USA > New Jersey > Hudson County > Bergen > Annals of the classis of Bergen, of the Reformed Dutch Church, and of the churches under its care: including, the civil history of the ancient township of Bergen, in New Jersey > Part 14
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29
Nor were these the only difficulties. Instances were occurring, from time to time, of members in communion of one Church, applying to the other for reception, and without regular dismissions. Of these, Mr. Fræligh received some. This was viewed as dis- orderly, and unconstitutional; and so far was it carried, that in 1818, a painful case occurred, when two persons were so received. Ecclesiastical proceedings were instituted against Dr. Fræligh, before his Classis, . which he answered, by showing that his Consistory assumed the responsibility. This involved an import- ant ecclesiastical question, as to the ministry or the Consistory of a Church being the responsible party in such a case. The case was carried from Classis to Particular Synod, and in 1822, arrived at a crisis.
214
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
The action of the Particular Synod, sustaining Mr. Romeyn's appeal, was appealed from, by the Classis of Paramus, which had sustained Dr. Fræligh. But the General Synod, by a vote of thirty-six to eight, re- fused to sustain the appeal of the Classis. This left the case open for trial, by the Classis, as an action against Dr. F., in his own ministerial capacity. the meeting of the Classis in September, 1822, the case was called up. Dr. F. was not present to pro- ceed to trial. The Classis refused to go on with the case. Mr. Romeyn appealed again to the Particular Synod, because, though Dr. F. was absent, the whole inerits of the case were before the Classis, as matter of record, and it was notorious that Dr. F. had seceded from the body of the Reformed Dutch Church. This appeal, the Particular Synod, in May, 1823. referred to the General Synod, for final trial. It was presented to that judicatory in June, following, but withdrawn by Mr. Romeyn, "upon the ground that the object contemplated would be brought up through anodier channel."
The detail just given has been somewhat minute, but we shall hereafter see, that the facts, as narrated. had an important bearing on the subject now to foi- low.
At
215
HACKENSACK AND SCHRAALENBERGH.
THE SECESSION From the Reformed Dutch Church, and the constr- tuting of
"THE TRUE REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH.'
Dr. Fræligh, in his manuscript autobiography,* transcribed 21st of April, 1825, thus writes :- "During my administration here, I have been gener- ally engaged, in conjunction with several brethren, both ministers and lay members, in opposing danger- ous innovations, both in discipline and doctrine, that were too successfully breaking into our Church, but with little success; until, in consequence of the preva- lence of the Hopkinsian heresy, we were reduced to the alternative, either of tamely submitting, or separa- ting ; when, in October, 1822, four ministers, besides myself, and seven congregations, with their consis- tories, formed ourselves into a separate body, by the name and title of the TRUE REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH IN AMERICA, adopting all the doctrines and standards established and ratified in the Synod of Dort, annis 1618-19, without the least alteration. Since our for- mation we have increased to the number of twelve ministers, and twenty congregations."
Rev. C. T. Demarest thus narrates the incipient steps taken by Dr. F.+ "Dr. F. had long labored to promote sound doctrine, pure ordinances, and correct discipline in the Reformed Dutch Church, but toiled without success. When the General Synod was in
* See C. T. Demarest's Lamentation over Dr. F., p. 27.
t Lamentation over Rev. S. Fræligh, by C. T. Demarest, pp. 27 and 64.
216
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
session, June, 1822, he informed a few friends, at the house of Mr. James Forrester, that he intended to make one more effort, and if that failed, he had done with the General Synod forever! He meant next morning to move 'That a convention be called, to de- termine what was, and what was not, the true doctrine of the Reformed Dutch Church.' The motion was rejected.
" After his return home, the Doctor assembled the Consistories, and leading members of his congrega- tions, and proposed to them 'Whether they were will- ing, with him, to separate from the corrupt judica- tories of the Dutch Church ?' Thirty-seven voted for the measure, and thirty-seven against it; these latter were not opposed to the thing, but thought that mat- ters were not yet ripe for such a step.
" The Doctor betook himself to fasting and prayer, and as he related to his aged friend, Mr. Jacobus Brinkerhoff, of Pollifly, it was impressed on his mind, that his Churches would yet go with him. In this state matters continued for a little while. At length, a meeting of both Consistories was called, at the house of Cornelius Terhune, near Hackensack, at which joint and full meeting, the measure of separation was unanimously adopted. The Doctor went to the North, to ascertain whether the ministers and churches, who had separated from the corrupt Classis of Montgomery, would unite with him and his Consistories in lifting up a banner for the truth. They consented, came to Schraalenbergh, and the cause of separation from cor. ruptions, and corrupt judicatures, was happily consum. mated, in October, 1822.
217
HACKENSACK AND SCHRAALENBERGH.
" After this, a Church was organized at Paramus, of such as could no longer endure the corrupt doctrines of Rev. W. Eltinge, which has continued to increase and prosper ; and at other adjacent places, at Mont- ville, Achquackanonk, English Neighborhood, Tap- pan, &c., churches were also formed, on the basis of truth, as the minutes of our General Synod will show."
At the stated session of the General Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church, held in the city of Albany, in June, 1823, the committee on synodical minutes reported, that "on the minutes of the Particular Synod of New York, they find an appeal of the Rev. James V. C. Romeyn, referred to the next General Synod, for final decision. They also find a reference to certain memorials, from the Rev. Wilhelmus El- tinge, and Simeon Van Winkle, Elder, and another from sundry members, ex-elders and deacons, from the congregation of Schraalenbergh, on the subject of their secession, which memorials were referred to the General Synod. Mr. Romeyn's appeal (which was on the subject of the trial of Dr. Fræligh, on the charges preferred against him, before the Classis of Paramus), was, at his own request, withdrawn, upon the ground that the object contemplated would be brought up through another channel."
The various memorials above named, were referred to a committee, consisting of Rev. Philip Duryee, Peter Labagh, and Samuel A. Van Vranken, and the Elders, Messrs. J. R. Hardenbergh, and Abraham Van Vechten.
A printed pamphlet was laid upon the table of the
10
218
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
Synod, purporting to be " reasons assigned by a num- ber of Ministers, Elders, and Deacons, for declaring themselves The True Reformed Dutch Church, in the United States of America," dated at Schraalenbergh, Oct. 25th, 1822. Signed by
Abraham Brokaw, Minister; Abraham Wortman, Elder; from the congregation of Ovid.
Sylvanus Palmer, Minister ; Peter Vosburgh, Dea- con ; from the congregation of Union.
John C. Tol, Minister; from the congregation of Middletown.
Hugh Mitchell, Elder; from the congregations of Westerlo and Middletown, in Canajoharie.
Henry V. Wyckoff, Minister ; Henry Fero, Elder ; from Second Church of Charlestown.
Solomon Fræligh, Minister ; Simon Demarest, El- der ; of Hackensack and Schraalenbergh.
Peter D. Demarest,
Albert Brinkerhoff,
William Christie,
Henry N. Van Voorhis,
Elders.
Benjamin Westervelt,
John Terhune,
Cornelius Terhune,
Henry W. Banta, r
Richard Scott,
Caspaurus J. Zabriskie,
John J. Van Buskirk,
Deacons.
David Kipp,
Samuel S. Demarest,
Richard Berdan,
David B. Demarest,
This pamphlet was referred to the same committee.
219
HACKENSACK AND SCHRAALENBERGH.
The committee reported, and their report was adopt- ed, and is as follows :-
The committee to whom was referred several me- morials of the Rev. W. Eltinge and others, together with a printed pamphlet, with the name of the Rev. Dr. Fræligh thereto subscribed, report :
That the Rev. Dr. Fræligh, as a Professor of The- ology in the Dutch Church, is directly accountable to the General Synod for misbehavior. That it appears by the printed pamphlet, referred to your committee, with the names of Dr. Fræligh, and others affixed thereto, and which they have caused to be published -
1. That Dr. Fræligh thereby avows himself as a seceder from the Reformed Dutch Church, under whose authority he holds his office of Professor.
2. That he, by the same pamphlet, implicates the constituted authorities of the Church, in the serious charges of disregard to Christian discipline ; of prosti- tuting the sacraments, by an indiscriminate adminis- tration of them ; and of sanctioning or winking at, unsound doctrines, and cherishing the promulgators thereof.
3. That he, in the said pamphlet, has united with several deposed ministers of the said Church, to de- clare themselves the " True Reformed Dutch Church," in contempt of the ecclesiastical authority of the said Church, as established by the constitution and rules thereof.
4. That the object and tendency of the said pamph- let, is to excite and promote schisms and dissensions in the said Church, and the congregations thereto belonging.
That the foregoing acts of the Rev. Dr. Fræligh, are direct violations of the duties of his office of Pro- fessor, subversive of peace and good order, and calcu- lated to excite and spread a spirit of insubordination in the Church, and to create contempt of, and resist- ance to, the regular and orderly administration of the government thereof.
220
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
Your committee are therefore of opinion, that the Rev. Dr. Fræligh should be cited, without delay, to appear and answer to the charges above detailed, be- fore this Synod.
Your committee further report-
That by reason of the press of synodical business, your committee have not been able to prepare a de- tailed report on the memorials and papers above referred to. Their general tenor represents divers acts of the Rev. Dr. Fræligh and his Consistory, as grievous to the memorialists, and that they have sought redress in the constitutional modes, prescribed in such cases ; but that the said Consistory, and the Classis of Paramus, to which they belong, either neglect, or re- fuse to act upon the memorialist's complaints. That since the secession of Dr. Fræligh from the Reformed Dutch Church, a large proportion of his congregation remain faithful to their duty, who, in consequence of the adherence of the Consistory to the Doctor, are unable to adopt any measures to secure the property of their Church, and to free themselves from the do- minion of the said Consistory ; that the memorialists, for the reasons above stated, have presented their said memorials to the Particular Synod of New York, who have referred the same, for advice, to this Synod.
The object which they wish to obtain, appears to be, to have the said Consistory deposed, and a new election ordered, with a direction to the Classis of Paramus, to ordain such new Consistory, or cause the same to be ordained.
Your committee, considering the importance and delicacy of the case, beg leave to submit the same to the Synod for their decision, without expressing any opinion thereon.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
PHILIP DURYEE, Chairman.
The Doctor was accordingly cited to appear before
221
HACKENSACK AND SCHRAALENBERGH.
the Synod ; but not appearing, a second citation was served upon him. On the 11th of June, the bearer of the citation deposed, before one of the aldermen of of the City of Albany, to the delivery of the citation- to the Doctor's reading of it, and declaring "he should not reply to it."
The Synod then adopted a preamble, reciting the acts of the Doctor, and the position he held to the Synod as Professor, as well as the serving of the cita- tions upon him, and his refusal to appear, followed by the following resolutions :
Resolved, That this Synod, by reason of such re- fusal, as well as upon an examination of the said pam- phlet, do adjudge him guilty of the several offences, so as aforesaid charged against him.
Resolved, That Dr. Fræligh be, and he hereby is removed, from his said office of Professor, for the said offences, and that he be and hereby is suspended from his office as Minister of the Gospel, until he shall ex- hibit satisfactory evidence to this Synod, of his sincere penitence, and full submission to the authority of the regular constituted ecclesiastical judicatories of the Reformed Dutch Church.
Resolved, That the Stated Clerk transmit a certified copy of the foregoing resolutions to Dr. Fræligh, and his congregation.
Resolved, That the Classis of Paramus be directed to depose the Consistory of Dr. Fræligh from office, and to organize a new Consistory in the late congre- gation of Dr. Fræligh.
In June, 1824, Messrs. Cornelius C. Cooper and Cornelius Myers, having appealed, in May previous, to the Particular Synod of New York, from the de- cision of the Classis of Paramus, refusing to conform to
222
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
. the resolution of the General Synod of June, 1823, ordering the deposition of the Consistories of Hack- ensack and Schraalenbergh; and Particular Synod having referred their appeal to the General Synod, it was taken up, and the parties heard.
The whole subject was then referred to a committee, consisting of the Rev. Dr. Milledoler, Rev. Messrs. Schoonmaker and Cuyler, and the Elders, Messrs. Frelinghuysen and Rutgers-Rev. Dr. Cannon and Mr. Field, and the Elder, Mr. J. R. Bleeker, were afterwards added to the committee.
The committee reported, and their report was adopted, as follows :
The committee to whom was referred the appeal of Messrs. Cornelius C. Cooper and Cornelius Myers, from the decision of the Classis of Paramus, report :
That they have carefully considered the case com- mitted to them, and recommend to the General Synod the adoption of the following resolutions :
1. Resolved, That although the conduct of the Clas- sis of Paramus, in not complying with the injunction of General Synod in this case, can never be justified as a general principle, yet that peculiarities have ex- isted in the case, which convince this Synod that they have not acted in the premises from a spirit of in- subordination, but from a sincere desire to promote the best interests of the Churches under their care.
2. Resolved, That the appeal of Messrs. Cooper and Myers, from the decision of the Classis of Paramus, be and hereby is, sustained.
3. Resolved, That this Synod, anxiously desirous to remove out of the way, every thing opposed to peace and godliness in the Churches of that region, and if possible, restore to them harmony and good order, will appoint a Commission to visit said Churches for the above purpose, confer with the Classis of Paramus,
223
HACKENSACK AND SCHRAALENBERGH.
and, if found necessary and practicable, ordain new Consistories.
4. Resolved, That the Classis of Paramus be re- quired to meet at Hackensack, on the first Tuesday of July next, at 10 o'clock, A. M., to confer with such Commission as General Synod shall appoint.
5. Resolved, That the Rev. Drs. Philip Milledoler, James S. Cannon, and John Knox; and the Rev. Messrs. Thomas De Witt, Jacob Sickles, Jesse Fonda, Cornelius C. Cuyler, John Ludlow, Jacob Schoon- maker, Cornelius D. Westbrook, and David S. Bogart, and the Elders, Messrs. Abraham Van Nest, Jacob R. Hardenburgh, Isaac Hyer, James C. Roosevelt, John Frelinghuysen, and Henry Rutgers, compose said commission.
Respectfully submitted,
P. MILLEDOLER, Chairman.
Resolved, That the chairman of the committee ap- pointed by the adoption of the above report, be directed to preach at the time of the meeting of said committee with the Classis of Paramus, and that the Rev. David S. Bogart be his secundus.
Resolved. That the stated clerk be directed to noti- fy the members of the committee not now upon the floor of Synod, of their appointment, and also, to noti- fy the Classis of Paramus of the appointment of such committee, and of the time of their meeting.
Resolved, That the stated clerk transmit a copy of the preceding report to the Consistories of Hackensack and Schraalenbergh.
Resolved, That any five of the commission appoint- ed to meet with the Classis of Paramus, regularly convened, shall be a quorum for the transaction of business.
On the 6th of July, 1824, the Classis of Paramus, and the Commission of the General Synod, convened
224
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
in the church at Hackensack, on which occasion the Rov. Philip Milledoler, D. D., preached on I. Corin- thians, 1: 10. " Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the sami thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment."
This is an able discourse, peculiarly appropriate to the time, place, and circumstances, and together with " An Address of the Commission of General Synod to the Ministers, Officers, and other Members of the Re- formed Dutch Church, and especially to the Ministers and Churches of the Secession," was printed, and ex- tensively circulated.
The latter document is signed by Doctors Milledoler and Knox, and Abraham Van Nest, Esq., as a sub- committee. Those who would see the real merits of the controversy, are referred to this carefully prepared paper, which thoroughly refutes the allegations of the Secession, and clearly shows, how unwarranted the whole movement was, in the estimation of the Com- mission of Synod, and of those adhering to the Re- formed Dutch Church. It is penned in kind and Christian language, and if it availed for no other pur- pose, is of historical value. We have not space to insert the whole of the document, but some brief ex- tracts will serve to show the true state of the case, and the action of the Commission of the Synod, as well as the spirit manifested on both sides.
After a pertinent, though brief introduction, and a reference to the organization of the so called " True Reformed Dutch Church," they express sorrow, in
225
HACKENSACK AND SCHRAALENBERGH.
recognizing at the head of the Secession, "a Minister of the Gospel, venerable for his years and standing ; one in whom the Church had formerly reposed high confidence, and to whom, under God, she was rather entitled to look up as her counsellor and her defender, than to contemplate as her accuser and judge." * * * " With this gentleman were associated several minis- ters not in good standing, being then under sentence of deposition from the sacred office." In reference to the instrument of writing adopted and subscribed by the seceding persons, "the object of which was to state and to justify the reasons for their secession"- they recite the marks of a true Church, as laid down in that production, and assenting to the abstract de- . clarations of the first three positions, and so much of the fourth as recognizes Jesus Christ as the only head of the Church, they object to the demand for "abso- lute perfection, as an additional mark of the true Church of God," as betraying both ignorance and presumption ; and if this mark were rigidly carried out, it would not leave a single true Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
Then follows a review of the application of these criteria to the Reformed Dutch Church, by the Seces- sion, to show her apostacy. "A serious attention," say they, in page 6 of their printed proceedings, "to the state of that body, called the Reformed Dutch Church, as it now exists, and comparing it with these marks, will discover a departure of that body from its adopted standards." And again, in page 9: " We now turn to a statement of melancholy facts, in relation to the judicatures of that body, from which it will be 10*
226
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
seen that it has lost its soundness for doctrine, and be- come deeply tainted with error."
The Commission then ask, "What are these facts ? We seek for them in vain, in the place where they ought to have appeared ; but near the close of the in- strument, we find them intermingled, and entangled with other matters, in deep confusion.
" The first adduced, is the case of Rev. Conrad Ten Eyck. Mr. T. had been charged with being an advo- cate of general atonement. The case was tried by the Classis of Montgomery, and eventually came before General Synod, in 1820. The opinions of Mr. T., as expressed in his pamphlet, were decidedly disapproved and condemned, and he received their public reproof. But from his explanation, that though the atonement of Christ was, in itself, of infinite value, yet that he died savingly only for the elect. And as from other expressions, and his whole deportment on that occa- sion, Synod had reason to believe he was conscious of having acted unadvisedly and imprudently, they did judge there was not sufficient ground for his suspen- sion."
" Another charge brought against our Church is, that of deposing her ministers for no other crime, but that they could not, in conscience, associate with men who advocate Hopkinsian errors.
" The whole of this matter is, that the ministers al- luded to were deposed from their offices, not for main- taining truth against error, but for insubordination to the constituted authorities of the Church; and for such insubordination too, as placed their best friends in a situation, in which it was impossible for them to
227
HACKENSACK AND SCHRAALENBERGH.
justify their conduct. Those who read the minutes of General Synod, for the year 1820, will perceive the source of all the evils in this case, now charged upon the Church at large."
Other grave accusations are set forth and responded to, but what is quoted above will give some idea of the general features of the controversy.
That Dr. Fræligh had long entertained the idea of separating from the Reformed Dutch Church, was dis- affected, and had encouraged, and even proposed a secession, twenty years previously, the following docu- ments certainly attest :-
A true extract from a letter of the Rev. Solomon Fræligh, to the Rev. W. Eltinge, dated Schraalen- bergh, Dec. 30, 1799. "I hope in your route to the Northward, you will not forget that General Synod is to meet in June next; especially when you fall in with intelligent characters : my respects to all that love the Lord Jesus. If you can make it convenient, visit Drs. Goetschius and Doll: I think it would be ad- visable that the appealing ministers of this Classis, each with an elder, should meet in the course of the winter to consult on measures relative to our affairs ; if you concur with me, you might propose the same measure to my brother, Dr. Goetschius, and other dis- satisfied members of Kingston Classis. I shall pro- pose it to our friends in Brunswick Classis ; and if an opportunity offers, shall write to those of the Classis of Albany. The Lord is at this day evidently purging his floor and fanning his wheat; he is drawing the line of distinction between thenominal and the real, both of ministers and people," &c.
(Signed) WILHELMUS ELTINGE. Albany, June 6, 1823.
2d. A true extract from a letter of the Rev. Solo-
228
HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF
mon Fræligh to the Rev. J. S. Cannon, dated Schraal- enbergh, Sept. 12, 1805. "The general state of religion in the Dutch Church, is truly lamentable, evidently owing to the almost total neglect of disci- pline, the admission of multitudes of carnal professors to the holy ordinances, and the conduct of the generali- ty of our ministers, who caress the men of the world, and evidently prefer their friendship to that of experi- mental professors, stand aloof from ministers who labor to take the precious from the vile, and betray their envy and prejudice against them ; and whenever a question is agitated relative to discipline, uniformly decide in favor of error and laxity. Quere, can such a church stand ? and will those who groan under this weight ever see the pleasure of the Lord prosper, un- til they come out from among them and separate them- selves from a CORRUPT CHURCH? What would you think of the majority of the ministers of a Classis giving their opinion that the denial of the doctrine of predestination ought not to bar any one from Church membership ?"
The above extract supports fully the statement I made in the Board of Superintendents ; yet there is another letter of Dr. F. which expresses his mind more fully ; but I cannot lay my hands upon it at this moment.
(Signed) JAMES S. CANNON.
June 2, 1823.
3d. A true extract from a letter of the Rev. J. R. Hasbrouck to the Rev. W. Eltinge, dated Charleston, Feb. 3, 1823. "With respect to the Doctor's obser vations on the subject of a secession, while under his care, the following is at present, to the best of my re- collection, the substance. Secession in the Scotch Church, (was by the Doctor introduced as a topic of conversation with his students at that time, viz: De- marest and myself), which Fisher and the Erskines
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.