USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume IV > Part 19
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 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92
Done according to the order of the Ruling Consistory, in New York, March 6, 1728/9.
G. du Bois, p. t. Praeses.
After the public reading of the foregoing, it was deemed best to delay carrying it out, because of the length of the winter, the very general sickness prevailing, and the many deaths. Mean- while, the Consistory requested from his Excellency, John Mont-
2454
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1729
gomery, our Governor, authority to make a collection in the City. To this his Excellency immediately acceded, and on the 25th of April, gave his consent and favor in writing, a copy of which is in the Book of Church-Acts.
Whereupon, having been signed, first, by the Great Consistory, and afterward, by the Ruling Consistory, at their Chamber, the paper was taken around, and such progress was made (in getting subscriptions) as is mentioned below.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Correspondence in America.
The Complainants at Raritan to Rev. T. J. Frelinghuysen, March 29, 1729.
(Portfolio "New York " Vol. i.) No. 3.
Rev. Frelinghuysen :
It is stated in the letter from you and Elbert Stoothoff to us, that you are fully prepared and willing to follow up the advice of the Rev. Classis, and to annul the sentence of excommunica- tion on certain conditions, etc., but in the letter from the Rev. Classis to us there is not a word about Elbert Stoothoff nor about your consistory; but the Reverend Classis writes us ex- pressly, that it would be best that the way of peace be managed by you, Rev. Frelinghuysen, and by us, without the intervention of others. They insist upon this, steadily, throughout their entire letter. But if that plan cannot succeed, the Rev. Classis submits to our consideration, whether there could not be chosen persons in this country, representing each side, for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation. This suggestion does not indicate how even your Consistory or Elbert Stoothoff could be included therein; (or, how equality could be attained?) after the annul- ment of a lawfully executed sentence of excommunication, as you still imagine; nor yet how you should communicate the most important arguments to us in writing. You may decline the
-
1729
2455
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
proposition from the Reverend Classis; but we insist upon its counsels of peace, without the intervention of others. You also write: We are prepared to follow up that advice on these con- ditions, etc .; when it should be, on the conditions in the advice of the Classis, by you, (alone), Rev. Frelinghuysen, with us.
Therefore we make our reply only to Rev. Frelinghuysen: The three conditions proposed to us in your letter, really amount to the same thing, as those in your former letters of Citation. Therefore we request you, to write in compliance with the letter of Classis sent to you. That would be a true carrying out of their advice. The Rev. Classis makes demands of both sides in its letter to us; and says it writes the same to you; that we should mutually labor for the restoring of the breach; because it seldom happens in such serious disputes, that all the blame will be found on one side, and this is far from being the case here. Hence the Rev. Classis has been far from considering, that your (personal) exercise of the ban has any force; or from declaring us cut off from the church; for they constantly address us as " Brethren in the Lord."
The Rev. Classis places it before each side, before you and before us, that you, Rev. Frelinghuysen, as well as ourselves, must confess, that in some instances we have spoken and acted imprudently; and neither does the Rev. Classis say that you, Elbert Stoothoff, or others, have to make any declarations at all. We agree, then, on our part, that they have not to annul the ban, as being of no force; nor to acknowledge us as mem- bers of your church; but that you, Rev. Frelinghuysen must promise to annul the ban pronounced against us, in the best and most suitable manner possible; and recognize and treat us as members of the church. And these things, instead of your for- mer imprudence, you will please henceforth to observe and show forth in very deed. This, then, will be (recognized) by the Rev. Classis as prudent and orthodox speaking and acting on your part.
1729
2456
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
We then, also, at the same time are prepared, by order of the Reverend Classis, to make acknowledgements and to promise to conduct ourselves, as members of the church ought to do, in regard to our orthodox pastor, and to show an abhorrence of all imprudence and impropriety; and to be on our guard against such things. And then your conclusion is, the God of peace incline your hearts unto reconciliation with the church. That of the letter of Classis to us, is, That we should by all means be reconciled to each other, in the spirit of gentleness and friendly accommodation, and submit to their orders. We subscribe ourselves,
Peter Dumont Symon Wyckoff Henry Vroom Daniel Sebering.
Raritan,
March 29, 1729.
To Mr. Theodore Jacob Frelinghuysen, Pastor at Raritan.
DUTCH CHURCH OF NEW YORK.
New York, May 22, 1729.
Consistory held. After calling on God's Name, it was unanimously
Resolved, 1. That the north and south wall of the New Church, and of the Tower, should immediately be carried up as high as the ridge of the roof. (This is obscure. Does it mean the north wall along Liberty street, and the south wall, at the opposite end, toward Cedar street? or does it mean the north wall and south wall of the Tower. The church stood near Liberty street, the Tower being on the Liberty street end; a large yard was on the Cedar street end; the space along Nassau street was used for burials. The writer has yet, (1902), a distinct remembrance of the ground and building, before it was leased for the Post-Office in 1844.)
2457
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1729
2. That the church shall be made close (tight?) all the way round, with doors, sashes and wooden windows (shutters?)
3. That in place of more windows in the Tower, on each story, as they are now beginning to make (them?) and will proceed, east, west and north (on the east side, west side and north side (?) the south side being against the peak of the roof,) there shall only be openings in the Tower for light, outwardly, six inches wide, and about three feet high; but inwardly, running wider.
4. That on the north church wall, on either side of the Tower, in front of (opposite?) the two lofts of the roof, where it will suit best, there shall be windows, each 18 inches broad, and 2} feet high.
5. On the south side, in the second story of the roof and in the middle, shall be two moveable windows. And the oval there, on either side, in place of glass, shall be masoned up and wains- coted outside, with wood painted like glass. But the highest oval, in the midst of the top (near the peak) shall be of glass.
6. That lead color, for a priming, shall be laid on the frame of the ceiling.
7. Mr. Van der Heul shall obtain a special account of all the work and expenses on the New Church, every three weeks; and he shall, as Director, furnish a prompt statement of the same to the Consistory, who shall (then) meet, to know how the costs stand.
8. That the wood-work of the Tower shall not be made, until a model of the same has been shown to the Consistory, and ap- proved by them.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
" The Mirror which does not Flatter " approved.
1729, April 4th. The Messrs. Examinatores Librorum report that they have examined a pamphlet entitled " Spiegel die niet Vleyt " (" Mirror which does not Flatter ") by Frelinghuysen,
1729
2458
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
and declare that they have found nothing in it that is in conflict with God's Word and the Formulae of Concord. Classis there- fore gives its approval of the same. x. 332.
[See last Entry under 1729.]
LICENSE TO MAKE A COLLECTION IN AID OF A NEW REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH AT NEW YORK. (APRIL 5, 1729.) By his Excellency Jno. Montgomerie, Esq., etc.
To all Charitable and well Disposed Persons Inhabiting the City of New York:
Whereas the Ministers Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the City of New York have by their humble Petition presented to me Set forth, That the Congregation of the said Church has Subsisted ever since this Province was planted by Christians; and Demeaned themselves in such orderly and Peaceable Manner, that by a Charter of Incorporation in the year 1696 their Church and Real Estate and all their Religious Rights were confirmed unto them and their Successors forever according to the Constitution and Directions of the Reformed Churches in Holland approved and instituted by the National Synod of Dort That by the blessing of God the said Congregation is now become so numerous that very often their present Church will not contain all the members of it, so that many of them are obliged to Refraine from coming to the Publick Worship for want of room That for preventing the Inconveniences aforesaid, and to Promote Divine Worship for the Glory of God and the Salvation of Souls the Petitioners by and with the Consent and approbation of other members in Com- munion with them, purchased a convenient spot of ground from Mr. David Jamai- son Lying and being to the northward of the French Church in the northward of this City, and built thereon another Larger Church so far as to get the same under Roof, the cost and charge whereof having already exceeded their Stock, so that a considerable Sum will yet be requisite to Complete the Same for the Pious use it is intended for And for as much as they and many of the Congre- gation of the said Dutch Church have at all times bountifully Contributed to the building and Embellishing of other Protestant Churches more particularly the Church of England in this City, they are in hopes their voluntary assistance add- ing to those of the Dutch Congregation, will Enable them to finish, and compleat the Church aforesaid Wherefore pray that I would be pleased to grant the Peti- tioners a Lycence to Crave the voluntary assistance and Contributions of all well disposed Persons within the City of New York for Compleating a Structure alto- gether intended for Divine Worship* according to the Discipline and Government of the Reformed Dutch Church, as it is Established by the Synod held at Dort in the years 1618 & 1619 and to no other use or purpose whatsoever, which pious undertaking I being willing to promote and Encourage have thought fit to grant unto the said Ministers Elders and Deacons of the said Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the City of New York, Leave Licence and Liberty to Collect and Receive the free Voluntary and Charitable Contributions of all Christian and well Disposed Inhabitants of the City of New York, towards the finishing and Compleating the before mentioned Dutch Church by them begun as by their Petition is Set forth and for so doing this shall be to them a Sufficient Warrant Given under my hand and Seal at Arms at Fort George in New York the twenty fifth day of April in the Second Year of his Majesty's Reign Annoq Domini 1729 .- Doc. Hist. N. Y. Vol. iii. pp. 291, 292.
* The Church above alluded to was erected in 1729; it stood between Cedar and Liberty streets, and was occupied as the Post Office, New York City, 1844-1878.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2459
1729
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Correspondence in America.
Rev. T. J. Frelinghuysen to the Complainants, April 19, 1729. (Portfolio, "New York," Vol. i.)
No. 4 .- Respected Sirs, Messrs. Peter Dumont, Symon Wyckoff, and Henry Vroom:
It seems strange to me that you take it in evil part, that I take counsel with my consistory, while you read your letters to me before the entire gathering which Rev. Koens (Coens) of Aquackononck, holds here. Is that stated in your letter? One might think from your long-continued and fruitless opposition to my preaching, that you had learned at least this much: that I am not compelled to allow you to prescribe laws for me. That which the Classis demands of me, as the way toward peace, is this: that I should freely confess, that in several instances, things might have been said or done somewhat differently from what they were said or done. In particular: that which was done by me alone - that should have been reported to the consistory ; Yea, should also have been done by the consistory; and that something's should not have been done without communication with the Rev. Classis. To all this, I yield, out of love of peace, and from respect for the Classis; but with this limitation: that then also no new consistory ought to have been constituted and installed in this land without communication with the 'Rev. Classis, in accordance with Art. 38 of our Church Order .*
But the intention was, not that I should have to confess that the ban was unlawful; for then also would all the consistories be unlawful which have been constituted here without consulting with the Classis; for the one thing is demanded in the Church
* Art. 38. " No new Consistory shall be constituted in any particular place with- out the previous advice and concurrence of the Classis; and where the number of elders is too small, the deacons may be admitted as members of the Consistory."
1729
2460
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
Order just as much as the other; such a confession (that the ban was unlawfull) you need never expect from me. But that which Rev. Classis demands of you, as the way to peace, is this: We require of the Complainants an acknowledgement of their im- prudence, and the recognition of you, (Frelinghuysen) as an orthodox minister; and an exhibition of all honor and love both for person and services. If you wish to comply with this, that is, to make confession of guilt, and to recognize me as an orthodox minister, and will furnish this to me over your own signatures, then I will withdraw the ban, and in such a way that the Rev. Classis will take pleasure therein. And then, to fill up your measure, I will gladly consent that impartial persons dwelling among us may be chosen as arbitrators, as I proposed in my first letter.
Your coming back to our church was suggested, in compliance with the advice of Classis; but as far as I am concerned, you are free to remain with the gathering which Rev. Koens (Coens) organized here as early as 1727, as I told you by word of mouth at our mutual conference. But in order to prevent any misap- prehensions, which you might have about this, I am forced to make also some remarks on this matter. I will not say that I approve such acts on the part of Rev. Koens (Coens); no, that be far from me. Let his preaching, his baptizing of children, his administration of the Lord's Supper here at Raritan, rest on his own responsibility at the Divine Judgement seat, and be- fore the Ecclesiastical Court; neither would I ever consent that he should preach in our church. If he should attempt such a bold thing, he would see what we would do with him. But I have no authority over your barns, in which he preaches. But that I offered you the privilege of not coming back to our church, was in order to show you my accommodating spirit. Thus, too, this will be looked on by impartial persons; but if any one of your number joins our church again, he shall be treated as a member of the church. You may interpret or explain your
2461
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1729
letter from the Classis as you think best. Any one who has a good memory knows well enough what was the nature of the dispute between me and you: namely, whether I were an ortho- dox or a false teacher. But inasmuch as it has pleased the Classis to require of you an acknowledgement of me as an ortho- dox minister, this suffices me.
I am unwilling to believe that you will use your letter to awaken new disaffections, in opposition to the aims of the Classis. The Classis, indeed, admonished both sides to peace, in an earnest and affectionate manner. But if you should do so, I should be compelled to announce publicly from the pulpit, how matters stand. Of what force the ban is, will be clear in that day when it shall appear whether your word, or God's Word is the truth. It is desirable, however, that you people do not longer disregard the salutary and just demand of Classis, but readily comply with it. Without such compliance, you will look in vain for the withdrawal of the ban.
Yours willing to serve,
T. J. Frelinghuysen.
Raritan, April 19, 1729. Addressed to Symon Wyckoff.
We attest that this agrees with the original.
V. Antonides Henricus Boel.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Correspondence in America.
The " Complainants " at Raritan to Rev. T. J. Frelinghuysen, June 10, 1729. (Port-folio, " New York," Vol. i.)
No. 5. Rev. Frelinghuysen :
Inasmuch as Mr. Peter du Mont was away from home, even as far as Esopus, and did not come back until the last of May, your
2462
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1729
letter of April 19 could not be answered sooner. We did not write you, that we took it in evil part, that you took counsel with your Consistory; but only that there is not one word of " Consistory " in the Classical letter, with which you professed to wish to comply. Although you, according to your own views, again annex conditions, do you not also confess, that your Con- sistory does not need to hold a session for this business, since you now write without it? We did not read the letter which we sent you to the whole gathering of Rev. Koens (Coens), but we had to read it to our fellow-Complainants. We are their rep- resentatives, and reading it to them, followed as a matter of course, from the Classical letter to us all. It was done so as to bring about a reconciliation of us all, if possible. We do not compel you to allow us to prescribe laws to you, but we answered you in compliance with the Classical letter.
That prescribed laws both for you and us. You write, that our long-continued opposition to your preaching is fruitless. This may be so in your view; and it is further confirmed by your to us well-known manner of acting. Nevertheless, this does not give you any right to prescribe the law to us, as you begin again to do with your particular conditions, proceeding thus again as formerly. For example, as in your writing and mentioning some- thing about the Classical letter to you, to which you profess your submission :
1. From respect for the Rev. Classis; while, nevertheless, your followers would have passed by the members of the Rev. Classis and given authority to private persons at Rotterdam, for a call to be made out for Navesink. But they knew all about Nave- sink, without your instigations.
2. And again; you write that your submission is with this limitation: but this is again something, which the Classical let- ter does not suggest; but you, over here, suggest it, as an addi- tion, saying, that there ought to be no new Consistories formed in this land without communication with the Rev. Classis; but
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2463 1729
if the Classis grants such a principle, (that Consistories can be formed independently of Classis), then you also will hold as lawful your exercise of the ban without communication with the Classis, and even when disapproved by it. Beautiful respect, this, for the Rev. Classis! and fine submission thereto. And again: If such a Consistory be lawful, then your ban is also lawful! Upon your own premises, does not this confess unlaw- fulness of the ban which you executed? And again; when you subsequently, as it were, challenge Rev. Koens (Coens) before the Divine and the Ecclesiastical judgement seats, for forming a new Consistory, and declare his act unlawful; for however much it differs from the executing of the ban, yet you place both on the same level; yea, you do even more, you even threaten him, should he ever attempt to preach in your churches. Now, is all this power of yours for doing such things expressed in the letter to you from the Rev. Classis? Or does all this proceed from respect and submission towards the Classis? Or does it not manifest anew, that over against the Rev. Classis, you as- sume to yourself alone the exercise of the ban, without commu- nication with the Rev. Classis? For you doubtless find something in the letter of the Rev. Classis to you, about the unlawfulness of your ban; otherwise you would not write about it as you do to us, and of your limitations and conditions; nor yet of annul- ling it, as in your previous letter, and now again twice, in this your second letter. For the Rev. Classis demands an annulling of the ban by you alone; but this could not be required in the case of a lawful ban, but would have to be done by the Consis- tory, after communication with Rev. Classis. Thus the Rev. Classis itself states to you what you must confess in your acknowl- edgement of guilt. Therefore you would better not write: " such a confession you need never expect from me; " But: " The Rev. Classis need never expect from me." That seems nearer to your meaning; and thus appears your respect for the Rev. Classis. And, moreover, did you not allow yourself to be invited by just
2464
1729
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
such gatherings, and organize Consistories at Schraalenburgh and Paramus, after the departure of Rev. Erickson, in order to preach there? And did you not preach there? Yet for such conduct, according to your letter, Rev. Coens should be sum- moned to give account before the Divine and Ecclesiastical judge- ment seats! And, what Rev. Coens may have done, does that justify your action against us more than six years ago? or does this belong to our present business?
Let us try to bring your statements together, and to harmonize them: That such a confession, as that your ban was unlawful, we need never expect from you. And after that: " What force the ban has shall some day be revealed." And, at the same time: " In order to fill up our measure, you nevertheless are willing that impartial persons living among us should be chosen as arbitrators?" But what then shall " impartial persons " do, as arbitrators with this your last utterance, about this most serious subject -the ban? and, precisely, "those living among us?" How definitely (they are to act) the Classis does not write?
But according to your own statement, does not the Rev. Classis write as follows:
1. That you, in several instances, should have spoken and acted otherwise than you did speak and act? Might that remark, perhaps, have reference to your orthodoxy?
2. More specifically; that something was done by you alone, which should have been done in conjunction with the Consistory. May not this refer to your applying the law to the church, ac- cording to your own view of it; and, therefore, this does not refer to your orthodoxy ?
3. That you, in conjunction with the Consistory, had done that, which should not have been done, without communication with the Classis. This must, in a most special manner, have ref- erence to the ban.
Therefore, the meaning of the letter of the Rev. Classis may easily be understood: That your ban has never been of any
2465
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1729
validity; nor, as it should be, that you are to be acknowledged as orthodox in this particular. Therefore "our confession of guilt " cannot be about that which the Rev. Classis declares to have been blameworthy in you; nor do they acknowledge you to be orthodox, in that which you ought never to have done at all; or in that which you should never have spoken, nor have done in such a way; or in that which you did alone by yourself in such a way: but in all these matters, your confession must be to us, and with improvement and reparation; and that you do not speak nor act, any more, as heretofore, as in the case of your Citations, etc. After this you again begin anew; but in place of this must your orthodox speaking and doing Our aversion to imprudent actions, we have already professed in our letter. The Classis, in their letter to us, also attributes imprudent ac- tions to you, in regard to us. Therefore you must likewise ac- knowledge your imprudent acts. Now there has been no lawful ban at all; either on your part, as imprudently executed; neither, as pronounced upon us, as upon those who are merely declared to have been imprudent; just as you have been declared to have acted imprudently toward us, by the Rev. Classis. Therefore, you are not to withdraw the ban, but the Classis is to declare it a nullity, as a ban which ought never to have been executed. Does this accord also with your compliance with the Classical counsels of peace which you profess?
In that you also write, that, as far as you are concerned, we are free to remain with Rev. Coens' church-assembly. Contrary to the Classis, then, you wish simply to be rid of us; and, accord- ing to your declaration, to hand us over anew, to an accounting before the Divine and Ecclesiastical judgement seats. Is that an exhibition of your love of peace? Is this to manifest your indulgent spirit as you call it? and that it will so be regarded by all impartial persons? 1
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.