USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume IV > Part 64
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
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Correspondence from America.
The Committee on the Goetschius Case to the Classis of Amsterdam, Jan. 13, 1746. (Extracts, xxiii. 52-56.)
To the Very Rev. Classis of Amsterdam,
Reverend Gentlemen and Respected Fathers in Christ :- The letter written by the Rev. Messrs. P. Hollebeek and H. van Alphen in the name of your Rev. Assem- bly on the 20th of November 1744, was received by us only in the beginning of November 1745. Therefore, with all due submission, we could only recently act carefully, according to its contents, and the directions given to us. The accusations against Domine Goetschius and which have been brought before the Rev. Classis, shall be examined by us as carefully as possible; and the proofs, if there are any, shall be brought together, that they may be judged according to truth, and that the Rev. Classis may have our report. We heartily wish that this man had not given cause for so much trouble to the Rev. Classis, nor for so many time-con- suming and not less disagreeable meetings to our Committee; and that he had prevented, which he might so easily have done, the shameful divisions and con- fusions, which are an offence even to outsiders. All this would have been possible, if he had only behaved himself peacefully, truthfully and wisely.
By mutual agreement it was decided to meet the first time at the (Fulton) Ferry on Long Island, opposite to this city, on the 20th of November 1745. To this meet- ing Domine Goetschius, on the one side, and the accusers on the other, to wit, R. Schenk, A. Montfoort and the others were invited in writing to come. This they did.
I. The Committee met in session at the Ferry, November 20, 1745, O. S. There were present, Domine Du Bois and Domine Arondeus; and Messrs. C. Banker and A. van Wyk, of New York; and Messrs. Albert Courte, Jer. Remsse, Isaac Broka, Philipp Nagel, Volkert Volkertse and Joh. Lott, all of Long Island.
1. Domine Goetschius and his accusers who filled the room, were called in and the letter from the Rev. Classis, of November 20, 1744, was read to them, so that they might know, what the Committee had been charged to do; and also so that everybody might conduct themselves according to its directions. After the ac- cusers had withdrawn,
2. A passage from the letter of the Committee to the Rev. Classis in May 1744, concerning what had occurred at Midwoud on the 1st of May 1744, was read to Domine Goetschius. This was done, because
The Rev. Classis was astonished at the communication of the Committee, being diametrically contrary to the written statements of Goetschius as sent to the Classis. Goetschius now declared before the Committee, in the presence of several of his friends who had remained with him when the accusers withdrew, that the affair at Midwoud had truly taken place thus: Nota Bena, although his Rev. had rashly, on account of the letter of the Rev. Classis to him, said to one and another,
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2895
1746
that the Committee in their letter to the Rev. Classis had used truth rather sparingly
3. Then, at the request of the meeting for a copy of the complaining letter of R. Schenk, A. Montfoort and the others to the Rev. Classis, it was read to Domine Goetschius so far as he was concerned in it.
4. The complainants had taken care, that Antje Onderdonk and Justice Abrm. Polhemius should be near at hand. The meeting and Domine Goetschius were now informed that it was intended to hear both sides on account of the affidavit about his behavior to her: but Domine Goetschius answered, that he saw no cause for being present. After some discussion
5. He was told that the accusations preferred against him before the Rev. Classis would be sent to him in writing, and that then he must be kind enough to answer in writing. Thereupon, having promised to do so, he went out.
6. The meeting having received a copy of the affidavit, (No. 1 of the inclosures), Justice Abrm. Polhemius, Isaac Onderdonk and his wife, with her father, Cornelius Reiersse, came in. The authentic contents of the affidavit, signed by her own hand and witnessed by the justice, who is also a member of the Dutch Church, (and whose grandfather, in his lifetime, had been the minister at Midwoud,) was handed to Antje Onderdonk. After she had seated herself and regained her com- posure, she was requested to read it aloud. When she had done so, she declared it to be true; and Polhemius, although not obliged to do so, being a magistrate, testified before us, as a Justice, that it had been executed before him, and that the signature was in his own hand.
Meanwhile the chairman further asked her, why she had not sooner made this matter public, as it occurred in 1740, and her declaration was not made before the 2nd of December 1743. Her husband, Isaac Onderdonk, answered, that he then Ilved upon land leased to him by his father, who was a warm friend of Domine Goetschius. He had threatened that if they published the matter, or informed the Committee of it, he would order him to move off. And when it did become known, his father did direct him to move.
Herewith, when rumors of what occurred began to spread, Domine Goetschius came on the 1st of December, 1743, with Abrm. Lott and some others, (being the day before the affidavit was made), to Isaac Onderdonk's house, and asked his wife, whether he had attempted or committed adultery with her, (Domine Goetschius' own words). Antje said, NO; but told the men who had come with the Domine what she testified under oath on the following day.
Add to this that Cornelius Reiersse, her own father, upon hearing this, com- pelled his daughter for the sake of her own reputation, to testify to the matter as it had occurred; so that, if Domine Goetschius had not urged the matter, the affidavit never would have been made.
As to the honest and well known virtuous character of this woman, about twenty people unanimously gave their testimony before us after she had withdrawn. Shortly afterwards it was published in some churches where Goetschius preached, that Antje Onderdonk had acquitted Domine Goetschius, according to the endorsed copy (No. 2), signed by Abrm. Lott and others.
Herewith this session closed.
N. B. A letter concerning certain accusations was sent to Do. Goetschius on the 28th of Nov. 1745, of which your Revs. have a copy, (No. 3 of inclosures.)
II. On the 23rd of December, 1745, the Committee again met at the abovenamed place. Domine Goetschius being present, was asked whether he was ready to answer. He said, No! Being asked again, when he thought he would be ready, he said, after some derogatory and dilatory remarks, "that it was not possible to fix a date; that only Classis and Synod could do that; but no Committee."
Nevertheless the Committee decided, that he must answer in writing on the 20th of January 1745/6, as well to the charges already sent to him, as to those which would in due time be sent. This after a good deal of talking, he finally accepted. That was all which was then done, except that the additional charges were spoken of.
N. B. Other charges were sent to Domine Goetschius in a second letter, dated December 27, 1745.
2896
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1746
III. The Committee then met again on the 27th of January. After duly notify- ing Domine Goetschius and the accusers. Domine Du Bois was prevented from being present by other business on the 20th. After the usual opening by the President:
Domine Goetschius appearing before us, was kindly asked that he would now please to defend himself in writing. After much talking and wriggling, he finally said, Yes! and that he had his written defence with him. Domine Goetschius having read and delivered his written answer, the President read it publicly to the meeting. It was then decided, that the complainants ought to be present, to prove their charges in the presence of Goetschius, that the real truth might be more clearly seen.
I.
Domine Goetschius' defence against the charge in the first letter of November 28, 1745.
A: Domine Goetschius circumstantially defended himself concerning the affi- davit of Antje Onderdonk, as may be seen in his detailed written account. (No. 5 of enclosures).
He was nevertheless requested to answer to the affidavit, according to rules, made in No. 1, even though they had not quite the full formality. He was asked, whether what Antje had testified was true or not. But he was not willing to answer, saying that he would sufficiently reply to it in writing. Being asked, where the affidavit was of which he had spoken, as made on the 16th of January 1745/6, he said he had it with him. Being further asked, why it did not agree with the testimony formerly so openly given by Abrm. Lott and others, Goetschius said, it was now enlarged.
N. B. We do not know what is the character of this affidavit.
B. Further:
1. How Domine Goetschius replied to the charge of Minne Schenk, appears by his written defence; but Minne Schenk coming in, very earnestly maintained in Goetschius' presence, that he had heard Goetschius distinctly say, (1) If it had not been for that corpse in Amsterdam, (to wit the Rev. Classis), this country would long ago have been filled with godly preachers. (2) That all, who remain away from his church must make a new confession, before being again received. He declared, that he could confirm both these statements by an oath, if necessary. Goetschius asked, who were his witnesses. Minne answered, there was somebody else, but he was not here.
2. What Goetschius had said about the written denunciation of Minne Schenk and Gerrit van Wickelen also appears. But both maintained their testimony, to wit: that when Goetschius pretended that he would go to Holland for his ordination, (as he called it), he said he would not go to Amsterdam, but to the Classis of Schieland; for there, said he, are more godly preachers. They gave time and place where this happened; but Domine Goetschius replied, they had misunderstood him.
3. Domine Goetschius' answer to the declaration of Daniel Deurije can be read in his written defence. But Deurije delivered the following in writing:
We, the undersigned, testify this to be true: That in July 1743, at Jamaica, Long Island, conversing with Domine Goetschius about the decision of the Com- mittee, (for thus our meeting is always called), and about prayer meetings, Domine Goetschius said, it was no prayer meeting. I inquired, What then is it? He answered, It is blasphemy. This we testify to be true, and will so declare under oath, if required. Daniel Deurije; Jannetje Deurije.
We also testify, that Domine Goetschius said to us, that quarrels and divisions must be, and that it was only right that they should be; for otherwise we would never know the godly from the ungodly. He also said, that all, who opposed him were plainly godless people. This we testify to be true.
Daniel Deurije, Jannetje Deurije.
4. Concerning the " lampoon " : Goetschius declared, notwithstanding his writ- ten declaration, after the details had been communicated to him - That he had
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2897 1746
read part of It but had given it to somebody else, who had publicly read the rest. He also acknowledged that the same had been sent by Domine Friling- huyze, and had thoughtlessly been signed by two names; that it related to matters pertaining to the refusal of Domine Arondeus to forgive him.
N. B. The contents of the lampoon as unknown to us.
Domine Goetschius further acknowledged that the article of May 1, 1744, con- cerning his submission (to ecclesiastical authority), had been read to him. A copy of this is already deposited with the Rev. Classis: also that he had refused to sign it, except conditionally, as we informed Rev. Classis in May 1744.
II. The Committee, in their letter to Domine Goetschius, of December 27, 1745, 1
I. Asked him
To point out the legality of the election, etc.
He answered verbally, as he had done in writing that he had already made answer concerning this to the Rev. Classis.
Then the circumstances (how it was all done), were read to him; (No. 6 of enclosures); and he was asked, whether the elections, and thereafter, the or- dinations (of Consistory) had not so taken place? He answered Yes! Being asked, why the elections had not been held by those who constituted the Con- sistory, and why he had chosen only one half of the number usually chosen in our churches; he replied that he had written about this to the Rev. Classis.
II. The charge made against Goetschius,
(1) That he had tried to defend the preaching of his brother, as it had taken place, as ecclesiastical and scriptural, by Acts 13; 1, 2.
(2) And that he did not wish to be judged, etc. This was circumstantially proved by Mr. Dirk Brinkerhof and Abrm. Polhemius, the Justice abovementioned.
But Domine Goetschius answered nothing to both these charges, except that he had written about it to the Rev. Classis. Looking at the second charge, he said, that if he had said that, he must have been very careless. He regretted it and asked the gentlemen to pardon him for it.
N. B. He also scratched out two lines on this subject in his defence, and, during the meeting, wrote two other lines on a small piece of paper, requesting that they be added to his writing. This was done.
III. Domine Goetschius' written answer to the charge
" That nobody could go to the Lord's table," etc., was read.
However, the testimony of about fifteen persons was handed in to us, of whom five appeared. These all declared, in writing and orally, that the charge was true, and they gave time and occasion; being able, as they said, to confirm it under oath.
IV. In regard to the fourth charge preferred against Goetschius
(1) That most of the ministers here are, etc.
He said, as his defence also has it, that occasionally he may have suggested that there may be unregenerate ministers among the preachers here;
(2) But that he should have distinctly have said, Domine Antonides had preached many into hell, and Domine Freeman was now burning in hell. he answered in his written defence, that he does not remember to have used such abominable talk; and that he could bring forward many honest people who have frequently heard him say just the contrary. He also very earnestly testified, that be believed the best of both of them, etc.
But we were astonished, when an affidavit of Cornelius van Wyk, with his wife and daughter, living at the Vischkill (Fishkill), all being members of Domine Meynema's congregation there, was handed in to us. They are one of the most prominent families there, and well known to all of us. They testify under oath as follows; (See Dec. 27, 1745).
N. B. A copy of this affidavit is enclosed as No. 7. Goetschius appeared somewhat put out about this; but resuming speech, he asked whether they were all members; and if not, they could not testify against him. Mr. Cornelius vas
2898
1748
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
Wyk and his wife have long been members, Domine Du Bois said; and that he himself, when there in September, 1744, to administer the Lord's Supper, had received the young woman, with others, as members, upon confession of faith.
V. The fifth charge against Domine Goetschius comprises the testimony of the legally elected members of the Consistory against those, who were illegally chosen, and irregularly ordained by him. It read: "That you, Domine Goetschius, have been asked," etc.
How Domine Goetschius defended himself against this charge appears in his communication. But as his Reverence still maintains the Consistory which was chosen by him, the contrary of his proposition is sufficiently proved, and in a certain way, he himself confirms the testimony of the legally chosen elders, by refusing to sign the declaration of May 1, 1744.
VI. The sixth was the request
"You will please to explain," etc.
His defence shows that Domine Goetschius knew how to make shift against this. And he urged it still more, by saying: "No charge should be made about what friends write to each other."
But his conversation to Jan Brinkerhof was read to him; and then his written answer thereto, according to the copy, enclosed under No. 9. He was then in- formed, that this was justly charged against him, to show him his imprudent behavior in judging his neighbors without any good reason. Thereby he had awakened so great dissatisfaction against himself among other people; and of this many complaints had been made.
VII. The final request of the meeting was, that Domine Goetschius should ex- plain his letter to the Committee, dated May 7, 1743. In this his Reverence appears to intend to defend in a remarkable manner, the legality of his bearing against the bearing of the Committee. (Copy enclosed under No. 10).
He acknowledged that he had been very imprudent in this, and asked the meeting kindly to excuse him.
Finally, the testimony of Aaron van Noordstrand and Roelof Schenk, that Goetschius had said " unconverted preachers could not be of any use with all their sermons ", was convincingly proved.
Thus, Rev. Gentlemen, we have tried to investigate the charges against Domine Goetschius, according to your request, and have, at the same time, heard his defence, with his refutations. We leave it to the Rev. Classis to judge how carefully and impartially we have done all this. We have tried to avoid taking notice of any charges against Domine Goetschius from single individuals, al- though there were several such ready to make charges; because of his so readily condemning and quarrel-producing character, and his truth-mutilating talk. In the same way, we aimed impartially to get at the true proof of every point brought up before us. On this account, although Goetschius has more than once behaved very violently towards us, we do not desire to conceal his humble requests to be excused, and for favor in our letter. It is, however, our duty to testify that all who tried to prove anything against Goetschius, are considered by us, as far as we know, to be blameless Christians and trustworthy people.
Meanwhile, we have repeatedly warned Goetschius, ever since we have known him, about his imprudence. This he considers zeal and earnestness. We have admonished him to bridle his tongue and not to deceive his own heart. We have had, time and again, much trouble in one case or another, to reconcile him with his people, and his people with him. We regret that so many minds have for a long time been estranged from him. This is evident from what has occurred. Yea, indeed, we must say it; and with sorrow for him, we must uncover his in- gratitude towards us, in calumniating us to others, as if we ourselves had merely taken sides against him, (if we may explain what he says). He boasts that the Presbyterians justified his side, and intended to use it against us. Although we have some reason to think the contrary, from the words of one of their principal men, who repelled Goetschius; although he has since, we have learned, obtained
2899 1746
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
some testimonials for him, from those who reject all Forms of Worship, and with whom Goetschius agrees, as people fear. These testimonials, when they come before the Rev. Classis, will not be sufficient to quash, the charges, although we do not know just what they are; yet the Rev. Classis may be fully assured, that we have written nothing but the actual proofs and may thoroughly trust our account. Not to continue in this strain, we refer once more to our last letter to the Rev. Classis, signed in May 1744, and to the principal charges against Domine Goetschius, of February 14, 1742/3.
We will only say the following in closing:
Oh! that Goetschius would conduct himself as a seemly minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, and would continue thus to do! Oh! that his accusers would become reconciled with him, in order to heal the wide breach, and remove all offence. But alas! as yet we see no door opening toward such a result. May God, who has power to bestow upon us all grace, rebuild the walls of His ruined Jeru- salem! May He cause to prosper His spiritualzion, according to His good pleasure, also, in this distant land of America! We submit these deplorable matters, as we have found them, to your Very Rev. Assembly, and leave them to your far-seeing judgment. With all due respect, we commend your Reverences to God and to the word of his grace, remaining,
Rev. Gentlemen and Respected Fathers in Christ,
Your Reverences humble servants,
G. Du Bois, Joh. Arondeus, Chris Bancker, Ab. van Wyck, Albert Coerten, Jeremyas Remsen, Isaac Broeka, Philippus Nagel, Folkert Folkertsen, Jo- hannes Lott.
P. S. 1. The affidavit of Antje Onderdonk has never been read in prayer meet- ings, as Goetschius says in his defence.
2. The testimony of a single person has not been received, except that of Minne Schenck; but by Goetschius' own writings and other circumstances this evidence of Schenk is received as trustworthy.
3. Whereas Goetschius did not show us his enlarged declaration (or answer), we made further examination about it, of Antje Onderdonk. She and her husband have informed us in writing, dated Feb. 12, 1745/6, that no Justice examined them, as Goetschius declares in his defence of Jan. 13, 1745/6.
On Long Island at the Ferry opposite New York, 1745/6.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Acts of the Deputies and their Correspondence.
The Classis of Amsterdam to the Consistory of New York, March 4, 1746. No. 30.
To the Consistory in New Netherland.
Rev. Sirs and Beloved Brethren :- The Rev. Classis gave its advice in letters, (dated here Nov. 20, 1744,) but for lack of opportunity for despatching, not sent until some time after,) in reference to Rev. Goetschius and certain accusations made against him, as well as concerning the complaint made by him. She is very desirous to learn from your regions how these matters stand at present. We also wish to know how far those matters
2900
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1746
have progressed about the formation of an Ecclesiastical Coetus, that when cases of difficulty occur, they may be acted on and settled there, according to Church Order; yet with the reserva- tion that liberty remain to anyone who feels himself aggrieved by such sentence, to appeal to the Classis of Amsterdam. The Rev. Classis awaits a reply from you on these matters as soon as possible; especially since the Rev. Goetschius has renewed his pressing request to have his affair carried to its issue. Mean- while the Rev. Classis wishes you much prosperity and every blessing, in your persons as well as in your holy office; and con- gratulates you upon the recent ordination here of the Revs. Ulpi- anus Van Zinderin and (Theodorus) Frelinghuysen, by our Classis to the sacred ministry. The last named gentleman left here, however, sometime ago.
Herewith we remain,
Rev. Sirs and Beloved Brethren, In the Name of the Classis, Its Committee Ad Res Exteras,
And your Servants to command, as well as Brethren,
H. Van Alphen. P. Hollebeek.
Amsterdam, March 4, 1746.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Correspondence from America.
Rev. Anthonius Curtenius to the Classis of Amsterdam, March 15, 1746.
Portfolio "New York ", Vol. i.
Very Rev. Fathers and Brethren in Christ: "If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work," saith the Apostle Paul. Now, there is here in this country a certain person who has such a desire, and his name is Benjamin van der Linde, who was born at Hackensack. This young man has spent some time
2901 1746
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
with Rev. Dorsius and Mr. Goetschius, in studying Latin and Greek. Now he is with Rev. Haeghoort to fit himself in Hebrew and theology. Rev. Haeghoort can by letter best give your Revs. an accurate account of his advancement in these branches. I can, at any rate, say this for him; that in the year 1744 on the 30th of August, he made confession of his faith, and that to the perfect satisfaction of the Hackensack consistory. He was therefore admitted to the Lord's Supper, and he has since adorned his confession by a holy walk.
Now the question arises, that when this young man has ad- vanced so far in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in theol- ogy, that he is able to stand an examination - Where shall he apply for his promotion? It is true, that, some time ago, we learned from your Revs. letter, that the right of giving promo- tion was, by the Synod of Dordrecht, accorded only to a Classis; but your Revs. can easily understand that it would not only be incurring a great expense; but it would be also very perilous in this time of war for this young man to cross the seas. We would, therefore, humbly request your Revs. to give order to the Coetus in this country to examine the above named young man, and, on his giving perfect satisfaction, to allow the Coetus, in the name of all of you, to give him authority publicly to preach the Word of God; and, when called by some Dutch Re- formed Church in this country, to authorize his ordination to the sacred ministry.
Possibly your Revs. may raise the objection, that you do not see that the Coetus in this country is making any very great progress. It seems to me I can give two good reasons therefor. First, because there are Reformed ministers here who have allowed persons who had no mission to say the least, to our Reformed churches, to preach in their churches. Thus, Mr. Goetschius has preached in the church of New Harlem; and Mr. Witvield, (Whitefield), an Englishman, in a Dutch Church on Long Island. Secondly, because there are three or four Re-
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.