USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume IV > Part 88
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
We notice grave accusations from several churches, and an unconquerable repug- nance to Rev. Van Sinderen; but there are no less weighty objections against Rev. Arondeus. While we fear that the former has not sufficiently sought to win hearts by a prudent and peaceable course of conduct; we know of several great irregularities about the latter, which destroy all good order and peace in the church. We know that there are also several members, and these perhaps not the most unworthy, who cannot join themselves with him. We hardly know, there- fore, whether either of these men can remain there in peace and to the edification of the people. If each could be called to some other church, and these disturbed congregations could be provided with men of peace and prudence, then might a way to secure a settled condition be found. But we only suggest this for your con- sideration, as we are not yet able to express a final opinion on this matter. We believe that you are better acquainted with all the circumstances than we are, and can better understand all the obscure points. The Classis therefore hereby requests and authorizes the Coetus to give such sentence, and make such arrange- ments in reference to the whole case, conscientiously, and in accordance with the Word of God and Church Order, as they consider best, in order to prevent the entire ruin of those churches. If any justly consider themselves aggrieved by your sentence they may then properly address themselves to Classis with their reasons for such objection. Thus will the Classis be enabled to view the whole matter in a clearer light, when they have such statements, with the Acts of the Coetus, and all things orderly arranged. To this end two letters are despatched to-day, in reply to those written to us in May, 1729, in favor of Rev. Arondeus. In them we most earnestly admonish those who do not wish to submit to the Coetus. And now in reference to your recent Assembly: We rejoice that your meetings are con-
.
3114.
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1750
tinued, and we now again urge and admonish all who have not yet joined them- selves thereto, to accommodate themselves to such a profitable object, not only for their own comfort, peace and edification, but to aid us the better in the judgement and treatment of their affairs.
Upon the quaeritur proposed to the Classis, in respect to ministers who belong to the Coetus and also act as counselors in neighboring places, we are of the opinion that such should first report to Coetus before writing to us, unless in some very important case there should be periculum in mora, while waiting for the regular or extra session of the Coetus. Any congregation, likewise, should have the right to request an extra meeting of the Coetus, provided that the multi- plicity of these meetings, unless there be absolute necessity, do not cause a griev- ance to any, and so give new grounds of complaint.
We again notice a request to examine peremptoir, and to ordain the candidate P. De Wint. This request was made by you before our letter of May 5, 1740, was read. We trust that hereafter the objections already mentioned more than once on such requests, will deter the Rev. Brethren in the future from repeating them. Besides we discover something in the present instance why we should not grant this particular request. It seems somewhat suspicious that the Rev. De Wint's letter of membership is not written in the usual form; also that he de- parted for New Netherland, intending to become a minister, but did not first report himself to Classis, or even notify us of his intention. In reference to a similar case, that of Thomas Romein, we observe that the Rev. Coetus did not enter upon it of their own accord, but wished first the fuller elucidation of Classis. This was shortly after given.
The article about John Van Driessen was somewhat obscure, perhaps through some slip of the pen. It almost seemed to us as if we were going to resign from the church of Asquiggenonk. It does not seem necessary, therefore, for us to make any remarks on this subject at present.
Neither do we say anything against the circumstances concerning Rev. Goet- schius in relation to Oesterbay, (Oyster Bay,) nor upon the plan agreed upon in the choice of members of the Consistory there. We are even well pleased with the manner in which the Circle (Ring,) is to conduct itself, as well as with the fact that such meetings are not to be so multiplied as to become troublesome.
In regard to Rev. Heagoort, we trust that your admonitions in connection with ours will exert the desired effect on his congregation and remove all causes of trouble. Furthermore, we desire to learn the result of the attempt of the York Circle to unite the churches of Second River and Acquigenonk. Finally, we are quite satisfied with the resolutions passed by you about our propositions relating to students, and how you are to act when letters are received from our Classis.
The later Minutes of your transactions failing us here, we will also conclude our letter. May the God of love and peace be with your persons, your Assemblies and your congregations; may he bestow abundant grace on you, that you may be steadfast, unmovable, and always abounding in the work of the Lord, and enable you to understand that your work is not in vain in the Lord.
With affectionate esteem,
Amsterdam, April 7, 1750.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Acts of the Deputies and their Correspondence.
The Classis of Amsterdam to Rev. Messrs. Du Bois and Ritzema, April 7, 1750. Vol. 30, page 187, No. 110. To Rev. Messrs. Du Bois and Ritzema.
Rev. Sirs and Much-esteemed Brethren :- The letters of Oct. 18th and Dec. 27th 1749 - of which the latter was signed by you both, and the former, accompanying the Minutes of the Coetus was signed only by Rev. Mr. Du Bois - we gratefully
3115
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1750
acknowledge as having been duly received by us. Our reply to the Rev. Coetus, on matters pertaining to their transactions, is despatched with this, and is, by re- quest, addressed to Rev. Mr. Du Bois. We cordially thank him for sending us the Minutes of the Coetus and documents relating to Rev. Arondeus and De Wint.
We rejoice with you that the storm excited by Rev. Hoevenberg has so quickly blown over. How much that man is to be pitied for all his unseembly conduct, which is known both in Surinam and here. It must be looked on as the result of troubled brains.
Our joy would be greater were the disquiet upon turbulent Long Island also at an end. And although we pity you who have to endure so many vexations be- cause of these unruly persons, and to devote so much effort to the restoration of peace and to promote edification there, yet we do not find ourselves in a con- dition to pronounce a final judgement for want of a proper understanding of the same, as well as of the best means of redress. Besides your report concerning Queens County, of Jan. 1st 1749, to which you have referred, has not yet been received by us, although other letters of the same date have reached us. There- fore we can give no other conclusion than the one already communicated to Rev. Coetus. If we had received the transactions of your Meeting held in November, upon the affairs of Tappan and Long Island, we would have had more light to guide us.
Your question about Kings County we can answer more readily as it now presents itself. One who has been legally called by the whole congregation is the lawful minister of such church; but he is an unlawful minister who has been enticed in irregularly from another church, by a lot of people got together. But the great difficulty lies in the carrying out of any sound policy, when the churches cast off all authority, and do just as they please with the ministers whom they have called, as well as with their promised salaries.
We have again allowed ourselves to take the trouble to reply to two letters, dated May, 1749, from Long Island, in favor of Arondeus, giving earnest ad- monitions to those people to submit to the Coetus. May the Lord, who silences the roaring of the sea, give success to these efforts to quiet these unruly spirits, and restore good order. Likewise do we most heartily wish that He may bless your arduous endeavors to the same end. May He cheer you in these efforts, and in other fruits of your ministry, and sustain you therein with all needed grace, and grant you and yours continued health of both soul and body.
Amsterdam, April 7, 1750.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Rev. E. T. Van Hoevenberg to the Very Rev. Classis of Amster- dam. 1750. April ?
Portfolio " New York ", Vol. i.
To the Very Rev. Classis of Amsterdam:
Very Rev. Sirs, Highly Esteemed Brethren, convened in Classis of Amsterdam :- Inasmuch as it was cast up at me, in Coetus, that I could not be a minister: therefore in behalf of the churches which I had supplied in the meantime, I re- quested copies of all letters, and of the Acts which belonged to the New York Coetus; and because slanderers have now spread the report through the province that I am not a minister, I, therefore, ask for a copy of my call to Suriname, in order thereby to stop the mouth of such foul slanderers, children of Satan and of darkness - church owls.
I ask also for justice in reference to the insult put upon me in Suriname; and also in New York, where, by an ecclesiastical resolution, a copy of a unanimous call is denied me.
I am astonished at the foul sort of remarks about me, called out by your letter
.
3116
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1750
to the sickly Coetus; as, for instance, that at times I was out of my mind; that my utterances were to be ascribed to my hollow pate; " Thou shalt not say to thy brother Raka "; and that you were glad that the storm raised by me in New York had so happily passed over.
All I want to know is whether such a procedure took place by order of Classis, or at the option of the writer. If by order of the Classis, then I know now that a unanimous call, backed by the strong desire of the entire congregation is a storm. Now God stirs up hearts to make a call. Consequently it is God who has raised a storm, which Du Bois and his adherents say was raised by a mule of a blockhead.
Under cover of Jan G. Xacans (?) Copian at Amsterdam on the Eglantiers Canal.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Correspondence from America.
Rev. G. W. Mancius to the Classis of Amsterdam. April 26, 1750. To the Highly Distinguished Classis of Amsterdam.
Highly Honored, Pious and Learned Fathers and Brethren in Christ :- Before we proceed to answer your much respected missive received by us in October, 1749, we must mention something which occurred here previously to the arrival of that letter, and which occasioned some trouble in our congregation. For Rev. Goet- schius came here on June 3rd, 1749, and told our pastor, Rev. Mancius that he intended to go and preach at Paltz, a small place, but unquestionably belonging to our congregation. Our pastor answered Rev. Goetschius that he had no ob- jection, to offer, provided it were done in accordance with the rules of church government. He further informed the Rev. Goetschius that some of the people at the Paltz, even the very ones who had invited the Rev. Goetschius to come there, had been already, previous to his arrival at Kingston, disciplined by the Consistory of this place on account of their obstinate adherence to Mr. John Van Driessen. Hereupon the Rev. Goetschius asked whether the honorable Con- sistory had censured the place or the people. To this our pastor replied, that it seemed as if Rev. Goetschius were speaking in jest, and that he thought that Rev. Goetschius knew better than to use such language. Finally, (after having vomited forth some slanderous remarks against Rev. Boel, calling that worthy gentleman an Anabaptist, a man unable to govern himself, a man who was ruining himself and family, a man of whom it could not be ascertained whether he preached orthodoxy or not, inasmuch as nobody could understand him), Rev. Goetschius de- clared that he would go to the Paltz to preach, and that our pastor could complain of him if he saw proper; indeed he challenged our pastor to do this, calling the (aforesaid) discipline, " an oppressive and execrable action."
Accordingly it is our humble petition to your Worthy Highness (that you would inform us) whether said discipline can rightly be called "an oppressive and execrable action? " And in order that your Worthy Highness may be fully capable of judging in reference to this matter, we will truthfully state the reasons why this discipline was exercised.
After John Van Driessen had preached at the Paltz several times, the Consistory warned the members of the congregation at that place against said Van Driessen, inasmuch as he was not a lawfully qualified minister of our Dutch Reformed Church. Subsequently certain of those members were requested to come before the Consistory and were again admonished to discard Mr. John Van Driessen. But they were unwilling to do this, saying that they were desirous of having services at the Paltz. Then the Consistory proposed to join with them in calling a second pastor, so that they might have service there. They received this proposition ad referendum; but after postponement they declared that they were unwilling to have anything to do with a second call. Moreover, they adhered to Rev. John Van Driessen, and separated themselves from our church. And although they were
3117
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1750
afterward very often admonished to return, both by the Honorable Consistory and others; and were even warned by Rev. Du Bois, (when he was at Poughkeepsie to introduce Rev. Van Schle), that Mr. John Van Driessen was not a legally or- dained minister of our church; nevertheless they persistently adhered to him. He came there several times during the year, not only conducting the services, but choosing and installing a Consistory. They thus separated themselves from our church. Thereupon our Honorable Consistory, cut them off from the ordinance of the Lord's table. Afterward, it is true, some returned with confession, asserting that they were ignorant of the fact that John Van Driessen was not a lawful minister. These were received into the church again. But others remained obsti- nate, refusing to confess that they had done wrong in adhering to him, avowing that they were too stiff for that and that they could not see that they had acted in an unbecoming manner.
Hereupon our Honorable Consistory proposed to them to appoint three orthodox ministers of this province, to correspond with your Honorable Body, and ask your opinion upon this matter; also that we and they should submit to a decision given by you and the three ministers, conjointly, and in accordance with the rules of church government; but neither would they hearken to this proposition, but per- sisted in their obstinacy. This is a truthful statement of the principal facts. Now may it please your Honorable Body to decide whether we have abused or oppressed those people by disciplining them.
Rev. Goetschius, besides using the language quoted above, also declared at the Paltz that the adherents of John Van Driessen not only could, but also would be received as members in full communion, if they presented themselves to the Coetus; including such even as had made Confession of Faith during the ministry of John Van Driessen.
But this is not all the complaint which we are obliged to enter against Rev. Goetschius. That gentleman seems not only to question your high authority over these churches, but more than this, he has also allowed one of his pupils to occupy the pulpit. This is directly contrary to the classical letter. And this pupil had not yet the requisite qualifications to preach, (as we have been told by many trust- worthy witnesses), but was obliged to read from a little book, or from paper. (And as to your authority over us), Rev. Goetschius asked our pastor, even in the presence of one of our Assemblymen, Mr. Abram Hassbrouck, what authority your Honorable Body had, or if any, where you had obtained it, to govern the churches in this country. Mr. Haasbrouck was an intimate friend of Rev. Goetschius, both because he originally came from the Paltz, and had two uncles, as well as other relatives among those who were disciplined. He had also witnesses; all the above- named facts, and declared them to be true, in our presence. Of both these circum- stances we have complained to the Coetus.
Their conclusion upon this matter was, that inasmuch as Rev. Goetschius was sick at present, and we were intending before long to enter complaint before your Honorable Body, it would be better, perhaps, for the Rev. Goetschius to answer for himself before your Honorable Body. But after this, Rev. Goetschius not only continued to pursue this wrong course but also went on to administer the sacra- ment of communion, (by order of the Coetus, as he pretends), to those who were under discipline. He has thus supported these obstinate people in their un- righteous practices.
And how little respect Rev. Goetschius has for your Honorable Body, appears, among other things, by his utterance at Fishkill, viz., That before his black hair had turned gray, other ministers than those from Holland, would officiate here. Of this the Right Reverend Meinema can also inform you.
Now, as regards your highly honored and much respected letter to us, let the following serve as a reply: We learn with deep grief that your Highness con- siders what we said in our defence, as " reflections;" and inasmuch as we per- ceive that your Highness is not pleased with this, we refrain from saying anything further in regard to it.
Concerning the case of Rev. Leydt, the following is a true statement. Rev. Leydt, (whom Rev. Mancius had congratulated upon his examination), was de- sirous of preaching at Mormel (Marbletown), a place unquestionably belonging to our congregation, and served by Rev. Mancius, our lawful pastor and theirs. Ac- cordingly on the following day after his arrival from New York, in company with
3118
1750
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
Rev. Mancius, by boat, he wrote to the Honorable Consistory in regard to it. Upon receiving this communication, the Honorable Consistory went to Rev. Mancius to ask advice. He replied that it appeared strange to him, that while the Rev. Leydt had been on the boat with him for three days, and had freely conversed on church matters, yet he had said nothing in regard to this. Upon hearing this, the Honorable Consistory were also greatly surprised, and asserted that this was an unbecoming procedure on the part of Rev. Leydt. Rev. Mancius then said, that as it was either ignorance or malice on the part of Rev. Leydt, he could not consent to his petition, but would leave the whole matter in the hands of the Honorable Consistory. They, judging that the conduct of Rev. Leydt toward their pastor was neither becoming nor ecclesiastical, resolved not to allow him to preach. Of all these circumstances Rev. Leydt is also fully aware. May it now please your Honor- able Body to judge whether the objection to allowing Rev. Leydt to preach was raised by our pastor, or whether it was not rather occasioned by his own conduct? You will also be able to judge to how little degree truth is regarded, in sending reports to your Honorable Body.
As to your advice to us to apply to the Coetus, we are obliged to say that we cannot determine to do that, for the following reasons:
ยท
1. The Coetus, (or at least Rev. Goetschius, who avers that he has done every- thing by order of the Coetus), has treated us unjustly, by taking from us a part of our congregation, as said above. This action is obviously opposed to every system of church government. It was considered strange by many people living at the Paltz, and who have always remained true to our church, and caused doubts to arise as regards the justice of the Coetus, and of Rev. Goetschius himself. It therefore seems to us as if the Coetus intended to force us. This very thing Rev. Goetschius also openly declared in the presence of the abovementioned Mr. Haas- brouck; for he said that your Honorable Body had given power to the Coetus to compell such congregations as did not yet belong to the Coetus, to unite them- selves thereto. In this last statement, as compared with a previous one, Mr. Haas- brouck himself noticed the contradiction.
2. Rev. Goetschius defends the case of John Van Driessen by his acts, since he considers the Consistory chosen and installed by said Van Driessen as lawful as that of any regular, orthodox, Dutch Church, contrary to the decision given by your Honorable Body.
3. In addition to this, we cannot see any advantage or benefit which would accrue to our church from uniting with the Coetus. For in several churches belonging to the Coetus, there is more trouble and schism than with us; or there was, among them, before they joined it. We therefore again humbly ask, that we may retain our liberty in being under your direct control, and the privilege of corresponding with your Honorable Body on all important matters. However we do not mean to say anything disparaging as to the reverence due the Coetus, and intend to live in Christian fellowship and brotherly love with all who belong to it, as we have ever done.
But if your Honorable Body refuse to grant our request, of being allowed to correspond with you, (as is probable), this will be our comfort,- that it is done on account of our faithful adherence to your Honorable Body, and our recognition of subordination to your decision. Against this we have never, as far as we know, offered any opposition, or done anything contrary to it. We have even defended and upheld that subordination against some who were desirous of appealing from you to the Synod. It would, indeed, grieve us if we are obliged to miss your sage. (lit. well-cut) advice. Meantime we supplicate the Lord of the Church that he may be on our side, and grant us deliverance; that he may bless your High Excel- lencies in Christ Jesus. May he satisfy you with length of days, and cause his light to shine upon you, (lit. thee, the Classis), for the good of his church and our good; that we may continue to enjoy your high and worthy counsel, and learn from it how to judge and act in difficult circumstances.
As ever, we remain, high and worthy gentlemen, Fathers and Brethren in Christ, The Honorable Consistory of the Dutch Reformed Church at Kingston.
By commission, and in name of all,
G. W. Manciuy.
Kingston, N. Y. April 26, 1750.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3119
1760
,
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Acts of the Deputies. Spring of 1750.
Abstract of a Letter of Rev. E. T. Van Hoevenberg, dated Jan. 3, 1750, but without Mentioning Place.
Inasmuch as, without having been censured, and notwithstanding the Peace- Contract, he has been driven away by the Governor in a violent manner, he asks of the Classis that it will make provision, that in those foreign parts, the payment of his salary be secured to him by the Society. He is still in distress because of the dreadful treatment by de Bois, whom, he says, he justifies, (does not justify?), as he is ready to go from Surinam, to Smyrna or to the East Indies, according to the pleasure of Classis. If the Society should refuse to pay him, he asks that (we?) complain to the Synod and to the Commissioners, so that their High Mighti- nesses may keep him as well as Liege, (?), and he be enabled to enjoy, in redress, his full salary, or the half of eighteen hundred florins, and the half for those years which have elapsed; (?) for only by persistency of begging they have paid him six hundred florins per annum. Yet he will not instruct Classis as to their duties; but the Lord will behold their actions, and the Judge will judge uprightly. For this purpose he requests that they send over a draft on his correspondent. xxiii. 30, 31.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Correspondence from America.
The Coetus to the Classis of Amsterdam, May 7, 1750. Letter to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam.
Rev. and Honored Brethren :- Thus are before you the Minutes of the Coetus, begun on the 7th of November last, which I could not send to your Rev. Assem- bly, along with ours of the 27th of December, by an earlier opportunity. The various unexpected circumstances at the Coetus are the reason why matters were treated as they are set down in the Minutes.
From them the Rev. Assembly will perceive, to our extreme regret, how sad is the condition of the Church of God on Long Island, in all the congregations of both counties, and alas! growing worse and worse. The period having expired within which the friends of Domine Arondeus were to make known to us whether they would submit their whole case against Domine Van Sinderen to the considera- tion and judgement of the Coetus, the three friends of Arondeus have come to me and declared in the name of all, that they would have nothing to do with the Coetus, but would refer their cause only to the Rev. Classis, to which they were subordinate.
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.