USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 17
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
III. Appearing there, the deacons presumed to require the elders to prove that Rev. Van Hoevenberg was a legal minister. Hereupon Rev. Mancius proposed, in the name of Rev. Van Hoevenberg that that matter be left to the judgement of the Very Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, to be decided by them according to Church Law; and that Rev. Van Hoevenberg should meanwhile remain in the ministry at Claver- ack; and that the deacons should get Rev. Frielinghuysen to agree to this, and each should exhort his party to peace and unity. Several times Rev. Mancius set forth the justice of such a measure, and urged that they write conjointly, so as to avoid the delay of writing to and fro. But several times Rev. Frielinghuysen refused to consent to the plan, saying that he wanted to write for himself.
We, the undersigned, elders of Claverack, hereby declare that the second and third articles are the truth, because we were present; but as to the first, we leave that to the account of Rev. Van Hoevenberg.
Done at Claverack, March 30, 1752.
Johannes Leggert, Claude de Lametter, J. Renselaar.
Received, November 22, 1752. No. 164.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Acts of the Deputies, April 10, 1752. [See May 1, 1752.]
(This document is quite obscure in meaning, as the Classis also declares below; but we have tried to make it clearer, by paren- thetical words. )
Letter from Rev. G. Haeghoort, containing a Protest against the Coetus which was held September 13, (1751) ; another, from Second River, (Haeghoort's home) of Dec. 6, 1751. These were received April 10, 1752. (See under date of Sept. 10-17, 1751, for reference to this Protest.)
(Abstract. )
The Protest is confused and unintelligible. It were best that it should be read in Classis. The Protest was, at his request, handed in to the Coetus; for he was not a member.
61
3228
1752
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
In his letter of July 12, 1751, he says that he had received ours of Nov. 5, 1750, and had answered the same. He is affected and surprised at our expressions (of displeasure) ; yet in the previous letter he had freely expressed his own thoughts, but hoped that they had not bored us. He expects a fraternal answer.
N. B. But this letter of October 17, 1751, on account of (sev- eral ?) harsh expressions, was not deemed deserving of an answer by the Classis of April 10, 1752.
His Protest is against the Coetus, and against Rev. (Gual- terus) Du Bois, its Clerk. Against the latter, however, he does not elaborate his Protest, Du Bois having since died. He sends it over however, because the Coetus will do the same, so that we may see that " lording and avarice " (heerschinge en meest in- schraping) occur in the Coetus.
He thinks that an impartial judgment will justify his Protest against the Coetus. He says the Synod should have been informed of their affairs, and its " approval " of the Coetus secured. It was the fault of the Classis that this did not take place, although he had requested this very thing of us as well as of the Coetus. This circumstance gives him no pleasure. The Coetus originated from no other grounds (than) partisanship and ambition. The
so-called Correspondent, whose authority (wettigheydt) is far to seek, thereto also gave occasion. His (Haaghoort's) plan as to the way in which such a Coetus should have been instituted, was held back, and instead of it, there was substituted another plan by the Consistory of New York. In spite of some opposition, they arrogated to themselves to send to the Coetus two elders and only one city-minister. The authority which the Classis had sent to him (Haaghoort) and to Erickson, to ordain Rev. Schuyler, was long held back, so that the envelope was worn off, the seal broken, the letter opened and altered; and it was not transmitted (to us) until just as a Coetus was about to be held. It was pre- tended that it, (the ordination of Schuyler ?) must take place in (New) York, (else) the Coetus would not be kept intact (in staat) ; nevertheless the (Consistories) of Long Island and Haar- lem, in violation of Article 8, (of the Coetus) allowed persons
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3229 1752
to preach who had not studied. The same policy is also main- tained at the reopening of each Coetus. (And at the close) the Acts are not first reviewed (geresumeert) but are recorded at once in the book after the Coetus is held. But this is contrary to the regulations. Thus also no one can see what has been done, and alterations can be made at will. He (Haaghoort) has indeed been promised, on his own request, a copy of his Plan, from the minutes, (Protocol) ; also of the letters of the Classis; but that promise has not been fulfilled. The letter to the Classis, also, was not written during the meeting of Coetus but after adjourn- ment; and the copy was for the first read at the next Coetus ; although this was done differently last year.
He thinks that those letters ought first to be read (in the Coetus), as is done with us in our Classis. He makes complaint of two settled ministers, Arondeus and de Wint. These he charges with having advertised (adverteeren) him and another member of the Coetus, without being rebuked by the moder- ators ( ?) In respect to this, it was twice attempted to put on record, [to book, verboeken,] what was resolved on and noted. ( ?) An attempt was made to make the scoundrelism of Rev. Wynstok appear probable; and it was taken in evil part that the letter of Klopper, of which our Classis makes mention, was asked for. They said they knew nothing of this, and refused to communicate the letter of Rev. Schelluyne, except orally.
It was even deemed unnecessary to note down what had been already sent to the Classis. He also objects to Coetus, because a minister cannot obtain redress of his affairs so well as the congre- gations can. Because the Coetus was only instituted to settle disputes, preachers are bound to conduct themselves according to the decision of the Coetus; but the congregations hold themselves to such decisions as far as they happen to please them, and not otherwise. This appears from the affair between van Sinderen and Arondeus, and their respective parties. The latter (party) belonged to the Coetus in the time of Rev. Freeman; now they mock at the Coetus.
1752
3230
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
Yet they repair to it again when there is hope of getting what they want, and of keeping Arondeus. Also in the affairs of Acquakenonk, in the time of John van Driessen, the Coetus and Classis were ridiculed; but now they repair thither again, with- out doing anything (toward a settlement) of that case. But when Classis recommended to Coetus the union (of Aquackononck) with Second River, it was then openly declared they had no business with the Coetus. Nevertheless, when summoned, an elder appeared saying his people was not inclined to union. But surely this (their conduct) should not have stood in the way of Coetus undertaking such a desirable business; just as little as (it should not have stood in the way) when they wished to keep such a fellow as Arondeus. With him the party of Van Sinderen will never be reconciled; for from his (Van Sinderen's) stand- point it is impossible. They (the Coetus) should not have re- jected his (Haaghoort's) peace-loving letters which tended in every sense to the welfare of the churches. And the replies of Acquackononk should have been looked at and considered, (by the Coetus), and the opinions of both churches should have been asked for, and become known by the Coetus, as was the case with those of Long Island. More information should have been sought, and thus the intentions of Classis could have been com- plied with.
Heretofore he (Haaghoort) has been writing about the Com- mittee ; now, one (David) Marinus, is given (attention to). He was examined by Rev. Schlatter in Philadelphia on his own authority, and was provided with a license to preach, and that without the knowledge of the (German) Coetus. He (Schlatter) pretends to have a commission which allows him to do everything. This surprised even his own elder. Nevertheless he attends the Coetus, (the German Coetus ?) without anything being said of all this. Twice did the writer of this letter speak of it at (our) Coetus, but nothing was done in the premises. Thus the con- gregations have more liberty than the ministers. They are so subordinated to the Classis that they are completely dependent on it, as if they were its mere servants. This was an expression
3231
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1752
used in the Coetus, and it (thus substantially) appears also in its Fundamental Articles. (See under date of April 27, 1738.)
Since all the Minutes (of Coetus ?) are sent over to the same, (to the Classis ?) and (matters) therein are approved or disap- proved, why, he asks, is not the same authority used over the (individual) congregations. Especially in matters relating to calls ? If they (the congregations) cannot be thus subordinated, why is there not an effort made to bring the business of the Coetus to the same condition ? and (also to bring the business of ?) the churches out of the fundamental causes of the disputes ? One ought to try to take away these fundamental causes, as a wise physician would do. He asks-Whether it would be too severe a threat, (to declare)-that the Coetus or Classis would ratify no call unless it were guaranteed (in the call, that the congregation would be) subject to the Coetus and the Classis and their laws; or rather, (unless it were guaranteed that) honest persons should (not) be allowed to be abused. Should not the Coetus be allowed to recommend and help honorable men to vacant churches, as well as such dishonorable ones as De Wint and Arondeus ? To such ends he (Haeghoort) had sought to direct the affairs in the Coetus, but in vain; yet to this end was directed the very draught of the Regulations.
He also suggested that instead of the plan of an almost imprac- ticable " Church-Visitation ",* each minister and elder at the Coetus should be asked, Whether each one did his duty ? Whether the salary was promptly paid to the preacher ? But this Article was left out of the list (of Rules of the Coetus. ) He is indeed aware that we (the Classis) tried to co-operate toward the accom- plishment of these matters, in our letters of 1749
* Article 44 of Rules of Synod of Dort: "Each Classis shall authorize two or more of the eldest, most experienced and best qualified of its members, annully to visit all the churches belonging to its jurisdiction, both in the cities and in the country; whose business it shall be to enquire-Whether the ministers, consistories and school- masters do faithfully discharge their offices? Whether they adhere to sound doc- trine? Whether they observe in all things the received discipline, and promote as much as possible, by word and deed, the edification of the congregation in general, and of the youth in particular? That so they may reasonably and in a brotherly manner, admonish those who in either of these particulars may be found negligent; and by their counsel and conduct assist in directing all things to the edification and prosperity of the churches and schools.
Each Classis may continue their "Visitors" in office during pleasure, except when the Visitors themselves for reasons, of which the Classis shall judge, request to be dismissed."
This was found in colonial times, on account of the distance between the churches to be quite impracticable.
3232
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1752
and October 15, 1750 ; but to his regret no heed was given thereto. No letters which were necessary to him, in relation to his Protest, had been sent to him; nevertheless (he) knew their contents; that they must not be so reckless, in the making of their calls. He had strongly insisted thereon, but the pretended correspondent brought matters into such a shape, that even the adopted Articles were made obscure, or were altered. For they went so far in this cor- respondence, that these Articles were withdrawn, which contained the peremptory decision of Classis about Rev. (T. J.) Frieling- huysen which declared him orthodox and removed the ban; but they altered them, acknowledging him simply as " lawful ".
Finally, he says that the churches, which make the calls, should therein be made equally subordinate to Coetus, as the ministers are pledged thereto, in the calls. It was this which had occasioned such a storm in the case of Rev. Hoevenberg at New York, who, refusing to do so, (to make himself subordinate), his call was made null and void. It is thus they know how to make use of the Coetus. If even the Consistory of New York has prescribed this for its ministers, why not do the same for all the ministers to- gether ? This would remove many causes of dispute and increase brotherly love. A committee on this, his Protest, had been ap- pointed. Most of the members of the Coetus are witnesses of what he has said. He requests a copy, if that Committee should write anything to us, (the Classis) so that he may be able to defend himself, and we may be enabled to proceed discreetly, who, now that it is too late, can not help him under all the ill-treatment he has received. He knows not what else to do, except to put forth proper efforts; he will seek to be faithful, and comfort himself with the Divine promises. He concludes with salutations.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Letters Read.
1752, April 10th. Art. 10. Extracts were read from several letters, as follows:
1. From Rev. Gerard Haggoord of Second River, of July 17, 1751, received by us Oct. 26, 1751. To this no reply shall be made because of contemptuous and malicious expressions.
3233 1752
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
2. From Rev. John Ritzema of New York, Nov. 15, 1751, to- gether with several papers relating to a call of Rev. John Aemilius Wernig (Wernich) to Stone Arabia, N. Y. These shall be dis- cussed at a following meeting of Classis. In the meantime Rev. Ritzema shall be answered in general terms. A letter to him was read and approved.
3. From Rev. George Weiss of the 1 and 17 of November, 1751. This shall also be answered in general terms.
4. From Rev. G. H. Mancius, of Kingston, N. Y. of October 11, 1751. It was written in the name of the Consistory there, and was received Feb. 16, 1752. To this no reply shall for the present be made. In regard to that matter relating to the church of New Paltz, further information is awaited.
5. From the Revs. Leid (Leydt) and Goetschius, October 18, 1751, in the name of the Coetus of New York, together with some testimonia touching the case of P. de Wind.
6. From whom (De Wind) a letter was also communicated to the Classis ;
7. as well as one from the Consistory of Bergen and Staten Island in reference to him (De Wind) which was addressed to Classis.
While these affairs are of the utmost importance, they shall first be written about to the Classis of Nether Veluwe, and also to Revs. Wynstok and Medenbach, of whom mention is made in those letters, after which the affair shall be further acted on. xii. 283.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Classis of Amsterdam to Rev. John Ritzema, April 10, 1752.
Vol. 30, page 247, No. 139.
"To Rev. John Ritzema, Pastor at New York :
Rev. Sir and Beloved Brother :- In order to show you that the Classis of Amsterdam will gladly answer your friendly statements to her concerning different affairs in the Church of God in that land where you now find yourself, we write this in the name of the Classis, with our thanks for the trouble which your Rev. has been pleased to take; nevertheless, we hope, that you will not think
3234
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1752
it amiss, that we do not at present, elaborate upon the affair itself to which you refer, but consider the matter only as reported, until such time as the Rev. Coetus causes its greetings to be sent in reference to this matter; otherwise, we would be compelled to answer also all the other gentlemen, privately, and thus to make private (public ?) affairs which regard the entire Coetus. This would soon create great confusion. Meanwhile, we observe from your honored letter of Nov. 15th, from New York, that this par- ticular affair was communicated to you in the name of the entire Coetus, viz., that they would gladly see Rev. John Aemilius Wer- nig recognized in the name of the Classis as the lawful pastor at Stone Arabia, notwithstanding he was called and installed there not in accordance with our regular Church Order. We will not fail to make report of this to our Classis, and to inform Coetus as soon as possible of the decision of the Classis thereupon.
Furthermore, Rev. Sir and Much-beloved Brother, We remain, after prayer for a blessing upon you, and thanking you for the offer of your services, Your servants to command, The Deputati Classis ad Res Exteras,
John Van der Vorm James Tyken, V. D. M. Amst. Depp. Scriba.
Amsterdam,
April 1, 1752.
ACTS OF THE COETUS, CONVENED AT THE REQUEST OF DOM. SINDEREN AND HIS FRIENDS, BY DOM. RITZEMA, EXTRAOR- DINARY CLERK, HELD AT NEW YORK, APRIL 14-16, 1752.
In Acts of Classis, Vol. xxiii. 267, seq. Referred to xxiv. 13. SESSION I .- TUESDAY, APRIL 14-FORENOON.
1. Opening .- The Assembly was opened with prayer by Dom. John Leydt, the last President.
Members Present.
Rev. Rienhart Erickson,
Elder, H. Bennet
A. Curtenius,
J. Kip
.. G. Haeghoort
J. Spier
J. Ritzema
C. Bancker
B. Meinema
H. Goetschius
R. Martese
J. Leydt
H. Fisher
J. Frelinghuysen
W. Willemsen
U. Van Sinderen
A. Lott
S. Verbryck
C. Smith.
3235 1752
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
The next in succession to the last President being absent, Dom. G. Haeghoort was chosen President Extraordinary. Dom. Van Sinderen and Lott, his elder, acknowl- edging that the Coetus was convened at their request, they were required to pay sixteen pounds for the expense of the meeting; which they promised to do.
2. Object of the Meeting .- The proposal of Dom. Van Sinderen and his party was heard, desiring the execution of the previous decisions of the Classis and the Coetus in their matters. Postponed till the afternoon.
The Assembly separated with thanksgiving. Tempus Conventus at half past two o'clock, P. M.
SESSION II .- AFTERNOON.
1. Delegates from Kings County .- The meeting was opened with an edifying prayer by the President. Peter Lefferts, William Couwenhoven, B. Ryder, Wil. Van Nuys, Peter Vandervoort, and Hendrik Vandewater appeared as delegates from Kings County, and confirmed the request of Dom. Van Sinderen and Mr. Lott.
2. From Queens .- Joseph Duryee came as a delegate from Jamaica, Queens County, seeking counsel and aid against Arondeus, who, continuing to preach, hindered their union.
3. Report of the Committee .- The minutes of the last Coetus were read, and a report was requested from the committee on Flatbush. The Rev. Messrs. Ritzema, De Ronde, and Frelinghuysen, with their elders, reported what they had done to the following effect, etc. The Committee having stated their reasons for appointing a second confession to be made by Arondeus, the Assembly acquiesced in the indul- gence, as granted with a good aim.
SESSION III .- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15-FORENOON.
1. Arondeus Cited .- The Assembly, being opened with prayer by the President, considered whether Dom. Arondeus should not be summoned before them to answer, and it was concluded to cite him to appear, by a letter of this import: The Rev. Coetus, now met in extraordinary session, in New York, think proper to apprise you that they judge your presence necessary here; wherefore you are requested to repair hither to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, A. M., to hear what the Assembly has to state to you.
2. Reading of Documents .- The decision of the Coetus and the Classis concerning Dom. Arondeus, and the accompanying Classical Letter, were again read. Time being spent in deliberation, the Assembly separated with thanksgiving; to meet again at half past two, P. M.
SESSION IV .- AFTERNOON.
The Assembly was opened with prayer. After continued deliberation, it was decided that the sentence of the Classis against Arondeus should be carried into effect.
Separated with thanksgiving. Tempus Conventus to-morrow, at 9, A. M.
SESSION V .- THURSDAY, APRIL 16-FORENOON.
The Assembly was opened with prayer by the President. Then, finding it necessary to execute the sentence made and ratified by the Classis, since all endeavors at making peace have proved fruitless, (as appears from the report of the Committee, confirmed by others,) and Arondeus continues immovably impenitent for his unchris- tian and disorderly course; the Assembly took into consideration the way and man- ner of doing this. After mature deliberation, it was concluded to make it known by writing to the different parties; and Dom. Ritzema and the Elder Fisher, a committee for the purpose, reported the following draft, which was adopted:
To Dom. Van Sinderen and his Congregations, and Dom. Arondeus and his:
It is hereby made known to you, that the decision of the Rev. Coetus, made Sep- tember 14, 1750, and confirmed by the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, January 12, 1751, in relation to the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the ministry of Dom. John Arondeus in Kings County, must now take effect. Thus Dom. U. Van Sinderen
3236
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1752
is to be recognized as lawful minister in Kings County, and Dom. John Arondeus as unlawful, and therefore, not authorized to administer the Word and sacrament in the Hollandish churches on Long Island; so that each and every one whom it con- cerns, professing to be a member of the Netherlandish Church, and under the Church Orders established in the National Synod at Dordrecht, 1618 and 1619, is to show himself obedient to the foregoing action; which this Assembly expects.
Done in our meeting of Coetus, in the Consistory Chamber at New York, this 16th of April, 1752.
Accordingly, the sentence thus carried out was read before both parties, fortified with exhortations by the President, and then delivered into their own hands.
The Assembly separated in the usual manner.
SESSION VI .- AFTERNOON.
The Assembly being opened with prayer:
1. Copies Requested .- Dom. Arondeus and friends requested a copy of the minutes of the two last sessions of the Coetus, and also of the last committee on Flatbush, which was granted, on condition of their paying for the same; and also, if desired, a copy of the decision of the Coetus given in the year 1750.
2. Advice Asked .- The committee of Dom. Van Sinderen's friends desired advice on these points: 1. What was to be done about the non-payment of salary by the sub- scribers to Dom. Van Sinderen's call? Ans. They are referred to the previous action of the Assembly, of which a copy can be obtained. 2. What is to be done with those who were admitted as church members by Dom. Arondeus, during his irregular sojourn on the island? Ans. It is referred to the prudence of Dom. Van Sinderen and his Consistory. 3. How is Dom. Arondeus's Consistory to be regarded and treated? Ans. The minister being disapproved, the Consistory must be also: con- sequently the church property must be restored to Dom. Van Sinderen and his Consistory.
3. Tappan .- Abraham Haering and John Nagel, a committee from Tappan, pre- sented a paper containing various complaints against Dom. Muzelius, which they enforced by oral statements. Whereupon it was concluded to write in express terms to Dom. Muzelius, warning him against exciting trouble by preaching in pri- vate houses, and exhorting him to avoid scandal, by refraining from his unchristian behavior. Otherwise the Coetus will be compelled to act against him ecclesiastically, and the Consistory of Tappan may call in the aid of two or three of the neighboring ministers, with their elders, to proceed further against him, even to the infliction of censure, and report to the next Coetus; which may issue in his total removal.
4. Poughkeepsie .- Dom. B. Meinema was compelled to complain to the Assembly, that the Consistory of Poughkeepsie were negligent of their official duty, and that the newly chosen members refused to sign the call. It was directed that they should be written to in strong terms.
The Assembly separated in peace, with thanksgiving to God.
Done in the Consistory Chamber in New York, and signed, in the name of all,
Gerard Haeghoort, h. t. Pres. John Leydt, h. t. Clerk.
Collatum Concordat.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
The Coetus to the Classis of Amsterdam, April 17, 1752. Portfolio " New York ", Vol. ii. Also, Vol. xxiii, 257. Reference, xxiv. 13.
Very Reverend Sirs and Brethren in Christ :--
Numerous circumstances have prevented us from sooner sending to your Revs. the minutes of our Assembly. Accompanying this, therefore, are those of three ses- sions, signed by the President and the Scribe. To these will be added what must serve to a better understanding of them, namely, the Confessions which the Revs.
3237
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1752
Arondeus and Van Sinderen were required to make, both before our Assembly, and in public before the Church.
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.