USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume IV > Part 53
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
Your willing servants,
V. Antonides John Arondeus G. Du Bois.
Isaac Broka
1743
2784
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
Breukelen, at the Ferry, Feb. 14, 1743. (Vol. xxii. 616.)
No. 4.
Having again met at the appointed time and place, a joint Consistory was held by those deputed from the Rev. Consistory of New York, viz., Do. Du Bois and Christoffel Bancker, elder, on the one side, Dos. Antonides and Arondeus, min- isters on Long Island; Johannes Lott, Isaac Brokaar, Jeremyas Remsen, Albert Coerten and Folkert Folkertsen, elders of Vlackebosch, (Flatbush), New Amers- foort, Boswyck, (Bushwick), Breukelen and New Uytricht.
Several complaints and accusations about the misconduct of Mr. Goetschius were presented. Mr. Goetschius did not appear at this Meeting, but a letter from him was handed in by his brother, the contents of which are as follows:
Dear and Respected Gentlemen :- [Feb. 10, 1743.]
I have learned from the letter of your Reverences that you expect me at the Ferry on the 14th instant, to acquaint me with your conclusion on our request seeking your advice. But this is an unthought of and an unexpected occurrence. For certainly I did not understand, after the already given decision, that any- thing more was to be expected, except the giving out of copies of the accusations preferred against me. About these, Rev. Gentlemen and you, the respective Con- sistories, I most properly determined to consult with my Consistories at home, and this has been done. The charges were partly answered by denials, and partly by silence; and this shows that our case is now settled. But this (new demand) takes away all opportunity for me to defend myself before those, who are at present absent, but who are truth and peace loving people,- to defend myself against those false accusations preferred against me, their teacher, by certain parties who have been prompted thereto. (Lit., re-enforced thereto.)
But when peace-loving people, members of the Church of Jesus, reflect upon these resolutions, and this proposed meeting, and the parties already summoned and to be summoned, as well as some other circumstances, a doubt arises in their minds whether the true welfare of the Spiritual Zion is kept in view. I am, however, very willing and ready, since it is thus ordered, to answer your Reverences concerning these trumped-up charges, if you will only be courageous enough to let me first look upon the papers, and, (as is generally granted to honest people), give me sufficient time and opportunity to defend myself in writ- ing before unbiassed parties; for I am afraid to deal with parties who keep themselves in concealment. My duties, etc., do not allow me time for this. And then, neither is the proof obvious to us that your Reverences have any authority to interfere with me in my duties and services by such resolutions, intended to produce such effects; and to set yourselves up as judges. You offer to join hands with my adversaries, and so support them in their unchristian and inhuman efforts, etc. They, indeed, would be ready, as often as your Reverences might please, to assemble, to fabricate the most inhuman lies, and press them upon you. For such acts are not altogether uncommon. They have occurred before my time as we have heard and learned.
We will, however, pass this by, and refer it to him who will judge justly; and your Reverences will not give your final decision in my case until that day, when you, with me, will stand before His face.
Your Reverences' servant,
J. H. Goetschius, V. D. M.
Queens County,
Feb. 10, 1743.
The address was:
Messieurs Du Bois, Antonides and Arondeus; at the Ferry to York. (This was on the Brooklyn side, not far from the present Fulton Ferry.)
N. B. The meeting of these deputed ones now requested Do. Du Bois, as President, to draw up an indictment of the written complaints and charges pre- ferred against Goetschius: and also the draft of a letter to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, that those Rev. Gentlemen may be informed about this case of Goetschius.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2785
1743
No. 5.
Letter from the deputed members to consider the Goetschius case, to J. H. Goetschius, March 2, 1743, in answer to his communication of Feb. 10, 1743. (Amsterdam, Vol. xxii. 616.)
Sir :-
The committee having again assembled on Feb. 14th, a letter was handed in from you, signed Feb. 10, 1743, whereto this serves as a Christian answer, having been prevented from answering before.
We did not write to you, in our communication of Jan. 31, (1743), with the least intention of making known to you our final decision. We made it clear enough, however, in that letter, by the expressions used, that we had not yet reached a conclusion, and therefore we said that we would assemble for further consideration of the matter.
The accusations, to which you seem to refer, were read before you, and you gave an answer to them. Why should we give you, therefore, any extracts of the same, except for ecclesiastical purposes, such as a higher Church-court, before which you may have to defend yourself, if affairs so require. But this would never serve your particular aims and continued separation; and our action, purely ecclesiastical as it was, was at your own request.
It grieves us, indeed, that we must infer, from your letter, that you even now, though without reason, speak of us as assembling for any other purpose than the welfare of God's Church. We assert that that is our sole aim. It is in no wise our intention to enter upon a paper-war with you. We know no impartial parties in this affair, except the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, to which we stand sub- ordinate. Before it we intend to present your case. Nevertheless if you are willing to be influenced, we are ready to appoint a time and place for meeting.
Be it far from us to assume to sit as judges in your case. We simply intended, at your request, to act in an ecclesiastical manner, after hearing both parties. A second time an Assembly was held with the same intentions, and we shall prob- ably have to meet hereafter, until we shall have arrived at a final Christian decision. But it is in no wise our design to bolster up (lit .- stiffen up) any one, in any unchristian purpose, whosoever he may be.
Meantime, we would say, that it was not a very prudent remark in your letter to accuse in writing, (lit .- with your pen), members of your own congregation, otherwise blameless, of being ready "to fabricate the most inhuman lies, and to press them upon us;" and among whom you still expect to move about as their Christian leader. Does that exhibit a "judgement of peace "? or is that the way to bring your affairs to a desirable end? And then, moreover, he who with but a little composure, considers the last lines of your letter, must understand the biting absurdity of the same only too clearly, and no reasonable man would think it worth while to answer them.
And have not such expressions sprung from an unpardonable misconception of our note to you on Jan. 31, as was shown above? At least, when did we speak of God's final judgement on you? Or did this remark of yours simply serve to declare yourself against your own request, that you do not intend to obey any ecclesiastical rules whatever? As we do not aim for anything except the mainte- nance of the Truth and of genuine godliness, by the observance of all proper Rules of the Church so far as it is possible and practicable among us, to the honor of God and the extension of Christ's Kingdom; so we pray also that God may give you henceforth, calmer thoughts; that hereafter you may not use such excitable words, which serve rather to injure than to benefit your case.
Most heartily do we wish that a spirit of long-suffering, and of all Christian prudence, which are so becoming a person whose aims are right, and which you especially need to keep in mind, may be granted you. Praying both for your physical and spiritual welfare in all respects, we remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant in the Lord,
G. du Bois, V. D. M. In the name of the Committee.
March 2, 1743.
2786
1743
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE TO MR. GOETSCHIUS, MARCH 9, 1743.
(Vol. xxii. 616.)
No. 6.
Sir :-
The Committee on the differences between you and members of the Consistory on Long Island, etc., deem it necessary that they may act in only an ecclesias- tical way, to place before you, in all kindness the following questions. We expect them to be answered by you in a becoming and definite manner. The questions are:
1. Are you willing to subject yourself, (and to do so immediately, with your answer to this question), to the Ecclesiastical Rules of the Dutch Reformed Church, according to the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618, 1619?
2. Are you willing to subordinate yourself to the Classis of Amsterdam, and to submit to her ecclesiastical decisions, not only as to the differences which have now arisen, but also in reference to those which may hereafter arise, but which we hope may never occur?
3. Are you willing to promise to make no other use of the complaints which may come up for consideration in reference to yourself, except to answer them simply, in writing, for ecclesiastical uses, either to the Committee, or directly to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam?
4. And finally: Have you ever shown to the Rev. Consistory of Jamaica, or to that of any other congregation to which you have ministered, any certificate of Church-membership?
The Committee kindly request you to answer these four articles in writing. If your honor do this, so that you fully agree to the first three articles, and give us assurance thereof in writing, promising to act upon them faithfully; then the Committee will immediately furnish you with a copy of the charges as formulated.
The Committee consider this to be the ecclesiastical way of procedure, and hence very proper. They will therefore expect your concurrence thereto shortly. They remain, after Christian greeting, Sir,
Your honor's servants,
G. du Bois, In the name of the Committee.
New York, March 9, 1743.
Answer of J. H. Goetschius to Committee's Letter of March 9, 1743. (Vol. xxii. 617.) (No date.)
No. 10.
Rev. Gentlemen :-
In answer to the letter of your Reverences of the 9th inst., I have hitherto not found opportunity to waste time on so unnecessary a matter.
I would ask you, in the first place, what I am to understand by your expres- sion - " Differences between you and the members of the Consistory?" Can a teacher have members in his Consistory who have deserted the service of the church, and who are not, therefore, officers of the church?
I could also most kindly wish for you, that you with God's gracious light, might experience a revelation of just what you are doing. Then people would more eagerly listen to you; while they would also long for a different kind of ecclesiastical treatment from what has hitherto been accorded them.
I also kindly ask you to inform me, whether you have possibly since the last meeting, received a commission from the Rev. Classis, to which you declare your. selves subordinate, since you now come forward with such orders.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2787
1743
To the first order:
I also kindly ask you, whether you have yet suspended Dos. Dorsius and Fre. linghuysen. If not, then my subordination holds good under the Acts of the Synod of Dort, and does not require repetition, as the fact is already declared in my promotion, (ordination). But if you have suspended them, then I must yet ask, whether you have authority to subordinate me, to receive me, and to engage me to do etc., etc.
I ought also first to know whether the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam would be pleased to take me as a member under its protection. And if they are willing to do so, then I am not obliged to render any account to you, at least before, and unless, you receive authority to act.
To the third order:
I do not recognize you as a Committee, nor as judges, nor as mediators. But if I should do so, would you really be impartial? If so, then I might still be at liberty to recognize you as mediators. But if you will not inform me who the Complainants are, and what are the Complaints against me; and thus, undefended, you blacken my character before Classis, then undoubtedly, the Classis will finally give its reward, as was done in Domine Frelinghuysen's case.
To the last:
We show as much respect as your Reverences do, when we put such questions to you. And finally, I desire that you would sustain your own conduct by a written answer, and certify to me, upon what basis such doings as yours can pass as ecclesiastical and proper.
With salutations, I remain,
Your Reverences' willing servant,
J. H. Goetschius, V. D. M. on Long Island.
The address was:
Mr. G. du Bois, at New York.
Charges Formulated against Goetschius, April 25, 1743. (Vol. xxii. 616.)
No. 7.
The principal complaints against Rev. Goetschius, presented to the Committee, at the Ferry, on Feb. 14, 1743, by several members of the Consistory and by members of the Dutch Reformed churches of Jamaica and New Town, on Long Island, were as follows:
1. That Rev. Goetschius seems to have been well aware that Rev. Dorsius had no authority from any Classis or Synod in Holland, to qualify him as min- ister at Jamaica, on Long Island, etc.
Rev. Goetschius seems to have been very equivocal in his statements on this matter. At one time, he seems to have declared that Rev. Dorsius had no au- thority; but at another time, his honor maintained the opposite, with strong ex- pressions; that Rev. Dorsius had authority to promote, from Rotterdam. At still another time he admitted that Rev. Dorsius had no power to admit any one to the ministry in the Province of New York, but that he had, in the Province of Pennsylvania. Indeed, Rev. Goetschius said, when he returned last fall from a visit to Rev. Dorsius, that he had examined the papers of Rev. Dorsius, and that he could not find that he had any power to promote him; yet that shortly after, he denied that he had said so.
And even as Goetschius seems to have dissuaded the elders at Newtown from listening to Rev. Classis and their orders, because, (as Goetschius said), Rev. Dor- sius held his power from the Synod of North and South Holland, which was above a Classis, and no Classis therefore, could call Dorsius to account; so, (he per- suaded them) that to adhere to the Church Order would simply be to erect a new kind of Popery; and that such Rules were only Popish fables.
II. That Rev. Goetschius had several times allowed his brother, although he was not yet a member of the Reformed (Dutch) Church, to preach publicly be-
2788
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
fore the congregation; that he maintained that his brother's preaching was Scrip- tural according to Acts 13: 1, 2, and in conformity with Church Law, although he was not yet a member.
That he had also threatened to remove certain ones from office who were nem- bers of Consistory, because they were against the right of his brother's preaching.
That he had also said to certain members of the Consistory, that if they wanted to listen to other ministers, they might say, "Farewell, Long Island;" for they had been conducting themselves improperly for these twenty years; that they who were against his brother's preaching, took counsel with his enemies, the older ministers; that by these, he would not be judged. With them he wanted to go before the judgement-seat of God, when he would be justified, and they condemned.
III. That Rev. Goetschius, according to the testimony of several members, had taught, that they who would come to the Lord's Supper must first be assured of their regeneration and salvation; but that, on the other hand, the old min- isters were only soft-soaping sinners (by not demanding these things.)
IV. That his honor also assumes that no one can pray "The Lord's Prayer " except the truly regenerated; that we ought to make the children acquainted with God, and then they themselves would pray from the spirit; that a form of prayer only flowed out of the mouth; that his own parents had made him pray in that way in his youth, but that he was now heartily sorry for it.
V. That Do. Goetschius, although Rev. Dorsius had no authority to qualify him for the ministry, was nevertheless unwilling to wait for the advice of a Com- mittee, or for the decision of the Classis of Amsterdam; but that he, against the decision of his elders, was determined to preach, as if a lawful minister, at once, and to administer the Sacraments; and that he yet continues to baptize.
VI. That Rev. Goetschius had proclaimed publicly from the pulpit, and before the congregation, that a believer ought to know the time and hour and place of his regeneration.
These were the principal complaints collected by us, the undersigned, from the accusations handed in against Mr. Goetschius. They are all from such men, mem- bers of the Consistory and congregations of Queens County, who are the stanch defenders of the Reformed Dutch Church, and who are, so far as we know, men of upright lives.
We, therefore, intend to hand the same to Mr. Goetschius, that he may ecclesi- astically defend himself concerning them, inasmuch as he has answered our letter of March 9, 1743, and has consented to the same.
Signed by the Committee.
Isaac Brokaar
G. du Bois, Pres.
Jeremias Remsen
V. Antonides
Folkert Folkersen
J. Arondeus, V. D. M.
Chris. Bancker
Albert Coerten Johannes Lott
Ab. van Wyck.
Breukelen, at the Ferry, April 25, 1743.
Report on the Goetschius Case. April 25, 1743. (Vol. xxii. 617.)
No. 8.
The advice of the Committee to Rev. J. H. Goetschius, and to the Consistories and members of the Congregations of the Reformed Dutch churches in Queens County, on Long Island, upon their written request of Nov. 18, 1742.
Inasmuch as we, the undersigned, as a Committee of our honored Consistories of New York and Kings County on Long Island, have met together several times for the purpose of consulting together, in reference to the difference between Rev. J. H. Goetschius on the one side, and the Consistories and members of the Reformed Dutch Churches of Queens County, L. I., on the other side, upon their
1743
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2789
1743
written request of Nov. 18, 1742; for the purpose of giving them suitable counsel and advice on certain points: not only in reference to the promotion of Rev. Goetschius by Rev. Dorsius, but also in reference to other differences, as these are more fully expressed in the request of J. H. Goetschius himself:
And inasmuch as Rev. Goetschius, to our sorrow, notwithstanding his own writ- ten request, has separated himself from us ever since our first meeting; and up to the present time has not even answered our last two letters, which made him the recipient of the written complaints brought against him, and admonished him to defend himself in an ecclesiastical manner, as was expressed in the last letter:
Therefore this paper is intended to serve as a declaration of our united christian and ecclesiastical advice to Rev. Goetschius on the one hand, and to the Con- sistories and members above referred to, on the other hand, after our mature deliberation of all the facts which have come before us, in the matter referred to: Our advice is as follows:
Inasmuch as it has not at all appeared to us that Rev. Dorsius had ecclesiastical authority from any Synod or Classis in Holland, to qualify Goetschius or any one else for the ministry; and inasmuch as we are positively assured, of this, by a letter from Mr. Schiphout, written in the name of the Classis of Amsterdam; not to speak of Rev. Goetschius's own declarations, that it seemed as if Rev. Dorsius had not, indeed, full power to promote; therefore we advise:
I. That, inasmuch as we shall not neglect to lay this whole matter concerning Rev. Goetschius, and his Consistories, etc., as it has come before us, impartially before the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam.
II. We counsel and advise, with all urgency and in the kindest manner, that you, Rev. Goetschius, on the one side, and the said Consistories, etc., on the other side, together with all the congregations of Queens County, allow the whole matter to rest with the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, and patiently to await their decision; and then to act entirely in accordance with it. Meanwhile, we earnestly admonish you in a Christian way toward one another.
III. That meanwhile, Rev. Goetschius simply preach in an orthodox way, with- out administering the Sacraments.
IV. That the elders and deacons who were in office when the above-mentioned request was handed to us, faithfully and unceasingly attend to their official duties.
V. And our further advice is, that the election in which he (Goetschius?) and one elder, chose new members of the Consistory was not done in an ecclesiastical way, and is therefore wholly illegal.
Behold, friends! such is the simple ecclesiastical advice which we give you, on your own written request, and in subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam. And as such, we urge it upon you all on both sides most earnestly, for your own highest edification, and with the hope of seeing you all again at peace with each other, brought about in a Christian way. And for your own best interests we beseech this of God in Christ for you, from our hearts.
As the evidence of the truth of our opinions, on all the foregoing, this is per- sonally attested by all the undersigned .*
Isaac Brokaar Jeremias Remsen Folkert Folkertsen Albert Coerten
G. du Bois
V. Antonides
J. Arondeus, V. D. M. Chris. Bancker
Johan Lott
Ab. van Wyck.
Breukelen, at the Ferry, April 25, 1743.
(* See another translation of this Report under date of April 25, 1743.)
45
2790
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1743
Special Request to the Consistories of Queens County. Bruek- elen, April 25, 1743.
We further advise the Consistories of Queens County that they present our advice to the Rev. Goetschius, and ask him, whether his honor will be pleased henceforth to preach only as a candidate without administering the Sacraments. If his honor says that he will do so, you will have to abide by that decision. But if he will not preach, except as a minister (ordained), you will then tell him, that he shall not do so; but that you yourselves will see to it that a sermon is read in the Church, and that a prayer shall be offered; and you will, further, warn him not to interfere with your devotions.
In the name of the Committee,
G. du Bois V. Antonides Joh. Arondeus, V. D. M.
We testify that all this agrees perfectly with the principal papers, and that all was done accordingly.
G. du Bois Chris. Bancker Ab. van Wyck.
New York, 1743. (No. 9?)
Answer of Rev. J. H. Goetschius to the Committee, May 7, 1743. (Vol. xxii. 618.)
Rev. Gentlemen and Gracious Advisers :-
I consider myself under obligations again to address you, and give you a little more accurate information in reference to your procedure about me and my affairs; for it seems to me you have never yet looked into the real cause of these troubles.
Is it not, indeed, an unpardonable blunder that you should feel aggrieved be- cause I withdrew myself from you after that first meeting, when, by your con- clusion, you showed as plainly as daylight, that you had answered and solved my questions? Indeed, in your own words, it is thus expressed: " Having as- sembled on December 6th " :- N. B. "having acted "- in perfect tense, " this was the conclusion "- N. B. "the conclusion ". Now do you think I know what conclusion means? It is " conclusion ", a closing, or finishing up of a mat- ter; and the word " was ", in the perfect tense, shows as clear as sunlight, that in your estimation our request was answered.
The second public meeting was held, (according to your own words as they appear in the communication of Jan. 31st, to my Consistory,) upon the " request " of Messrs. Joh. Polhemius and Brinckerhoff. The first-named was not a member of the Consistory, and the other not even a member of the church; and yet you say -"At your request". I pray you, be a little more honest in such matters. I would like to know how long you consider this " request " available, after you yourselves have " closed up " the same with a " conclusion ". On such an ar- rangement you might hold a meeting a score or more of years hereafter, if any difficulty should arise among us, in order, still further, to advise, conclude, order, etc., upon this same old "request ", although long since answered; and if I did not concur, you might find fault with me, because, "it was contrary to my own written request."
You have acted very unhandsomely in considering those who signed that re- quest as constituting two opposing parties, and to intimate that the Consistory and the church generally were opposed to me. I had held heretofore a better opinion of you. You must certainly have known that we were unanimous in
2791
1743
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
signing that request. The opposite party did not sign it at all. Such were John Polhemius, formerly an elder, deposed in Newtown. And have not those who have become opponents since that time, gone out of the Corsistory, and hence are separated from those who made the " request " (for that meeting)? For this, I have to thank you. But by the grace of God, who has helped us hitherto, the Consistory, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ, still stand by me, and are kindly disposed toward me in all Christian fellowship, and give no heed to evil counsels.
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.