedom of speech
26. Priority to form a loving brotherhood
27. Newsweek asks: How ignorant are you?
28. Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World
29. Some christians do have problems with the Christian connection with Jews
30. American atheists most religiously literate Americans
31. Determine the drive
32. Try driving forward instead of backwards
33. Campbell, Thomas and Bijbelvorsers
34. Looking at older articles series over Russell on the previous Bible-scholar Association
35. Wanting to know more about basic teachings of Christadelphianism
36. Christadelphians or Messianic Christians or Messianic Jews
37. Christadelphian people
38. Who are Christadelphians
39. What are Brothers in Christ
40. Two new encyclopaedic articles
41. Christadelphians today
42. Keeping an ecclesia in modern times
43. Small churches of the few Christadelphians
44. Christianity to be enshrined
45. Christianity is a love affair
46. Intentions of an Ecclesia
47. Character transformed by the influence of our fellowships
48. Love for each other attracting others
49. What makes a consecrated Christian
50. A call easy to understand
51. If you have integrity
52. Work with joy and pray with love
53. To know Christ is filling life with meaning
54. The truth is very plain to see and God can be clearly seen

+++

Other articles of interest:

1. Walking in Total Dependence Upon God
2. What is God’s Will For Your Life?
3. On the Affirmation of Scripture
4. A Snapshot of the Church in America
5. a little church
6. Four Pressing Needs in Rural Communities, and How the Church Should Respond
7. If It’s All About Relationship…
8. Leading a church is not a hands free exercise
9. Walking With Intentionality
10. Living Our Faith in a New Way
11. What’s in It for Me?
12. Deacon Selection In the Small Church
13. Lord’s Day 10: God is in Control
14. Just Try a Few Things
15. “When Faith Goes, All Good Things Go”
16. Growing Deep
17. All the Wrong Reasons
18. Little Church
19. Leading Change
20. Small Groups & Grow A Small Church by Multiplying Its Small Groups
21. Living well
22. Blessed by His Hand
23. Encouragement for the Small
24. How Did You Get Here?
25. How to Impersonate a Big Church
26. What Do You Do Well?
27. Recognize the Facts
28. What are your top two struggles?
29. The Best Thing You Can Do
30. On the road to sainthood and not silent about it
31. Incognito Zone: Where the Church Is Booming
32. House Church Reaches Out to Atheists, Agnostics in California
33. The one religion that’s not part of my spiritual quest
34. Six Ways Not to Forsake the Assembly
35. Tent Making
36. Journey On The Narrow Path

+++

Related articles

• One in three people born in the UK this year will suffer from some form of dementia in their lifetime, the Alzheimer’s Research UK charity has warned. (grumpyelder.com)
• Israel Goldstein Youth Village looking for dates in Europe (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Looking for writers for two Lifestyle Magazines (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Change of name (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)

Rate this:

#AdultBaptism #Agape #BeingInUnion #Belgium #BiblicalTruth #BrothersAndSistersInChrist #BrothersInChrist #CapitalistWorld #Christadelphian #ChristadelphianCommunity #Christadelphians #Christendom #ChristianChurches #ChristianTruth #Christians #ChurchOfJesusChrist #ComfortZone #DwindlingChurch #Ecclesia #Fellowship #FollowerOfChrist #FollowingJesusChrist #FollowingMan #GreatBritain #HopeOfEcclesia #Influence #InterestInGod #Ireland #JohnThomas #JonDownes #LeavingTheFellowship #LivingInThisWorld #LoversOfChrist #LoversOfGod #Minority #NorthOfAmerica #NumbersAmount_ #PaganFestivities #Preaching #PreachingWork #Proclaim #Proclaiming #ReachingTheLost #Refellowshipping #RuleOfPractice #SistersInChrist #SmallCommunity #TeachingsOfChrist #Temptation #Union #UnitedKingdom #Unity #UnityInChrist #UnityInDiversity #WayOfLiving #WordOfMan

The Big Conversation – Christadelphians in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom people may find several villages and towns where there reside Christadelphians,  a body of Christians who try to base their beliefs and practices wholly on the Bible, which they regard as God’s word. They try therefore to rid themselves of the various ideas and rituals which have attached themselves to Christendom over the last 2,000 years and to return to the beliefs and practices of the first century apostles.

Being a group of people who want to follow the Nazarene Jew Jeshua, who did not want to do his own will, but always did the Will of his heavenly Father, they as the man born in Bethlehem, are living in this world but not wanting to be of this world following human traditions and human dogmas. That does not make them so popular, because people may look strange at those people who do not want to celebrate Halloween and other pagan festivities.

Because the Christadelphians are a community without the trappings of elaborate buildings, priests or icons, their institutions and fellowship-rooms not be seen straight away. The outer sights are not important for the Christadelphians who prefer to give honour to God and show a deep respect for God’s word and love to have a strong sense of family and fellowship.

On the above map you can see some of the more than 300 ecclesiae in Great Britain and Ireland. They were taken under the loop by brother Jon Downes who on the 10th of October asked

What is happening?

For him the present size & growth or non-growth of UK ecclesiae show there isn’t a, ‘No Change’ option

It’s not that we aren’t trying!

he said to about 350 Christadelphians present at Dudley college.

In this world of figures, comparisons and evaluations it is all about numbers in graphics which have to show an up-going trend and reach high peaks. this for sure can not be said about our very small community. Lots of people may think when it is not big it has no value and can not be good. But people should look at the intrinsic value and to see what a group or church is believing, following up, and how they keep to what they preach. It is true that minorities do not exert influence, and that they should have to contend on the culture or the systems around it.

Christadelphians do not fall in the temptation to pretend to be a majority, even if one is not. They do know they are just a little grain of sand in our religious world. But that does not mean that many more little grains can be put together with water and with clay form a nice vase. Though sometimes it can look like we are coming to sit more in an urn. Especially in Belgium we are in distress and can do with some support form abroad. Though looking at other countries can show us also how important it is to make more work of the announcing or making known of our society.

All over the world people may not forget that the church of Jesus Christ is never a majority, in any fallen culture, even if we happen to outnumber every[one] else around us. They should come to see that the real church of God is the church of Christ were people are willing to follow Jesus his words, his teachings, but also his manners and his aspirations. It is a place where people are willing to share the agapè love of Christ, who was even willing to give his life for others, even for those who turned against him. Would we do that?

Where Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result, and got many sorts of denominations which have lots of rituals people may like very much but which are not according to God’s Law. And that part is the most important in our building community. We should all try to live according God’s Law and love His Words more than the words of man.

Unfortunately, lots of Christians do not closely follow the Bible today and prefer to join churches in which they can keep up their human traditions. They have changed things to how they want them to be.
Since the times of Jesus, there have been small groups of people who believed what the Bible said. Many of these people were cruelly treated in times past as a result of their beliefs. Such believers united in the North of America when in 1864 broke out the Civil War. Dr. Thomas thought up the word “Christadelphian“, a name combining the name “Christ” with the Greek word “adelphi” meaning “brother”. So the name “Christadelphian” means “brothers and sisters in Christ“.

Christadelphians are grateful to John Thomas for his efforts in searching out the message of the Bible. John Thomas was not a prophet or someone special. He read the Bible, just as we try to do. Christadelphians follow Jesus Christ, not John Thomas. Not following just one man or just one human organisation gives that we may have different ideas about certain things, but that doe snot mean we would not have union with each other, though we must agree that there are certain Christadelphian groups who shamefully do not want to have contact with other Christadelphians.  According to the Belgian Free Christadelphians this is also part of the reasons why it is so difficult to show the world a bigger group of religious people under one name: Christadelphians.

Being joined together by our common faith in the Bible, and the way we live, we all should try to meet each other and have contact with each other as loving siblings. All being brothers and sisters in Christ. Though each “ecclesia” has to look after its own affairs, and choose members who determine arrangements and organise activities on behalf of their members they should feel that unity with Christ with other Christadelphians world wide and show the outside world that Jesus Christ is their head of each ecclesia.

Living in this world we do agree that “It’s not about the numbers” … …but the “numbers tell a story”. And those numbers in west Europe may be alarming. Therefore there was the call to come thereto in the UK to discuss that matter of dwindling ciphers.

Like any other western capitalist country in the UK Bible ownership and Bible knowledge has slumped, some english people also do find it a form of indoctrination when parents in their home pray and talk about God in front of their children of that child.

Jon Downes presented the anxious members a snapshot of our society in the UK.

and showed those present how a typical ecclesia looks like.

When we look at the adult baptisms in our community from related people (3,5) and from non related
(1.0) plus counting the (0.5) refellowshipping members, comparing them with the average of 10 people falling asleep and 2 people leaving the fellowship, we might say that such numbers bring the graphic line downwards.

What might happen to the Christadelphian community in the United Kingdom when they do not something to change the coarse.

happened.

Therefore lets look at the United Kingdom as an example.

what might this give to that community, where we find, like everywhere in the world members becoming older and dying, whilst the world is getting less interested in God and commandment.

In case we can bring the Gospel of the Good News to many more ears, we should be able by a co-effort of preaching to increase the interest in God again and get again some people interested in joining a community of lovers of Christ and lovers of God.

We must see that

The lost are our hope

and that there is good reason to try to reach the lost. We as brothers and sisters in Christ should love the people in the world so much that we will be offering some of our spare time for preaching work.

We are the hope of the lost

Luckily it is not all ad  or sad news.

Good News!

tells brother Downes is that we can look at

• 120 baptisms a year (4 average sized ecclesias)
• In the last 40 years, 39 new ecclesias. (Although 96 have closed & some were renamed).
• In the last 15 years,1/4 of all baptisms from non Christadelphian backgrounds were by just 16 ecclesias. (Although 1/3 didn’t baptise any)
• While many ecclesias are shrinking many are growing.
• Numbers in Africa are growing!
• Bible Learning Centres & Learning English are having a big impact

Instead of going for Plan A is it not better that we go for Plan B?

• Current UK Christadelphian population of 8-8500 is based on 223 2015 ALS Diary returns on households & 178 2015 CCH survey returns. 10 Ecclesias had neither return and were estimated on previous diary returns.
• 1985 to 2015 data based on records kept from the back of the Christadelphian, clearly subject to some error, gaps and misreporting. The last 12 months of Magazine entries were analysed separately and yielded results consistent with the records obtained.
• Net loss of 120 per annum and the 10, 5, 1 ratio derived from average of last 10 years data. Approx 240 out and 120 in. These do not include brothers and sisters movement in and out of the UK.
• Forecast from 2015 based on a linear continuation which could easily be a) more dramatic because of rapid closure of small ecclesias, ageing population, reduced home pool to draw from, fewer people to witness, higher rates of leaving the community b) less dramatic as in a smaller community there are fewer people falling asleep each year.

One of the deceases of this time is that too many people want to enjoy their own little cocoon and not getting out of their comfort zone to share life with the spiritually needy. Those who call themselves Christian may not forget that this means to be a follower of Jesus Christ and demands also doing what he required from his followers. Jesus asked us to go out in the world to proclaim the Kingdom of God. We are to make every effort to bring hope and healing in Jesus name to those in need.

We are to see that the tangible goodness of God flows into every nook and cranny of our communities – especially in those places where darkness seems to prevail. {Walking With Intentionality}

+

Preceding articles:

Religious Practices around the world

Manifests for believers #3 Catholic versus Protestant

Ecclesia to exist, grow and communities to have people communicating with each other

The Ecclesia in the churchsystem

Reasons to come together

The Big Conversation

The Big Conversation follow up

Reasons why you may not miss the opportunity to go to a Small Church

Engaging the culture without losing the gospel

Evangelisation, local preaching opposite overseas evangelism

Feeling-good, search for happiness and the church

Members of the ecclesia uniting and seeking God’s help in tribulation

Why we do not have our worship-services in a church building

Belgian Christadelphians 2013 & 2014 in review

Personal thoughts, communication, establishing ecclesia and guest writings

++

Additional reading:

1. People are turning their back on Christianity
2. Looking on what is going on and not being of it
3. London an exaggerated microcosm of the UK at large
4. Parents forbidden to pray in front of their children or to take them to church
5. State and attitude of certain people to blame for radicalisation
6. More Muslim children than Christian children growing up in our cities
7. Will Islam conquer Europe
8. Christianity to be enshrined
9. Halloween custom of the nations
10. Wrong ideas about religious terrorism
11. A call easy to understand
12. Discipleship way of life on the narrow way to everlasting life
13. Many forgot how Christ should be our anchor and our focus
14. The meek one riding on an ass
15. Do not be afraid to learn or to speak
16. Reasons to come together
17. Congregate, to gather, to meet
18. Fellowship
19. Disciple of Christ counting lives and friends dear to them
20. The first on the list of the concerns of the saint
21. Holiness and expression of worship coming from inside
22. To find ways of Godly understanding
23. Perishable non theologians daring to go out to preach
24. Who are the honest ones?
25. Certain people trying to stem freedom of speech
26. Priority to form a loving brotherhood
27. Newsweek asks: How ignorant are you?
28. Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World
29. Some christians do have problems with the Christian connection with Jews
30. American atheists most religiously literate Americans
31. Determine the drive
32. Try driving forward instead of backwards
33. Campbell, Thomas and Bijbelvorsers
34. Looking at older articles series over Russell on the previous Bible-scholar Association
35. Wanting to know more about basic teachings of Christadelphianism
36. Christadelphians or Messianic Christians or Messianic Jews
37. Christadelphian people
38. Who are Christadelphians
39. What are Brothers in Christ
40. Two new encyclopaedic articles
41. Christadelphians today
42. Keeping an ecclesia in modern times
43. Small churches of the few Christadelphians
44. Christianity to be enshrined
45. Christianity is a love affair
46. Intentions of an Ecclesia
47. Character transformed by the influence of our fellowships
48. Love for each other attracting others
49. What makes a consecrated Christian
50. A call easy to understand
51. If you have integrity
52. Work with joy and pray with love
53. To know Christ is filling life with meaning
54. The truth is very plain to see and God can be clearly seen

+++

Other articles of interest:

1. Walking in Total Dependence Upon God
2. What is God’s Will For Your Life?
3. On the Affirmation of Scripture
4. A Snapshot of the Church in America
5. a little church
6. Four Pressing Needs in Rural Communities, and How the Church Should Respond
7. If It’s All About Relationship…
8. Leading a church is not a hands free exercise
9. Walking With Intentionality
10. Living Our Faith in a New Way
11. What’s in It for Me?
12. Deacon Selection In the Small Church
13. Lord’s Day 10: God is in Control
14. Just Try a Few Things
15. “When Faith Goes, All Good Things Go”
16. Growing Deep
17. All the Wrong Reasons
18. Little Church
19. Leading Change
20. Small Groups & Grow A Small Church by Multiplying Its Small Groups
21. Living well
22. Blessed by His Hand
23. Encouragement for the Small
24. How Did You Get Here?
25. How to Impersonate a Big Church
26. What Do You Do Well?
27. Recognize the Facts
28. What are your top two struggles?
29. The Best Thing You Can Do
30. On the road to sainthood and not silent about it
31. Incognito Zone: Where the Church Is Booming
32. House Church Reaches Out to Atheists, Agnostics in California
33. The one religion that’s not part of my spiritual quest
34. Six Ways Not to Forsake the Assembly
35. Tent Making
36. Journey On The Narrow Path

+++

Related articles

• One in three people born in the UK this year will suffer from some form of dementia in their lifetime, the Alzheimer’s Research UK charity has warned. (grumpyelder.com)
• Israel Goldstein Youth Village looking for dates in Europe (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Looking for writers for two Lifestyle Magazines (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Change of name (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)

Rate this:

#AdultBaptism #Agape #BeingInUnion #Belgium #BiblicalTruth #BrothersAndSistersInChrist #BrothersInChrist #CapitalistWorld #Christadelphian #ChristadelphianCommunity #Christadelphians #Christendom #ChristianChurches #ChristianTruth #Christians #ChurchOfJesusChrist #ComfortZone #DwindlingChurch #Ecclesia #Fellowship #FollowerOfChrist #FollowingJesusChrist #FollowingMan #GreatBritain #HopeOfEcclesia #Influence #InterestInGod #Ireland #JohnThomas #JonDownes #LeavingTheFellowship #LivingInThisWorld #LoversOfChrist #LoversOfGod #Minority #NorthOfAmerica #NumbersAmount_ #PaganFestivities #Preaching #PreachingWork #Proclaim #Proclaiming #ReachingTheLost #Refellowshipping #RuleOfPractice #SistersInChrist #SmallCommunity #TeachingsOfChrist #Temptation #Union #UnitedKingdom #Unity #UnityInChrist #UnityInDiversity #WayOfLiving #WordOfMan

The Big Conversation – Christadelphians in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom people may find several villages and towns where there reside Christadelphians,  a body of Christians who try to base their beliefs and practices wholly on the Bible, which they regard as God’s word. They try therefore to rid themselves of the various ideas and rituals which have attached themselves to Christendom over the last 2,000 years and to return to the beliefs and practices of the first century apostles.

Being a group of people who want to follow the Nazarene Jew Jeshua, who did not want to do his own will, but always did the Will of his heavenly Father, they as the man born in Bethlehem, are living in this world but not wanting to be of this world following human traditions and human dogmas. That does not make them so popular, because people may look strange at those people who do not want to celebrate Halloween and other pagan festivities.

Because the Christadelphians are a community without the trappings of elaborate buildings, priests or icons, their institutions and fellowship-rooms not be seen straight away. The outer sights are not important for the Christadelphians who prefer to give honour to God and show a deep respect for God’s word and love to have a strong sense of family and fellowship.

On the above map you can see some of the more than 300 ecclesiae in Great Britain and Ireland. They were taken under the loop by brother Jon Downes who on the 10th of October asked

What is happening?

For him the present size & growth or non-growth of UK ecclesiae show there isn’t a, ‘No Change’ option

It’s not that we aren’t trying!

he said to about 350 Christadelphians present at Dudley college.

In this world of figures, comparisons and evaluations it is all about numbers in graphics which have to show an up-going trend and reach high peaks. this for sure can not be said about our very small community. Lots of people may think when it is not big it has no value and can not be good. But people should look at the intrinsic value and to see what a group or church is believing, following up, and how they keep to what they preach. It is true that minorities do not exert influence, and that they should have to contend on the culture or the systems around it.

Christadelphians do not fall in the temptation to pretend to be a majority, even if one is not. They do know they are just a little grain of sand in our religious world. But that does not mean that many more little grains can be put together with water and with clay form a nice vase. Though sometimes it can look like we are coming to sit more in an urn. Especially in Belgium we are in distress and can do with some support form abroad. Though looking at other countries can show us also how important it is to make more work of the announcing or making known of our society.

All over the world people may not forget that the church of Jesus Christ is never a majority, in any fallen culture, even if we happen to outnumber every[one] else around us. They should come to see that the real church of God is the church of Christ were people are willing to follow Jesus his words, his teachings, but also his manners and his aspirations. It is a place where people are willing to share the agapè love of Christ, who was even willing to give his life for others, even for those who turned against him. Would we do that?

Where Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result, and got many sorts of denominations which have lots of rituals people may like very much but which are not according to God’s Law. And that part is the most important in our building community. We should all try to live according God’s Law and love His Words more than the words of man.

Unfortunately, lots of Christians do not closely follow the Bible today and prefer to join churches in which they can keep up their human traditions. They have changed things to how they want them to be.
Since the times of Jesus, there have been small groups of people who believed what the Bible said. Many of these people were cruelly treated in times past as a result of their beliefs. Such believers united in the North of America when in 1864 broke out the Civil War. Dr. Thomas thought up the word “Christadelphian“, a name combining the name “Christ” with the Greek word “adelphi” meaning “brother”. So the name “Christadelphian” means “brothers and sisters in Christ“.

Christadelphians are grateful to John Thomas for his efforts in searching out the message of the Bible. John Thomas was not a prophet or someone special. He read the Bible, just as we try to do. Christadelphians follow Jesus Christ, not John Thomas. Not following just one man or just one human organisation gives that we may have different ideas about certain things, but that doe snot mean we would not have union with each other, though we must agree that there are certain Christadelphian groups who shamefully do not want to have contact with other Christadelphians.  According to the Belgian Free Christadelphians this is also part of the reasons why it is so difficult to show the world a bigger group of religious people under one name: Christadelphians.

Being joined together by our common faith in the Bible, and the way we live, we all should try to meet each other and have contact with each other as loving siblings. All being brothers and sisters in Christ. Though each “ecclesia” has to look after its own affairs, and choose members who determine arrangements and organise activities on behalf of their members they should feel that unity with Christ with other Christadelphians world wide and show the outside world that Jesus Christ is their head of each ecclesia.

Living in this world we do agree that “It’s not about the numbers” … …but the “numbers tell a story”. And those numbers in west Europe may be alarming. Therefore there was the call to come thereto in the UK to discuss that matter of dwindling ciphers.

Like any other western capitalist country in the UK Bible ownership and Bible knowledge has slumped, some english people also do find it a form of indoctrination when parents in their home pray and talk about God in front of their children of that child.

Jon Downes presented the anxious members a snapshot of our society in the UK.

and showed those present how a typical ecclesia looks like.

When we look at the adult baptisms in our community from related people (3,5) and from non related
(1.0) plus counting the (0.5) refellowshipping members, comparing them with the average of 10 people falling asleep and 2 people leaving the fellowship, we might say that such numbers bring the graphic line downwards.

What might happen to the Christadelphian community in the United Kingdom when they do not something to change the coarse.

happened.

Therefore lets look at the United Kingdom as an example.

what might this give to that community, where we find, like everywhere in the world members becoming older and dying, whilst the world is getting less interested in God and commandment.

In case we can bring the Gospel of the Good News to many more ears, we should be able by a co-effort of preaching to increase the interest in God again and get again some people interested in joining a community of lovers of Christ and lovers of God.

We must see that

The lost are our hope

and that there is good reason to try to reach the lost. We as brothers and sisters in Christ should love the people in the world so much that we will be offering some of our spare time for preaching work.

We are the hope of the lost

Luckily it is not all ad  or sad news.

Good News!

tells brother Downes is that we can look at

• 120 baptisms a year (4 average sized ecclesias)
• In the last 40 years, 39 new ecclesias. (Although 96 have closed & some were renamed).
• In the last 15 years,1/4 of all baptisms from non Christadelphian backgrounds were by just 16 ecclesias. (Although 1/3 didn’t baptise any)
• While many ecclesias are shrinking many are growing.
• Numbers in Africa are growing!
• Bible Learning Centres & Learning English are having a big impact

Instead of going for Plan A is it not better that we go for Plan B?

• Current UK Christadelphian population of 8-8500 is based on 223 2015 ALS Diary returns on households & 178 2015 CCH survey returns. 10 Ecclesias had neither return and were estimated on previous diary returns.
• 1985 to 2015 data based on records kept from the back of the Christadelphian, clearly subject to some error, gaps and misreporting. The last 12 months of Magazine entries were analysed separately and yielded results consistent with the records obtained.
• Net loss of 120 per annum and the 10, 5, 1 ratio derived from average of last 10 years data. Approx 240 out and 120 in. These do not include brothers and sisters movement in and out of the UK.
• Forecast from 2015 based on a linear continuation which could easily be a) more dramatic because of rapid closure of small ecclesias, ageing population, reduced home pool to draw from, fewer people to witness, higher rates of leaving the community b) less dramatic as in a smaller community there are fewer people falling asleep each year.

One of the deceases of this time is that too many people want to enjoy their own little cocoon and not getting out of their comfort zone to share life with the spiritually needy. Those who call themselves Christian may not forget that this means to be a follower of Jesus Christ and demands also doing what he required from his followers. Jesus asked us to go out in the world to proclaim the Kingdom of God. We are to make every effort to bring hope and healing in Jesus name to those in need.

We are to see that the tangible goodness of God flows into every nook and cranny of our communities – especially in those places where darkness seems to prevail. {Walking With Intentionality}

+

Preceding articles:

Religious Practices around the world

Manifests for believers #3 Catholic versus Protestant

Ecclesia to exist, grow and communities to have people communicating with each other

The Ecclesia in the churchsystem

Reasons to come together

The Big Conversation

The Big Conversation follow up

Reasons why you may not miss the opportunity to go to a Small Church

Engaging the culture without losing the gospel

Evangelisation, local preaching opposite overseas evangelism

Feeling-good, search for happiness and the church

Members of the ecclesia uniting and seeking God’s help in tribulation

Why we do not have our worship-services in a church building

Belgian Christadelphians 2013 & 2014 in review

Personal thoughts, communication, establishing ecclesia and guest writings

++

Additional reading:

1. People are turning their back on Christianity
2. Looking on what is going on and not being of it
3. London an exaggerated microcosm of the UK at large
4. Parents forbidden to pray in front of their children or to take them to church
5. State and attitude of certain people to blame for radicalisation
6. More Muslim children than Christian children growing up in our cities
7. Will Islam conquer Europe
8. Christianity to be enshrined
9. Halloween custom of the nations
10. Wrong ideas about religious terrorism
11. A call easy to understand
12. Discipleship way of life on the narrow way to everlasting life
13. Many forgot how Christ should be our anchor and our focus
14. The meek one riding on an ass
15. Do not be afraid to learn or to speak
16. Reasons to come together
17. Congregate, to gather, to meet
18. Fellowship
19. Disciple of Christ counting lives and friends dear to them
20. The first on the list of the concerns of the saint
21. Holiness and expression of worship coming from inside
22. To find ways of Godly understanding
23. Perishable non theologians daring to go out to preach
24. Who are the honest ones?
25. Certain people trying to stem freedom of speech
26. Priority to form a loving brotherhood
27. Newsweek asks: How ignorant are you?
28. Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World
29. Some christians do have problems with the Christian connection with Jews
30. American atheists most religiously literate Americans
31. Determine the drive
32. Try driving forward instead of backwards
33. Campbell, Thomas and Bijbelvorsers
34. Looking at older articles series over Russell on the previous Bible-scholar Association
35. Wanting to know more about basic teachings of Christadelphianism
36. Christadelphians or Messianic Christians or Messianic Jews
37. Christadelphian people
38. Who are Christadelphians
39. What are Brothers in Christ
40. Two new encyclopaedic articles
41. Christadelphians today
42. Keeping an ecclesia in modern times
43. Small churches of the few Christadelphians
44. Christianity to be enshrined
45. Christianity is a love affair
46. Intentions of an Ecclesia
47. Character transformed by the influence of our fellowships
48. Love for each other attracting others
49. What makes a consecrated Christian
50. A call easy to understand
51. If you have integrity
52. Work with joy and pray with love
53. To know Christ is filling life with meaning
54. The truth is very plain to see and God can be clearly seen

+++

Other articles of interest:

1. Walking in Total Dependence Upon God
2. What is God’s Will For Your Life?
3. On the Affirmation of Scripture
4. A Snapshot of the Church in America
5. a little church
6. Four Pressing Needs in Rural Communities, and How the Church Should Respond
7. If It’s All About Relationship…
8. Leading a church is not a hands free exercise
9. Walking With Intentionality
10. Living Our Faith in a New Way
11. What’s in It for Me?
12. Deacon Selection In the Small Church
13. Lord’s Day 10: God is in Control
14. Just Try a Few Things
15. “When Faith Goes, All Good Things Go”
16. Growing Deep
17. All the Wrong Reasons
18. Little Church
19. Leading Change
20. Small Groups & Grow A Small Church by Multiplying Its Small Groups
21. Living well
22. Blessed by His Hand
23. Encouragement for the Small
24. How Did You Get Here?
25. How to Impersonate a Big Church
26. What Do You Do Well?
27. Recognize the Facts
28. What are your top two struggles?
29. The Best Thing You Can Do
30. On the road to sainthood and not silent about it
31. Incognito Zone: Where the Church Is Booming
32. House Church Reaches Out to Atheists, Agnostics in California
33. The one religion that’s not part of my spiritual quest
34. Six Ways Not to Forsake the Assembly
35. Tent Making
36. Journey On The Narrow Path

+++

Related articles

• One in three people born in the UK this year will suffer from some form of dementia in their lifetime, the Alzheimer’s Research UK charity has warned. (grumpyelder.com)
• Israel Goldstein Youth Village looking for dates in Europe (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Looking for writers for two Lifestyle Magazines (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)
• Change of name (christadelphianworld.blogspot.com)

Rate this:

#AdultBaptism #Agape #BeingInUnion #Belgium #BiblicalTruth #BrothersAndSistersInChrist #BrothersInChrist #CapitalistWorld #Christadelphian #ChristadelphianCommunity #Christadelphians #Christendom #ChristianChurches #ChristianTruth #Christians #ChurchOfJesusChrist #ComfortZone #DwindlingChurch #Ecclesia #Fellowship #FollowerOfChrist #FollowingJesusChrist #FollowingMan #GreatBritain #HopeOfEcclesia #Influence #InterestInGod #Ireland #JohnThomas #JonDownes #LeavingTheFellowship #LivingInThisWorld #LoversOfChrist #LoversOfGod #Minority #NorthOfAmerica #NumbersAmount_ #PaganFestivities #Preaching #PreachingWork #Proclaim #Proclaiming #ReachingTheLost #Refellowshipping #RuleOfPractice #SistersInChrist #SmallCommunity #TeachingsOfChrist #Temptation #Union #UnitedKingdom #Unity #UnityInChrist #UnityInDiversity #WayOfLiving #WordOfMan