USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume IV > Part 54
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
You have, indeed, set no limits to the time within which I should answer your last two letters. I considered it my duty not to answer the first one, in order to spare your grey heads and great age. The last, I answered as time and opportunity permitted. Yet why should I have answered it, since "my written reply " is considered by you, (according to your communication of March 1, 1742/3 (1743) as " a paper war", in which you do not propose to engage with me. But the grievous charge (made against me), it seems you are desirous of keeping cov- ered up and secret. For you know full well that if an opportunity were given me of answering it, you would consider it quite unnecessary to present it to your Hon. Classis, because it would tend to favor Mr. Goetschius; but this is not your object according to the second article of the action of Dec. 6, (1742).
I need not defend the authority of the Rev. Mr. Dorsius. You are aware of what has been published on that matter. It is of no consequence. whether you are satisfied about it or not. You are not called to investigate that. You were only asked about the matter of my promotion (ordination), and about which, up to the present time, you have taken no definite action, except some " mumblings " concerning it. As I read over your articles of advice, I am astonished at their general tenor, which exhibits such insipid contradictions.
I. Is not the first article (of April 25, 1743), an offer tending to urge on the opponents, and no advice at all? And is it not contrary to your previous action? And does it not show, beyond a doubt, that you are not willing to do anything that may be in favor of Mr. Goetschius? Although you call yourselves im- partial, yet he who seeks my ruin is my adversary and you declare in your com- munication of March 1, (1743) " We know of no impartial parties in this affair except the Classis of Amsterdam " ; but you, certainly, are not the Classis, are you? Also the words -" Not neglect ", etc. without being asked to do that, show your inability to act impartially. And since also you did not let me know the accusations, how could you refer to your act as " mature deliberation " ?
II. And as to the Second Article: How can that be "advice ", without con- tradicting Article Three? Indeed, your own special advice to the dissatisfied party, is, to adhere to the Classis, and patiently await their decision; and to act toward others in a Christian manner :- While at the same time they want to turn a minister into a mere candidate, and rob him of his right to administer the Sacraments; they express suspicions of his sincerity, (as does Art. III); and would appoint - in the place of him who had been called in the name of Jesus Christ to preach twice upon every Lord's Day, according to Church custom, as my call plainly states - would appoint a mere Reader, and thus prevent him (the minister) from performing the service of God with his congregation; and would call such " Reading ", which would be done only in unchristian spite, " devotions ", and the "real performance of the duties of the regularly called minister ", and thus hinder all devotion in the people, in their distracted attention; and unto the allowance of all of which, the minister, (or according to your unwholesome (lit .- unsalted) language, the Candidate) must be earnestly admonished by those whom you style " Consistory-men ", but who openly despise, neglect and destroy all public worship :- I am sure that if the Hon. Classis were informed of the truth of such monstrous doings, they would have a hearty contempt for them, and oppose them. Is such a state of affairs compatible with II Article of your record, which closes with such words as " edification ", " best interests ", etc., and where you express the wish for "peace and prosperity "? If I stood in such shoes, I would not dare to utter such words, and least of all to use that expression " We beseech this of God in Christ for you ".
III. And on looking over Article III, (I ask) Does it not entirely overthrow Article II. Would the course you there prescribe be "awaiting the decision of
2792
1743
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
the Classis "? Do you desire to see me faithlessly violate my oath, my call, and my conscience?
IV and V, The slanderous language inspired by partizanship shows itself only too clearly. If you call it unecclesiastical and illegal, after having called on the name of the Lord, to choose elders and deacons, in accordance with Church Order, with only one elder, when there are no more :- (and giving this out in the form of "advice", when it is in reality a "judgement " without a hearing, is surely untimely and partial) :- yet would you on the other hand allow those again to enter upon their offices who have deserted the service of the church; who have repudiated the source from which they received their ordination; who, after often exercising their duties, have basely abandoned their office; who came them- selves to my house to present their resignations, to the grief of the whole Church of Jesus Christ :- (I ask,) Would you allow such as these again to assume their office, without at least making confession, or showing some signs of penitence; or without being re-elected and having their names announced? just because they happened to find out, that in their former positions, (as elders), they could oppose me more violently, and according to your counsels, give me more grief? Now what do you think of our little Sacramental House? Do you and those who Beek your advice, consider it a mere tavern or brothel, which can be entered or left according to any one's whim? I hope not!
And now in looking at the names of the subscribers, I am led to ask, What right has the second one to judge about the doctrine and life of a preacher? What business has Isaac Brokaw, my avowed enemy, who belongs indeed to my congregation of Newtown, to be my judge? Why are there two from Bushwick and none from Gravesend? Where is the elder from Flatbush, etc. ?
I therefore kindly request you to allow me to make a reply to the accusations against me, before they are sent to the Hon. Classis; in order that your judgement, and the responsibility for which you will be held accountable before the Highest Tribunal may not be too heavy upon you, and that your reputation as honest men may not be discredited still more.
I conclude with the sincere wish that the God of all truth, who dwells in light inaccessible, may open your eyes, so that before you go thither, you may repent of what you have done in this business both to those who see, both to the (spiritually) dead and to the living; and beneath all which evils Zion groans.
With best wishes, I remain,
Yours, J. H. Goetschius, V. D. M.
Jamaica, May 7, 1743.
P. S. In case you do not allow me to know who are my accusers, and what are their accusations, then be kind enough to place this my letter, written with my own hand, in the back of the Accusation-Book, in order that those who read the one, may also read the other.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Wys.
1742, Nov. 27th. Art. 4, ad. 5. Letter(s) from Rev. Wys; from Curacao, Vieira, Gale; from J. Pakringa; from Parimaribo, and Klein, remain likewise recommended to the Depp. ad res Exteras. xii. 40.
1748
2793
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
CHURCH OF NEW YORK.
Manor of Fordham.
New York, March 11, 1743.
Great Consistory held.
I. The following matter was presented to the meeting: Whether they saw fit to leave to the Ruling Consistory to make contract with the freeholders, P. Bussing and Benjamin Corssen, on the Manor of Fordham, concerning their right in the Commons there, so that a certain number of acres should be set off to them, reaching to their farms, and they, on the other hand, should sign off, forever, their right in the Commons. The Meeting com- mitted the whole matter to the prudent management of the Rul- ing Consistory.
II. Thereupon the Ruling Consistory appointed Antony Rut- gers, Ab. Van Wyck, Pieter Louw and Elbert Haering a Com- mittee to treat with the said freeholders on the matter, and make report to the Consistory of their arrangements with them.
III. It was thought good that the following Articles should hereafter be observed:
1. As often as the Consistory shall hereafter meet, whether of Ministers and Elders only, or of Ministers, Elders and Deacons, with or without the Church Masters, the Church-Book shall al- ways be brought or sent into the Meeting, so that every one may see what has been done in the previous meetings of Consistory.
2. No Resolution or Order of the Consistory shall hold good, unless it be written down in the Church-Book.
3. Nothing shall be written in the Church-Book by the Presi- dent or the Clerk, before the same has been read to the Consistory in session and approved by a majority of votes.
4. Whenever anything is presented through the President to the Consistory, in an ecclesiastical manner, by a member of the congregation, or when a member of the Consistory in his place brings forward any matter before the Meeting, those who are
2794
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1743
opposed shall modestly state their reasons, for consideration; and what is approved by the majority shall then be held as fixed and Resolved upon.
IV. Finally it was ordered that Mr. Hardenbroek should have instructions in writing, by which to govern himself as Overseer of the Manor. This was done and runs as follows:
RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MANOR OF FORDHAM.
March 11, 1743.
Whereas, Mr. Gerardus Beekman has died, and it is necessary to appoint a proper person in his place, to have the oversight of the Manor of Fordham and the Church-Grounds belonging to the Consistory: and inasmuch as Mr. Abel Hardenbroek was ap- pointed some time ago, but has not yet received any written order: the Consistory has approved these "Instructions", which are hereby now put in execution:
The Consistory appoints Mr. Abel Hardenbroek for this year, to run from this day, and for so many years longer as the Con- sistory of the Dutch Congregations at New York shall approve, to have the oversight of the Manor of Fordham, and the farms therein which now are, or may hereafter be leased by the Con- sistory; also of certain Church-Grounds, lying in the City of New York, (according to a list to be given him),* already leased or still to be leased: viz.,
1. He shall diligently collect all the rents of the tenents on the Manor and the Church lots in the City, as near the time they are due as possible, and shall immediately pay them over to the Elders of the Reformed Congregations aforesaid.
2. He shall carefully see to it, that all the conditions of the leases are observed by all.
3. He shall, at least twice a year, and as much oftener as the Consistory may deem necessary, to repair to the Manor, and look
* These refer, at least in part, to the Harpending lots, received by will about 1723.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2795
1743
around and learn whether any encroachment or injury has occur- red, not only by the residents thereon, but by any other person; and if anyone shall be found transgressing in anything belonging to the Consistory, to the injury of the Manor, or to any, condi- tions in any lease, he shall immediately give notice thereof to the Consistory aforesaid, that provision may be made.
In satisfaction of your trouble in the foregoing duties, the Elders will
1. Pay you sixteen pence in the pound of what money you collect.
2. They will, moreover, give you ten shillings for each journey to the Manor- there being two journeys per year to be made by you for the execution of all that is expressed in the above three Articles. Apart from the execution of these Articles the Consistory shall not be bound to pay these ten shillings.
3. Meanwhile, if any unexpected difficulties should arise, on account of which the Consistory should judge it necessary that more journeys should be made to the Manor, the Consistory will further decide what more should be paid for the expenses of such journeys.
In the name and authority of the Consistory,
G. Du Bois, p. t. President.
CHURCH OF NEW YORK.
New York, March 22, 1743.
Consistory meeting, of Elders, Deacons and Church Masters, held.
1. The committee to contract with P. Bussing and Benjamin Corssen, as freeholders on the Manor of Livingston, reported that they had agreed with them. In this the Consistory acqui- esced, and further Resolved, That the same Committee shall see to the measuring of the acreage allowed to the freeholders, and cause the writing thereof, and the whole agreement to be drawn
1743
2796
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
up by Mr. J. Chambers; and these, when approved by the Con- sistory shall immediately execute the same to the freeholders.
2. Also Resolved, That the Committee shall make an agreement with de Gree and Valentyn, residing on the Manor; and also with Jacob Lent, to rent to him both places for one farm, for five pounds yearly, for a term of seven years, and once again, for a like term.
REV. MR. COLGAN TO THE SECRETARY OF SOCIETY FOR PROPAGAT- ING THE GOSPEL.
Jamaica March 23rd, 1743.
Reverend Sir:
Our Church here is in a flourishing condition her being depressed of late by those clouds of error & enthusiasm which hung so heavily about her, has in effect tended to her greater illustration & glory.
If the Society would be pleased to order me some small tracts, such as The trial of Mr. Whitfield's spirit; An Englishman directed in the choice of his Re- ligion, Bishop Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation etc.
I'm your most obedient etc.
Thos. Colgan. - Doc. Hist. N. Y. Vol. iii. p. 193.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Hoevenberg.
1743, April 1st. Art. 4. Rev. Daniel Augustus de Liege, and Eggo Tonkens van Hoevenberg, S.S. Ministeri Candidati, had been appointed by the Noble Estimables, the Messrs. Directors of the Chartered Society of Suriname, as ministers for that colony. The Rev. Deputati ad res Exteras read certain minutes, from which such facts appeared to this Assembly. The certificates of these gentlemen, with reference to their church membership and licensure, were also read and found in order. Thereupon this Assembly made their calls ecclesiastical, and admitted said gentle- men to the final examination in the presence of the High Rev. Deputatus Synodi N. Hollandiae, Corn. Houthof, after they had preached on the texts assigned them. xii. 43.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2797
1743
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Acts of the Deputies and their Correspondence.
The Classis of Amsterdam to the Consistory of New York, April 9, 1743. No. 47.
Rev. Sirs and Brethren in Christ: Although we have received no letters from you for some time past, we, nevertheless, do not cease to be on the alert for the best interests of yourselves and churches in those lands. Last year Mr. Arondeus was sent as pastor of the church of Midwout. We have heard of his safe arrival from the newspapers, and from other sources we have learned of his ac- ceptability. We were intending to forward this letter with the Minutes of the Synod of North Holland, held last year at Amsterdam, by a no less worthy man, who was somewhat inclined to serve the church of New York in the Gospel; but to our grief, this did not succeed. We are now looking for another. May the Lord raise up such a one for us. During the past year, our church has been bereft of her pastor, Mr. Bakker. To his place, Mr. Herman Engelberts has succeeded, who was previously settled at Delft.
Whenever you require our services or advice in anything, be kind enough to let us know, and as far as possible we will comply. As to the rest, we desire that the Lord's most precious blessing may rest upon your persons, upon your im- portant ministrations, upon the congregations entrusted to you, and all who are yours, in the richest measure.
Rev. Sirs, we are
(No signature in Book.)
Amsterdam, April 9, 1743.
CHURCH OF NEW YORK.
Manor of Fordham.
New York, April 11, 1743.
Consistory held. The writings on both sides between the Con- sistory and Bussing and Benjamin Corssen, concerning the evacu- ating of land on the Manor, were read and approved; and the President was directed to sign the same and affix the seal thereto.
It was reported also that agreement had been made with Jacob Lent he should have the place of Valentyn and de Gree for five pounds per year, he having consented that Valentyn should re- main there for this year.
The President was, moreover directed to prepare an answer, at the first opportunity, to the letter of Mr. Schelluien, minister at Amsterdam, to the Consistory.
2798
1743
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Correspondence from America.
The Revs. Boel, Mutzelius and Mancius, to the Classis of Amsterdam. Dated April 14/25, 1743. xxii. 613.
Very Rev., pious, learned and highly esteemed Fathers and Brethren in Christ :-
We perceive with satisfaction that your esteemed letter of Nov. 1739, (handed to us in Nov. 1740), not only approves our zeal in the friendly exchange of cor- respondence with your Rev. body, but also honors our communication, (in which we argued as to what is necessary in our church), with the declaration that you will at all times gladly answer us. In our former letter we reminded you that the gentlemen who are for the Coetus, conceal from us their reasons for it. We re- quested, therefore, that we might receive these from you, and have enforced this with our reasons, drawn from the former letter of your own Rev. body. How righteous our complaints are relative to (your) not sending us the Acts of Synod, appears, we hope from our former letter. If it be only an empty surmise of our own, or if it be a demonstrated truth, that the gentlemen, (at least some of them, especially the principal leaders), have for their object the renunciation of all sub- ordination, we leave contentedly to your wise and prudent Classical judgement, referring with all suitable deference to the remarks before made.
We would here add that the gentlemen in favor of a Coetus, received in the fall of 1740 the consent of your Rev. body to the formation of a Coetus under cer- tain conditions. Notwithstanding, in the spring of 1741, domine Dorsius as presi- dent, and domine Frelinghuysen as addresser and clerk, acknowledged in their call (in Latin) on Mr. Goetschius, that the Presbyterian Synod in Philadelphia had li- censed him as a candidate. This Synod, as also that of New Haven, or whatever other body, composed of English dissenters, are declared, in the former letters of your Rev. body in the correspondence relative to domine Boehm and John Van Dries- sen, to have no relation with our church. And they both, upon the very respectable testimonial of that Synod, (as they term it), after some further instruction, exam- ined him finally (peremptorily), and ordained him as minister of Jamaica and Long Island. But domine Boel decidedly opposed this as unlawful, according to the remarks in the classical letter of the former year, 1740, concerning the Synod of Dort. Still domine Du Bois approved the ordination begun by the dissenters, and advanced by Dorsius and Frelinghuysen, and as a public testimony of this, he allowed Mr. Goetschius to preach publicly in his church at New Harlem. He gave as a reason, the curiosity of many to hear him. Then also domine Du Bois acted with domine Arondeus about Mr. Goetschius without mentioning the letter from Classis. Domine Frelinghuysen also, in his preface to the published sermon of Mr. Goetschius, (Jan. 12, 1743), used these words: that he is ready and willing to demonstrate the lawfulness of that ordination, but that domine Dorsius alone was adequate to its defence. He also says that if Mr. Goetschius should be shut out of the church, he could as well preach in barns, or under the open sky as in the church, as several of his brethren in this country had done before him.
Reverend Classis. It was so with Mr. Whitefield, (of whom something may be found in what is quoted and remarked by Rev. Kulenkamp, in his second book against the Herrnhutters, pp. 269, 270), who was condemned by the Bishop in Eng- land. He came here in 1739-40, and was rejected by the Episcopal minister here, domine Vesey, who was commissary, over all the churches in this province. He was refused permission also by me, (domine Boel), to preach in the Dutch Church in New York, as being against the charter, as he did not belong to us. This was also done on account of his fanaticism. He was afterward found inclined toward the Herrnhutters, and to other irregular movements; and lastly, because he was condemned by the English Bishop, and rejected by the Episcopal Church here. In this step I was approved by the .. calmly reflecting, and by the ma- jority, as well as by the most respectable of the Episcopal Church, with their ministers. In the meantime, it happened that domine Du Bois, and domine Freling- huysen, (the latter having allowed Mr. Whitefield, to preach to his congregation at
1743
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2799
Raritan), and the dissenting minister here, went in company with Mr. Whitefield out of the city of New York, into the open fields, to hear him preach. They also went up with him on the stage erected for him, and sat down behind him. This was to the gratification of many in the congregation of New York, who were embittered against domine Boel. Farther, it is best your Rev. body should be acquainted with the fact that domine Dorsius has positively declared, that he will not be subject to the Classis of Amsterdam. Yes, he has even written under his own hand to domine Boehm, that he is invested with full power, as Inspector of the Pennsylvania Ger- man Reformed churches, and has stated before the multitude that domine Boehm is not a lawfully ordained minister. Of this domine Boehm can give more particu- lar information.
You have the goodness to write that you now send to us a copy of the reasons, given by those in favor of the erection of a Coetus. But the enclosed copy of a letter of domine Reitsma, sent to us, bears the name, and is indeed only a copy of the articles for erecting a Coetus. Hence the particular request sent by us to you has not been fulfilled. But how do Articles three and four agree with what has been related of Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Goetschius? And how does Article four about subordination agree with Article ten, that they are to transmit not the mere doings, but a letter approved by the Coetus, respecting the situation of the churches in this country. We gave our opinion on Article five, in our last. In what is said by the friends of the Coetus concerning a regular manner, we humbly request the decision of your Rev. Classis. If that mean simply a majority in the vote of the consistory,- must then, whatever is so recorded be acknowledged and universally obeyed as (law), or only that which is in accordance with fundamental ecclesiasti- cal law? For example, if the consistory should be requested to decide by vote, whether a man should be allowed to preach in our church, whether he had a law- ful calling or not.
Article 6. N. B. The advice of your Rev. body shall be taken in matters of im- portance, in which your judgment is to be submitted to. According to this Article, in all differences, your advice is to be obeyed. How many a church-member is unable to write to the Rev. Classis! Who shall help him in this, when all must be bound to the Coetus, according to Articles nine and ten. How far does this differ from tyranny ?
How is Article eight followed in the case of domine Goetschius? Is Article nine followed in the document of the call on domine Arondeus, stipulating that the minister shall attach himself to the Coetus. Is this lawful according to the Synod of Dort, in the call of a minister, if he declines this express stipulation?
Had we received the reasons for a Coetus, as given by its friends, from your Rev. body, they might have thrown some light on the grounds which have furnished so much satisfaction to you, so as to lead us to agree to the formation of a Coetus, notwithstanding the objections we have forwarded. We might then have been somewhat guided in relation to our churches here. And how are these gentlemen in favor of (a Coetus) subordinate to Classis, who have not yet, as far as we know, met a single time, according to the express condition of your Rev. body. You may therefore judge whether they desire a (body) subordinated to the Classis, or one possessed of unlimited power. Domine Vesey told me, (domine Boel), and domine Muzelius, that by the Act of Toleration, any denomination, even the Quakers, may ordain their ministers. The only established churches here are the Episcopal, and the Reformed Church, (viz., the Low Dutch, the German, and the French,) provided they adhere to the Church Order of the Synod of Dort, and without prejudice to the English Episcopal Church. Here, therefore, none should assume authority, nor allow others to ordain for our churches, unless Classical authority be given, as in the case of domine Boehm; neither act here as a Classis, but strictly leave the Classical authority to your Rev. body. Otherwise there will be danger of losing our National Church rights. We therefore do well to watch against the formation of a Coetus, and against the ordinations by domine Dorsius, etc., lest we should make ourselves independent; but the Classis of Amsterdam, having. the oldest right in our church here, it becomes your Rev. body to maintain it. It is therefore to be hoped that you will speedily and authoritatively provide against the assumption of Classical authority here, and continue to reject, (as your letter to domine Arondeus appears to us to signify), the ordinations of domine Dorsius, and to show not the least favor thereto. This is the more to be considered, as Count Zinzendorf, (as domine Boehm has more particularly informed you,)
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.