USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume IV > Part 8
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
7. But Simon Wyckoff said, Domine Freeman, we desire you to advise us what is proper for us to do in this affair. I replied, I can advise you if you are disposed for peace. Simon Wyckoff and Hendrick Vroom said, Yes, we are for peace; but Dumon answered, There is no peace in his teaching false doctrine. I replied, if you can prove that he teaches soul-destroying errors, there certainly is no peace in that, and I will join you in opposing him. We (will) have it in writing and signed. I said, all that you have brought forward so far are only circumstances. Hear what the advice is that I give you. Draw up in writing a list of your grievances; subscribe it with your own hand, and give it to your Consistory. They, and they only, are obliged, according to their office, to give heed to the doctrine of their pastor, and also to the doctrine and conduct of the congregation. If you should do differently, and come to New York, or to this place, you and all who join with you, will be regarded by all honest people, as creators of schism in your church at Raritan. They replied, But the elders will not listen to us. I said to them, They must listen to your complaint in accordance with their office. Suppose there were members here, in our congregation, who had a grievance against their pastor, would they go to New York or to Raritan, to offer their com- plaints? No; every church has its own Consistory. Wyckoff replied, Every min- ister gives his own kind of advice.
8. Simon Wyckoff asked, Would you convoke all the ministers, and summon Rev. Frelinghuysen and us? I replied, I will think of it. Why? they asked. I answered, Because Rev. Frelinghuysen would not come, but you must appear before his Consistory, and there dispose of the affair. Simon Wyckoff said, Well, if Rev. Frelinghuysen should not come, you can easily pass judgement upon our grievances. I said, not if he has had no hearing; for this would be against the Order of the Church; for the Rev. Frelinghuysen was certainly examined and
2322
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1725
qualified by the Classis of Amsterdam, the members of which are his proper judges. Therefore I will have nothing to do with you except for the establishment of peace; and that you follow the advice, to appear with your complaints before your Consistory; and that you receive a written answer, by which it shall be shown whether your pastor teaches true or false doctrine.
Mr. Frelinghuysen requested me to give him a written account of the statements made by the above mentioned members, in reference to his office. I certify, as appears from my signature, that the above occurred.
Signed, B. Freeman.
Date as above.
Done at Midwout.
Our Remarks on this Writing of Freeman, concerning our Conversation.
In the first place, Peter Dumont, Simon Wyckoff and Hendrick Vroom, deny that Peter Dumont was the first to reply to Freeman, as Freeman avers in his. Statement; for Simon Wyckoff and Hendrick Vroom had long been in conversa- tion with Rev. Freeman before Dumont spoke a single word, as the sequel will show.
They aver that as soon as Wyckoff begun his complaints against Rev. Freling- huysen, to Rev. Freeman, that the latter said, "I always thought that it would end in this way. Had Frelinghuysen never brought that ass, (ezel), Schureman, with him, matters would never have come to this, neither would there have been any trouble nor quarreling."
The conversation with Rev. Freeman began thus: Wyckoff asked Freeman for advice in the matter between them and Rev. Frelinghuysen. Freeman answered - About what matter? Wyckoff replied: that Frelinghuysen had gone astray from the true Reformed Doctrine. Thereupon Freeman replied, that we should state some of the points. Wyckoff replied, that Frelinghuysen had said in his preach- ing, that of six or seven members, who had come to the Table of the Lord, there were some who had eaten judgement to themselves, and had drunk to their dam- nation. (And he asked) Now could a minister know this? Freeman answered. No! Wyckoff also said that he had not made a wise choice of a Consistory; that grievous charges had been made against Hendrick Fisher; but Rev. Frelinghuysen, nevertheless, would install him in the office. It was asked, Whether he had a right to do this? Rev. Freeman answered: If there were lawful objections against him, he could not serve in the Consistory. Wyckoff replied: That it had been made clear to him, that he could not serve; but Frelinghuysen said that he could serve. Wyckoff also added, that he had forbidden certain members to come to the Table of the Lord, without cause. (It was asked) Whether he had a right to do so? Freeman answered: Not without sufficient reasons .- Freeman then said, in opposition to Wyckoff, that these were mere incidents, and have nothing to do with the fundamentals of our doctrine. Thereupon, Vroom spoke out: (and not Wyckoff, as Freeman writes; even as also it was wrong, that this question should have been attributed to ignorance as the following will show; and therefore Freeman could not have said to them, How could you so boldly accuse your minister?) - Thereupon Vroom spoke out: Domine, tell us what the Fundamentals of our Doctrine are. (This differs very much from that which Freeman wrote, as if the question had been asked from ignorance). Freeman then mentioned some points of doctrine, and said that they were the fundamentals. Then said Vroom: "I heard Frelinghuysen say from the pulpit - " Only a few have come to the Lord's Table. I wish that all had been there. Yet I have no reason to think otherwise than that ignorant people were there. What think you, O hearers, as to those who have been there? (and do not come again?) Is this right? I say it is not. But I do say, that they who have formerly come to the Table of the Lord, and do not now dare to appear, that they did then eat and drink to their own condemnation." Now I think, said Vroom, that he could not be sure of this. He certainly could not, answered Freeman.
After Wyckoff had related to Rev. Freeman, several such instances of ill treat- ment (mishandelen) in connection with the Supper, and also of improprieties
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2323
1725
(ongerymtheyd) at the election (of officers), which had occurred; as well as the slight (disorder) in a case of pastoral visitation: Rev. Freeman replied: But these are not Fundamentals of Doctrine, but only incidents. Then Vroom asked Rev. Freeman his opinion in regard to that which Frelinghuysen had uttered from the pulpit, which has already been mentioned, and gave several other examples of Frelinghuysen's practices. To this, Freeman answered, that all these were mere incidents, and did not appertain to the Fundamentals of our Faith.
Then - and not at the beginning as Freeman writes, but after all the above had taken place - Dumont asked Rev. Freeman if he would be willing to answer him one question. To which Freeman responded Yes. Dumont then asked, When the visible symbols of the Reformed Doctrine were profaned, whether such a cir- cumstance pertained to the Fundamentals of our Doctrine? To this Freeman answered, Yes - according to the best of their recollection. Dumont then said - But this concerns the Supper, of which Wyckoff has already told you; how that Frelinghuysen, after he had administered the Supper, spoke from the pulpit, as is above narrated.
And furthermore, in regard to the third matter, (Kenteeken): I will inform you, said Dumont, how the acts of Church Discipline are managed. One Cornelius Vanden Berg was publicly cited to appear before two different Consistories of two congregations of the Raritan District, in order personally to answer; and this without any private admonition before two or three witnesses, (as is required,) because he had made hay on the Lord's day, when there was an appearance of rain. For this he was suspended from the Supper, and as much as placed under the excommunication.
But, on the other hand, Schureman, who was denounced before the Consistory of Frelinghuysen, because he, when at his best (op syn best - at the height of popularity ?) had practised immorality, (as was charged), and the matter was told before Frelinghuysen, he only said, Friends, what shall we do? we must pray for him; and he even gave him of the Supper. You can therefore judge, Mr. Freeeman, of the manner in which Rev. Frelinghuysen administered Church Dis- cipline. It seems as if the keys of the Church had been lying for a century in the middle of the ocean, and had become so rusty, that they could no longer be fitted in the lock. To all this, Rev. Freeman answered - These are yet only incidents, and not Fundamentals of our Faith. He also added, What will you do with Frelinghuysen? You cannot depose him, nor even suspend him.
(Freeman continued:) There was once a certain man in Holland, by the name of Bekker, who preached - There is no devil! This made a great uproar in the Church. Thereupon a Church-Council (Kerken-Raad) was called, composed at the least of sixty ministers, which was called a Classis. Yet these could find no means of deposing him on that account; but they placed him under censure, and forbad him to preach for six weeks. But when this time had passed, he again ascended the pulpit, and still preached - There is no devil! Then a great portion of his congregation rose up, and made complaint against him. The Classis was again convened, and he was now forbidden to preach at all. But then he put it in print - There is no devil! and it was printed in Dutch. But had he published it in Latin, then they would not have turned him out of his place; but because it was printed in Dutch, the matter could not be hushed up.
Is that so, said Dumont? then is the condition of our Church sad indeed! For, as I understand you to say, had that publication been in the Latin language, the ministers, who ought to keep evil out of the Church, would have remained silent on the subject. The condition of our Reformed Church is sad indeed, when the service of religion has become a matter of trade.
Rev. Freeman further said that there were some who asserted that Rev. Fre- linghuysen taught false doctrine. Thereupon Dumont replied, that he had heard him tell a lie from the pulpit. Therefore he was the man who said it. For, con- tinued Dumont, what is a lie, that is false (doctrine?) For I have heard him
2324
1725
ECCLESIASTICIL RECORDS
inquire from the pulpit, whether there was one out of them all who had ever truly repented of his sins. And he repeated it - I ask you again, whether there is one of you, out of all, who has ever truly repented of his sins. And I must answer - No, said Frelinghuysen.
Thus again it appears that Freeman's statement is incorrect concerning Dumont; and that he concealed the fact that Dumont had proved that Frelinghuysen had spoken a lie from the pulpit, and had quoted Dumont's words only in part. Neither did Rev. Freeman ask anything like that, which he writes, he said to them - Do you want to help the devil? nor did he mention the prophet Samuel at all. On the contrary, Freeman did not address a single harsh word to them, but treated them with all friendliness and civility. However, more than once he said to them - Be careful what you do. Be sure your testimony, in that which you charge against Rev. Frelinghuysen. If he is in the wrong, I myself will attack him with both hands. But you must operate through his Consistory.
ยท Wyckoff then repeated the question which he had asked in the beginning - what they had better do in this business. Freeman answered, I can help you if you are for peace. Wyckoff and Vroom answered, We are for peace; but Dumont said, There is no peace in this business. For either you (Freeman) teach false doctrine, or else Frelinghuysen does. For Aart Aartsen had told him only last Monday, that he had heard Jan Woertman's son say to his father, that he had brought him up in false doctrine; for he had made his confession before Freeman; and he (Freeman) had caused him to eat and drink judgement to himself. Yet such men Frelinghuysen keeps for his pupils. Therefore, either you - Freeman, teach false doctrine, or otherwise Frelinghuysen does.
When Rev. Freeman said, that we must exhibit in writing, the soul-destroying doctrine of Frelinghuysen; Wyckoff answered - We have it in writing, and signed, and I have the document in my pocket. But Rev. Freeman did not even request to see it. In his account (of the interview) he also makes a misstep, as he con- tinues: "I said, all that you have brought forward so far, are only incidents:" for these words are not logical sequence of what precedes. Vroom now added, Why do you direct us to the Consistory (of Raritan)? for they only play with us, etc. See this more fully pp. 105, 106, 142. What follows in Rev. Freeman's paper, up to the reference to the Classis of Amsterdam, occurred as stated.
This, as above presented, according to our best recollection, is what occurred at our interview with Rev. Freeman at his house at Flatbush; and not that which he (Freeman) represented, and which he wrote to Rev. Frelinghuysen.
Now we present this matter to the judgement of all truth loving people, (and ask them) whether in this Statement of Rev. Freeman, it does not plainly shine forth -
1. How he (Freeman) in 1723, (March 12) acknowledges Rev. Frelinghuysen as orthodox (in paragraphs 1, 2); and says (in paragraph 6) that he (Frelinghuysen) sharply reproves sin, and calls him our spiritual father, etc., when he (Freeman) had already been informed of his many errors; and had actually, in the latter part of 1722, condemned Schureman, and with him, necessarily also, Frelinghuysen, (See pages of Complaint 85, 86); while on the contrary, all our complaints are declared to be false, or mere incidents. He also accuses us (paragraph 6) of being affected with a spirit of hatred and revenge, and of seeking to help the devil and trample on the Church of Christ.
2. That his advice - first, that we should take our grievances to the Consistory of Rev. Frelinghuysen; and secondly, that we must receive from them a written answer, in which it would appear whether he teaches true or false opinions - was wrong. For it was already well-known to him, that the said Consistories were our decided opponents; and because their letters of citation (to us) sufficiently show what kind of answer we would have received to our complaints.
3. That he stigmatizes us, and all who aid us in our efforts against the unortho- doxy of Rev. Frelinghuysen (paragraph 7) as schismatics; saying that all honorable persons would regard us as such; and this, because we apply not to our opponents, but to orthodox gentlemen and sustainers of the Reformed Dutch Church.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2325 1725
4. That he himself (Freeman) contradicted his own remark, (paragraph 7), " But I will also oppose him," (in paragraph 8). For he therein sald, that he would have nothing to do with us, unless we were for peace, or made application to our opponents. Was this opposing Frelinghuysen, when his own unorthodoxy was on trial? Did not Mr. Dumont witness against him, with sufficient force, when he said that either Freeman or Frelinghuysen was a false teacher, because Woertman's son, (see pages 28, 81-84 of printed Complaint), who is a pupil of Frelinghuysen, had accused Freeman of having caused him to eat and drink judge- ment to himself?
In reference to Rev. Freeman's account concerning Bekker, mentioned in our Remarks, a statement should be made to this effect; that Rev. Freeman, in speak- ing of this matter as he did, did not remember that it is certified in " The Synodi- cal and Classical Notes and Resolutions " published in Holland, that Rev. Bekker testified that he does acknowledge the existence of a devil; and nothing is said of his writing in Dutch or Latin. But on this subject, which is foreign to our present purpose, we refrain from saying anything more.
But now for a few more remarks: Subsequently to that statement of Rev. Freeman, dated March 12, 1723, the First Citation was served on us, (pages 1-4 of Printed Complaint), dated March 18, 1723, coming from Rev. Frelinghuysen's so-called Consistory. This agreed in all respects with Freeman's statement, and his name was also mentioned to us. Thereupon we returned a short written answer, (page 5), signed by many of us, which was given to them April 18. A second and third Citation to us followed (pages 6-12), in the month of May, with a copy of Rev. Freeman's Statement, and the so-called unanimous conclusion, (page 6.)
Therefore, for the general maintenance of our cause, and in the name of all, our assembly authorized us four, namely, Peter Dumont, Simon Wyckoff, Hendrick Vroom and Daniel Sebring, to correspond with Revs. Du Bois, Antonides, Boel, and others, who might be pleased to help us, according to the Rules of the Church. And all this is undertaken in behalf of the pure Doctrine and Discipline of the true Reformed Dutch Church, as established by the Synod of Dort, and according to Dutch Church Ordinances. It was also unanimously resolved, that so far as the Citers personally were concerned, no further answers should be returned to them.
We took this action also because of their remarkably erroneous course in those Letters of Citation. In these they endeavored to show that we, although standing for the true Church, did not belong to them. Also because the Citers themselves, under the signature of Rev. Frelinghuysen, declared the Rev. Classis of Amster- dam to be their competent judge, against us, the defendants; and having, there- fore, acknowledged themselves as our opponents, they cannot lawfully be our competent judges. We, therefore, ought not to appear before them, our acknowl- edged adversaries.
For these reasons we resolved to defend ourselves publicly in print, and choose our own time to do this. And surely, in doing this, we ought not to be limited by those who cite us to appear before them, being our opponents. And we have taken this course that the world might see how they have gone to work against us.
We have also done this, that we might deposit our Complaint (Klagte) especially in your bosom, O ye Reformed Dutch congregations of these two Provinces, who are our nearest sisters in the Lord; and that you might gain a true insight into our affairs, which we know you have earnestly desired for a long time: and also that you might understand that we, united with you in the same faith, and con- tending for it, are thus harshly judged by these letters of citation; and that our cause is equally your cause; and that we long for association with you in your spiritual welfare. Also that you might perceive that these Citers of us, whatever their pretences, are really outside of, yea, even against the Reformed Church. They are followers of John Labadie and James (Jacobus) Koelman, and neither
2326
1725
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
you nor we, belong to them. Neither to us nor to you, nor to your ministers, is that appropriate, which follows from the dealings of these Citers and their ad- herents. Against them we righteously contend in behalf of pure Doctrine and Discipline, and for that which is right in behalf of rest and peace for Church and State.
We have great confidence that your love for the Church will lead you to take pity on us, on account of the treatment we have received. "If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it," as says the Apostle in 1 Cor. 12 : 26, with reference to the divisions in the Church at Corinth. You will sympathize with us in our efforts to secure the right, by all lawful means.
In the year 1721, Rev. Frelinghuysen with the approbation of Revs. Bartholf and Freeman, issued a challenge (page 79 of this printed book.) Of this he and his adherents boast, in his Second Citation (page 8, No. 3,) as if no one dared to appear against him and confront him. Of the propriety of this, every one may judge by this answer, which we have caused to be prepared in our names. It also has the approval of Revs. Du Bois and Boel, Rev. Peter Vas of Esopus and Rev. Peter Van Driessen of Albany. Rev. Thomas Brouwer, of Schenectady did not visit New York during all this time, nor did we have the opportunity to confer with him. Rev. Cornelius Van Santwood, of Staten Island, has not expressed himself as being favorable to our good cause.
In our defence, we follow, in the main, the order of the Letters of Citation. This we do, in accordance with the Word of God, and ecclesiastical and civil ordinances, and for other good reasons. We have included several documents, which at the time and since, have come to our hands, which serve to explain and confirm our cause, and we prove from the writings of the Citers themselves the good grounds of our complaints against them.
We and those who are united with us, have calmly and deliberately signed these complaints, maintaining and showing thereby that we are actuated, not by par- tizanship, but by love of truth. All of this the reader may discover in our reply.
And, that we were forced to include Rev. Freeman, as a correspondent of Rev. Frelinghuysen and his adherents, among the opponents of ourselves and our cor- respondents, all lovers of truth may judge from the following:
In the first place, because Rev. Freeman, by his approval, publicly and in print, of Rev. Frelinghuysen's sermons in the year 1721, proclaimed himself against us, by writing such things for Frelinghuysen. Hence he could not but produce upon the simple-minded an unfavorable impression in respect to all who differed from him in opinion; yet at the same time this is a witness against Frelinghuysen. This is remarkable, and will be shown further on - pages (in printed Complaint) 64, 71, 72, 77-80.
Secondly: The Citers also delivered to us a copy of the previously mentioned important Statement (Groot Schrift) of Rev. Freeman, (page 6,) with its many grievances against us. With this statement, the Citations agree so well that they seem to have been compiled therefrom. This fact also required that our reply should be made equally against Freeman; and especially so, because Freeman's statement describes everything concerning Frelinghuysen, as being only faults, incidents, and not false doctrine. Their true character must therefore be shown to the world for our vindication. Since Freeman wrote, indeed, that if Freling- huysen taught soul-destroying errors, he would join in opposition to him, it is necessary that we should give to Rev. Freeman proper inducements thereto, by a correct view of this whole business.
Thirdly: Rev. Freeman, notwithstanding the said troubles, persisted in his correspondence with Frelinghuysen. To such an extent was this carried, that the Citers, in their first Citation to us and our Company, under the form of a regular ecclesiastical Act made distinct mention of Freeman (page 3) as a witness against us. Wherefore we were obliged to take notice of this circumstance in our reply.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2327
1725
And this behavior of Rev. Freeman appears the more strange to us, because he first, in the year 1720, exhorted the ministers in New York and elsewhere to be on their guard against Frelinghuysen; (page 24). This led us into correspondence with those gentlemen. And now when we request him to join us in this corre- spondence, he not only refuses, but he also accuses us to Frelinghuysen, and declares our correspondence with these gentlemen to be dishonorable, because we carry it on without him. But this only shows the reasonableness of our corre- spondence against him, as well as against the Citers.
In addition to this it seems strange to us that Rev. Freeman in 1721, having declared in the presence of Revs. Du Bois, Bartholf, Boel, and (lawyer Boel) his brother, and Messrs. John Cruger and Olivier Teller, that " he would not trouble himself about this affair any more; and requested that in case there should be a Convention of Ministers in regard to it, he might be considered as out of it, and that the ministers would excuse him; and if they should issue anything in print, that Rev. Freeman's name should not be mentioned:" (having done all this) he, nevertheless, publicly presented his own name, both in writing and in print, in behalf of Rev. Frelinghuysen, and therefore in opposition to us.
Therefore, in our own self defence, we were compelled to speak of him by name; and especially, since in this very year, 1725, persisting in his intimacy with Frelinghuysen, allowed him on the 6th of May, to occupy his pulpit in Bushwyck.
This draught of ours appears, indeed, later than we had intended; but we hope that every one who judges this matter deliberately, will not take this amiss. For we desire to have all things in proper form. Therefore at the friendly instance of Revs. Du Bois and Antonides, and not because of any threats from more influ- ential sources, as was rumored at Raritan. Rev. Boel was prompted in the year 1723, after the letters of Citation, to consult with us concerning our grievances, and also collect documentary evidence (getuyg-schriften.) This required much time, as did also the correspondence with Revs. Vas (of Kingston), Van Driessen, (of Albany) etc., for the elucidation of many matters.
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.