USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume IV > Part 92
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
On the third article, we answer: That it is entirely untrue that the Paltz had no other consistory than that of Kingston. For, as early as August 22nd, 1683, under Monsieur Pierre Daille there were elected and installed an elder and a deacon - Louis Du Bois as elder and Aughe Frere as deacon, as appears from their Church- Book; whence also it appears, that on June 9th, 1690, there were chosen Aughe Frere as elder, and Louis Bevier as deacon; and these remained in office until their death. Therefore, when Mr. John Van Driessen came to the Paltz, (1732), there was, it is true, no consistory, but he appointed one; and this, the Rev. Goetschius rightly considered as a lawful consistory, for the Rev. Coetus had set him such an example.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3143 1750
Therefore, we are of opinion that the conclusion of Rev. Man- cius is wrong. From the foregoing explanations it clearly appears that the Paltz was always a Church and congregation by itself and so independent of Kingston; and consequently, the preaching and the service of Rev. Goetschius and other Reformed ministers are not at variance with Article 15 of the Church-Order."
That this is our real answer to the letter of Rev. Mancius, we declare by our signatures.
Samuel Bevier Daniel Hasbrouck.
In presence of
E. De Witt Samuel Bevier.
The above having been delivered to me and by me calmly con- sidered, I have, with the Rev. Consistory and members of that Church, nomine Coetus, after calling upon the name of the Lord, chosen an elder and a deacon; and, after publishing their names to the church at three different times, I have installed them in their offices. -
In confirmation, I subscribe this.
J. C. Fryenmoet, V. D. M.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Acts of the Deputies. Nov. ? 1750 ?
Letter from John Arondeus of Long Island, dated August 10, 1750.
He says,
1. To the charge of unlawful running, he does not know it, the going to Raritan was not such, he had previously a lawful call, that church is also lawful, and recognized as such by the Classis.
The coming back to Long Island (N. B. after that, meanwhile, Rev. van Sinderen has been called there by the Classis), he says that he had received thence a full fledged call on May 23, which Mr. Klopper heard read, and shall inform Classis thereof more fully.
"" No minister may preach or administer the Sacraments in any church other than his own, without the consent of the consistory of that church."
3144
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1750
2. As regards offensive rumors, no one, not even the Governor is (free) from them; he asks that he may know the rumors and the accusers.
3. They have not understood that the Classis referred them to the Coetus: if they order this it will have distressing consequences, and he requests that he be rather ordered to look about for another church; as he would rather resign his office than soil himself with that abomination of iniquity.
He concludes with farewell.
xxiii. 213.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Correspondence in Holland.
Rev. Peter Wynstock to Peter de Windt, Dec. 8, 1750. Portfolio " New York ", Vol. ii.
Addressed : Mr. Peter de Windt, Candidate, living at the house of Mrs. Schrender, at the White Swan, in Amsterdam.
Harderwyk, December 8, 1750.
Mr. Peter de Windt :-
With gladness did I receive, and safely, your letter of the first instant. I con- gratulate you upon your safe arrival.
I have learned with great joy from your letter, that you have been called as a pastor to New Netherland. I heartily congratulate you on this; as well as upon the fact that you are in the month of January (1751) to be examined by the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam. May God enable you to pass this examination in a praiseworthy manner. I have no more to say at present, than that we are still all well. I expect you to come over to visit me, if possible, for I would gladly speak with you before you are examined. If you can possibly come over, do not fail to do so. I will help you in everything. Herewith concluding, after greetings from me and mine, I commend you to the protection of the Most High, and remain
Sir, Your obedient servant, Peter Wynstok.
[See affidavits of June 11, 1752, as to the identity of this letter, by attempting to prove its genuineness from its chirography. ]
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Correspondence from America.
The Church of Kingston to the Classis of Amsterdam, Dec. 10th, 1750.
Highly Honorable Sirs, Fathers and Brethren in Christ :- We trust that our letter of April 26th has been received. We have since then made inquiry of (one of) our pastors Rev. Ritzema, whether the Coetus had given permission to Rev. Goetschius to administer the sacraments at the Paltz to those who had separated from our church. To this the Rev. Ritzema replied, that he was unable to say, as he had not the resolutions of the Coetus at hand; he also requested our minister to give him in writing the arguments by which we endeavored to prove that the Paltz unquestionably belonged to Kingston. This our minister did in a letter to the Rev. Ritzema, which reads thus:
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3145
1750
" According to promise and your desire I send to you the proofs by which it clearly appears that the Paltz unquestionably belongs to Kingston.
1. From a list. The people of the Paltz promised to the Consistory of Kingston to contribute their part of the salary of a minister, when they were about to call one from Europe. They also did annually contribute to the salary of Rev. Vas, as their pastor who came in answer to their call until the time when Rev. John Van Drissen intruded himself. (1732).
2. This appears more clearly from the list of members, who were received by Rev. Vas, (under the supervision of the Consistory of Kingston), although they lived at the Paltz. These communed at Kingston, but they are too many to mention now. We received also on Confession of Faith, on Dec. 24, 1715, Nicholas Rosa, and on April 12, 1718, Solomon Haasbrouck, both members of the Consistory under John Van Driessen. We have also received on Confession of Faith many from the Paltz, who still commune at Kingston. If it were necessary, the year and day (of their reception) can be clearly proved from our church records.
3. The Paltz has had no other Consistory than that of Kingston. It was be- cause Mr. John Van Drissen found no Consistory at the Paltz, that he appointed one for that people. It is also this Consistory, ordained by John Van Driessen, that Rev. Goetschius acknowledges as lawful as that of any Dutch Reformed Church.
Hence I think it appears that the Paltz unquestionably belongs to Kingston, and that the preaching and officiating in other ways of Rev. Goetschius at the Paltz, is opposed to Article XV of the Church Government.
To this letter the Rev. Ritzema replied as follows: "I am much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken in unfolding to me the unknown fact of the relation of the Paltz to Kingston. At the proper time and place, I shall make it known."
But what took place? The Coetus sent Rev. Fryenmuth to the Paltz, who or- dained a Consistory there. And when Rev. Mancius requested the Rev. Ritzema to have the kindness to communicate to him the contents of the commission of Rev. Fryenmuth, which the Coetus had given him; Rev. Ritzema answered, under date of Nov. 3, 1750, as follows:
" Concerning your question relating to the action of Rev. Fryenmuth at the Paltz, I am unable to report. This, however, I know, that I have fulfilled your desire, by placing your letter relating to that question, on the table, and since there was no one to answer it, it was handed to Rev. Fryenmuth. I beg to be ex- cused from the rest."
This then, Most Honorable Classis, is the factum. Your honors can now judge whether the Coetus acted ecclesiastically and justly in this matter; and whether prejudice and envy are not the motives for such a procedure; and what was the intention, by consenting to put the letter of our minister, without his knowledge, into the hands of those at the Paltz.
We submissively entreat you to take the trouble to examine the writing sent to you, which treats of the difference between us and Rev. Peter Van Driessen, and which was signed by Revs. Du Bois, Antonides and Boel. This was also approved by you. We also trust the justice of our cause will become more evi- dent, as well as the fact whether Rev. Du Bois has not acted in this matter contrary to his former writing.
Since we heartily desire that this matter between us and the Paltz may find a just result, in accordance with truth and righteousness, therefore we humbly beg and entreat your Right Honorable Body as our competent ecclesiastical judge to decide this matter. We declare sincerely before the Omniscient One that we do not wish to retain these seceders against their will, but we will gladly and will- ingly discharge them according to church-order, as we have offered them more than once. This would have come to pass long ago, if they had not been stub- born, and if in their stubbornness, they had not been supported by others.
But if, contrary to our expectation and hope, we do not secure a decision from you, then we will be compelled to seek our help from the Synod. Several of the members of the church entrusted to our care have already requested us to sub- mit this matter to your decision; and if contrary to our apprehension, we may be refused an audience, then to have the whole matter printed, and submitted to
3146
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1750
the decision of the Christian Synod, that they may judge concerning the Acts of the Coetus.
We once more submissively pray you to deliver a final sentence in this matter. We also pray the Lord of Hosts that he would be for a spirit of judgment to him who sitteth in judgment. May he command his blessing upon you, and reward you for your labor of love, and eause that the constant object of your love may be and remain,
The Consistory of the Dutch Reformed Church at Kingston. By order,
Kingston, Dec. 10, 1750.
G. W. Mancius.
CHURCH OF NEW YORK. New York, Dec. 27, 1750. Article 1.
Organ and Organist.
The Consistory met at the request of three members of the Congregation, Brant Schuyler, Matthew Ernest and Pieter Kateltas. They presented a Memorial, signed by various other members, containing a request, with reasons attached, that the organ should be played during worship, and that, for this purpose, a suitable person should be employed. This being read and considered, it was unanimously agreed to, that is, so long as the subscription continued, or the requisite funds could be obtained from the special lovers of the organ, and without burdening the treasury of the church, and also, so long as the organist bore himself properly.
The applicants were also permitted, at their request, to choose such persons as they saw fit, to go around the congregation and solicit money by subscription. When enough or more than enough was obtained, such moneys should be deposited with the Church Masters to pay the organist, and in case of need, to repair the organ.
Whereupon the organist appeared. He was informed that he would be required to play upon every occasion of public worship except when the Lord's Supper was celebrated. In order to avoid abuses, he must the day before the service, repair to the ministers, to obtain the Psalm. His yearly salary should be thirty pounds New York currency. All this he accepted.
Article 2. Bell-ringing.
As to the Bell-ringing. It was Resolved, That the first and second ringing shall be as heretofore; but the third shall begin with the bell of the New Church. To this end, the bell-ringer, A. Van Hoek, shall see that the clock is correct; other- wise the Consistory will be compelled to appoint another person.
This shall be annuonced to both the bell-ringers, Montague and Van Hoek; and it shall also be said to the former that at the third ringing of the New Church bell, he also shall ring in the Old Church, except at the times of the celebration of the Lord's Supper. J. Ritzema.
1053
.
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.