USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 20
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
I. Regarding the first: Arguments are adduced on both sides, which deserve to be taken into consideration; but since the Con- sistory of Kingston consents to the Separation of the New Paltz, if it be done properly and in an ecclesiastical manner, the reasons pro and con may be disregarded, and the matter judged on its own merits: namely, that the Paltz, on account of its distance from Kingston, and the increase of its population, and also be- cause they are able, at their own charges, to maintain a minister, should be separated from Kingston, and be considered as a con- gregation by itself; provided friendly notice be given thereof, as has already been done, to the (Coetus ?). That body will not refuse it, and the Classis will abide thereby; and this dispute need no longer be mentioned. This, (the danger of failure) is the less to be feared, if those of Kingston, as well as those of New Paltz, carry the case to the Rev. Coetus. To this those of Kings- ton will still have to be admonished.
II. Regarding the second point: This will be the more easily removed out of the way, if on the one side, it be observed, that an obstinate adherence to John van Driessen, would surely expose to censure. For he intruded himself into the New Paltz to the injury of those of Kingston. Against him also, the Classis gave warning many years ago, as one who did not even belong to our church. His extravagant conduct up to the present time is known.
3253 1752
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
All this was written to us, nomine Coeti, from New York, Octo- ber 14, 1750. If, however, on the other hand, it be considered that such difficulties have come to pass, not in order to embrace any errors or to give encouragement to them, but only from the persuasion that the New Paltz ought to be regarded as a church by itself ; and it may be supposed that, under such circumstances, people may act somewhat too hastily ; we would express the opinion, now that the separation is agreed on, that those (censured) mem- bers, belonging either to the New Paltz or to Kingston, may be looked upon as no longer under censure; and if any record of the same has been made, to arrange that these matters be settled to the satisfaction of both parties :
Provided, that those members shall declare, either before a com- mittee of Coetus, or each one before his own consistory, that they wish to continue to adhere to the uncorrupted Reformed Doctrine, as contained in the Heidelberg Catechism; and the thirty-seven Articles of the Netherland Confession; and to subject themselves to the Church Order; without precisely requiring of them another confession of their faith. Thus an end could be made of all dis- satisfaction and dissension, both on account of the actions of Rev. Mancius and his Consistory of Kingston, and on account of the doings of Rev. Vas, Emeritus pastor there, as well as of those of Rev. (J. H.) Goetschius, in regard to which somethings might have been said.
III. As regards the Consistory in the New Paltz: It is true that the Coetus could have postponed for some time yet, the ap- pointment of the Consistory there; and the reasons for and against the separation, adduced on either side, could have been decided by more than one minister; and also that persons who adhered to John van Driessen should have been entirely left out. But taking for granted that the other two points have been settled, this also will readily follow suit, while the fact exists, New Paltz is sepa- rated from Kingston.
IV. As to the fourth point, the instrument of call and the tes- timonials of Rev. Vroman: If found in good order, the Classis might approve the call, in the hope that thus the peace between
3254
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1752
Kingston and New Paltz shall be effected. Even if these (of New Paltz ?) were of the opinion, that notice of all this should be given in letters to the Coetus, the Consistory of the New Paltz as well as that of Kingston should be exhorted with friendly and earnest admonitions, that both should conduct themselves in accordance therewith ; that those of Kingston should also refer themselves to Coetus; and each fraternally overlook, in the other, what has ever given any displeasure on either side.
This pre-advice was changed into a resolution of Classis on July 3, 1752. xxiv. 9-11.
Pre-advice about J. A. Wernich.
Deputati ad res Exteras, together with Rev. Kessler, handed in a pre-advice regarding Rev. John Aemilius Wernich, who is acting as minister at Stone Arabia, vide Acta, April 10, 1752.
I. We remark :
1. That the certificate of Professor Bruiningh, only testifies that he laid the foundations for study.
2. That the certificate of the Director and Vice Director of the Consistory of Heidelberg, of Sept. 22, 1744, is only a permission to exercise himself in preaching and the holding of prayer- meetings. This, the students in the Paltz must request and carry on for at least a year, before they can be accepted as candidates, (Proponents).
3. That the Certificate of Appenge (or Offenge) of March 3, 1749, only states that he preached as Vicar and that he acquitted himself well in that position. Such things are done occasionally in the Palatinate by those who are, as yet, not proponents.
4. The certificate from thirty-two persons who call themselves the consistory of Stone Arabia, testifies only that they take pleas- ure in his services.
5. Whence then, this follows: That Wernich produces no proof of his lawful appointment as Proponent, much less as minister.
II. On these grounds, we are of opinion that the aforesaid Wernich
3255
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1752
1. Cannot be recognized as a minister, except along the usual ecclesiastical modes, by undergoing a preparatory and final exam- ination.
2. That the Classis cannot allow that this examination be con- ducted by the Coetus, although we have formerly sometimes per- mitted this. But we are too strictly bound by resolutions of Synod to permit this in the future propria auctoritate. We are the less able also, because complaints have sometimes come to us about such permissions. It is, therefore, best that Wernich present himself before Classis to be properly examined and qualified, provided he can hand over, for that purpose, a proper call and certificate.
3. That the Committee feel themselves compelled to such pre- advice, especially because it is known from the report of two ministers of the Palatinate, that Wernich, (of whose conduct they speak favorably), was, indeed, accepted as a licentiate; but, also, that when he had presented himself for the preparatory examina- tion, he was put back; while the case of P. de Windt compels us to be careful.
This Pre-advice also was changed into a Resolution of Classis ; and at the same time it was resolved to hold ad notam, how to act subsequently in regard to children who may have been bap- tized by the aforesaid Wernich. xxiv. 11.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Revs. John Frielinghuysen, Ferdinand Frielinghuysen, and Barend Vroman.
1752, July 3rd. Revs. Jacobus (James) Frielinghuysen, Fer- dinand Frielinghuysen and Barend Vroman, S. S. Min. Candid. having been called as ministers, the first to Marbletown, Rochester [Ulster County] and Wawarsing; the second to Kinderhook; and the third to (New) Paltz, Shawangunk and Wallkil all in North America, in the province of New York, request to be examined, finally, and ordained at the next Classis. To this end they handed in Classical certificates of their preparatory examination, and the
1 I
3256
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1752
original calls from the aforesaid churches. These papers having been found in order, their calls were approved, and their request (for final examination) granted. But in regard to the Paltz the approval (of the call) is only given on the supposition that the signers of the call are lawfully qualified. There was assigned to Ferdinand Frielinghuysen as a trial text, 1 Peter 2:7, " Unto you therefore that believe, He is precious "; for his examination in ' Hebrew, Ps. 2, and in Greek, Eph. 2. To Jacob (James) Frielinghuysen, as a trial text, Col. 3:3, "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God "; in Hebrew, Ps. 1, and in Greek, Rom. 3. To Barend Vrooman, as a trial text, Song of Solomon 1:14, " My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire (Dutch- of cypress) in the vineyards of En-gedi" ; in Hebrew, Ps. 1, and in Greek, Matt. 5. xii. 288-9.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Kingstown and Paltz.
1752, July 3rd. Art. 4. The Depp. ad res Exteras read cer- tain papers touching the disputes between the above named churches, and therewith the draft of a letter intended to pacify the same. This was approved, and they shall be written to in accordance therewith. The said letter is to be found in the Acta of Depp. xii. 289.
Foreign Affairs.
Art. 6. ad Art. 1, Classis precedentis :
No. 1. No word has yet arrived from the Coetus.
No. 2. As to Rev. Wernich : the Rev. Depp. have brought in a pre-advice, which was approved, and shall be sent to the Coetus. No. 4. See Art. 4 above.
No. 5. The resolution of the Classis of Nether Veluwe regard- ing Peter de Wind is expected every day.
No. 8. See also Art. 8 above.
No. 9. Reply is awaited from the Coetus.
No. 10. No reply has yet come from Rev. Bril.
No. 11. As to Suriname: the business remains active. xii. 286.
3257
1752
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
Letter from Rev. John Frielinghuysen.
1752, July 3rd. Art. 7. ad Art. 1. An extract therefrom was read and at the same time a reply thereto. This having been approved shall be thus sent off. xii. 289.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
The Classis of Amsterdam to Rev. John Frelinghuysen, July 3, 1752. Vol. 30, page 268, No. 145.
To Rev. John Frelinghuysen, pastor in Pennsylvania, [New Jersey ?].
Worthy Sir and Brother :-
We were honored on May 19th with some lines from you, written in March, 1752, containing an account of matters which occurred in Coetus, and in the Committee on Long Island affairs, besides some additional documents. We observe therefrom your willingness to consult us on important affairs, for which we thank you. It will be agreeable to us to have you continue in correspondence with us. We were glad that you were willing to trouble yourselves to journey to Long Island to co-operate with the other members of the committee appointed by the Coetus, in seeking to settle the long-standing dispute between Revs. Arondeus and Van Sin- deren, and their respective adherents. It grieved us to learn that these well-meant efforts of yourself and colleagues proved fruitless. We earnestly hope to hear of the end of those disputes; that peace has been restored, to the glory of God's great name and the edification of the church, which is in danger, by such discords, of being scattered to the winds.
Although we would only too gladly co-operate to the accomplishment of this end, we can only sit still and await the report of the Coetus on this and other matters mentioned by you, before we can give our opinion. Your letter shows that you also expect and approve of this course. Be assured, Brother, that we are taking care not to allow ourselves to be influenced by any prejudice. We will endeavor to consider the reports of the Coetus as well as those of private members with the utmost impartiality, and give all possible attention to promote the welfare of God's Church by a prudent decision, agreeable with the Word of God. We will not fail to give proper heed to your statements in particular, so far as possible. Nevertheless this latter thing becomes very difficult to us, for a large part of your letter, because of the very small and illegible writing, makes us often doubt whether we really catch your exact meaning.
We were pleased to learn of your zeal for the welfare of God's Church. May you continue therein. May the thoughtfulness and prudence of the righteous ever guard you. Thus may your zeal tend to this desirable end. All know how necessary pru- dence is, when dealing with matters of dispute, in order not to spoil a good begin- ning. To this end, we maintain that looking up unto God with earnest desire, is the best means of success. We observe with satisfaction that such a spirit has often comforted you, and given you cause for subsequent gratitude.
And now, worthy Sir and Brother, may he whose name is COUNSELOR ever stand at your right hand, and make you steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord. May you experience, to your joy, that your work is not in vain in the Lord. May he surround you as well as all who are dear to you, with his mercy forever ..
Signed as above.
Amsterdam,
July 3, 1752.
3258
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1752
THE CLASSIS OF NEDER VELUWE (PER PETER WYNSTOCK ) TO THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM, JULY 13, 1752.
Portfolio " New York ", Vol. ii. Extracts, Vol. xxiii, 249.
Very Reverend, Very Learned Sirs, and Much Respected Brethren in Christ, con- stituting the Very Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, and its gentlemen, the Deputies.
The Rev. Classis of Neder-Veluwe, recently in session at Hattem, duly received your communication from Amsterdam, signed, April 18th, 1752, by the Rev. Deputies, Jac. Teyken, as president of the Deputies, and Jac. de Jonge, as scribe of the Depu- ties. With due attention it read the same, as also the copy of a so-called testimonial of Classis, which it was said, was given to Peter de Wint.
As its Registrar, that Assembly has instructed me to send to your Reverences, a copy of the Article of Classis, touching the matter of P. de Wint. Week before last I informed the Rev. J. de Jonge that I had received that copy from Hattem; but that, being about to go to my son, on the West Meuse, I would sent it over from there, with such remarks on the accompanying said classical testimonial, and on the defence made by P. de Wint, before the Coetus of New York, and in writing before the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, as I might find necessary; inasmuch as, in my per- son and office, I have been, most of all, inexcusably injured.
I hereby acquit myself, therefore, by sending over the said Articles of Classis, which your Revs. will find under Letter A, and which will confirm what I have above stated. To that I refer, as also, to what was written to me more fully, in October of the preceding year, 1751.
I shall not, very Reverend Sirs, go into the matter of exposing new facts developed by P. de Wint's action, and which accidentally came to my knowledge a short time ago. It will be enough to confine myself to what is now occupying our minds, namely: whether judging from what was written and sent over by the Rev. Coetus of New York, and what came from the pen of P. de Wint himself, whether P. de Wint made out a good defence; and whether Pieter de Wint could have procured a testimonial, such as he presented, in the way he has been pretending, and still, against all truth and honor, continues to pretend. But, I will not enlarge on this either, but merely make a few brief remarks on that noted classical testimonial, a copy of which was sent us, and on his defence.
To that end I shall quote briefly the words of the copy sent, which your Revs. will please to compare with the same. Did I know how to find Pieter de Wint in this country, or should it happen that after my death, my children could find him, he would not be left free to go, without having his statements, which he made before the Rev. Coetus, and his communication to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, abund- antly proved in court; or else suffer the penalties which, by the laws of the land. are fixed for such base frauds as P. de Wint has perpetrated, and still continues to perpetrate, while at the same time defaming my character. Let no one suspect me or my children of a feeling of bitter revenge; since we know too well wbo it is to whom vengence belongs, and who, when the measure of wickedness is full, will rightly execute it in his own time.
I shall make a beginning, then, with the so-called Testimoniun Classicale. That, as it lies there, as several members of the Rev. ministry of the city of Amsterdam know well enough, is entirely different from the form, and language in use by the Rev. Classis of Neder Veluwe, in giving testimonials of admission. I doubt not but that, when carefully looked into, it will show clearly enough, that no one of us could have composed it, but rather an Uplander, or German; for the form, the lan- gnage, and the very manner of expression which occur in it, will prove this.
I would do nothing more with that testimonial, did not Pieter de Wint, (in order to clear Rev. A. V. Medenbach, who is said to have signed it as scribe of the Classis), intimate that Rev. Wynstok was the author of it, and distinctly declare him to be a deceiver.
According to the letter of the pretended testimonial, we find P. de Wint described as a "Vir juvenis praestantissimus et doctissimus"-plainly, a notorious falsehood; for that description is very much at variance with his character as known to Rev. Wynstock for many years; and by him already made known to your Revs. last year.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3259 1752
Moreover, when he is further described, as a "Filius hand degener Jan Jensen de Wint," I am well convinced, (though I never knew his late father, either personally or by his first name,) it must be untrue; for it is possible to prove that that testi- monial would bear his true signature, if the word, "hand" were taken out of it; and that, the Rev. Wynkoop knew for years, uti supra. It was never the fashion to describe a candidate like that in our classical testimonials, since the father is a private person.
Then follows, "post absolutum studium Academicum probationem suy a vobis moderatoribus Classis Harderowicensis petyt. One never wrote, N. B. Harderowi, but Harderovi Censis. But to the point: who were those Moderatores? As these are thus mentioned, was it not necessary for them all to have signed their names? Then there is, of course, no Classis of Harderwyk, but a Neder Veluwe Classis. The date set for the examination, as the 4th of February is also false. According to the pre- tended testimonial, he preached from 1 Pet. 2:25; and, in his defence before the Coetus, he was examined thereon by Rev. Wynstok; for the text of his defence reads thus: "Hereupon Rev. Wynstok examined him on 1 Pet. 2:25. "Oportet mendacem esse memorem.
But to make an end of this; the passage quoted just before, began: "post absolu- tum studium Academicum etc." Observe, Rev. Sirs, what is to be thought of his Academic studies. Besides, in the pretended testimonial nothing is said of "Testi- monia Ecclesiastica et Academica"-which, with other things, might or could not well be omitted; and which P. de Wint never had or could have had. According to his pretension, P. de Wint is examined on the 4th of February, 1749. The pretended testimonial is delivered and signed on the 14th of February, 1749. And the same P. de Wint is, according to the authentic extract from the Album Academicum, accompanying this under letter B, matriculated as theological student in the Album Academicum, not before the 23rd of January, 1749.
This, then, a refined lie as it is, will also destroy P. de Wint's pretension in his defence before the Rev. Coetus of New York, which is the text sent us, begins with: "that, intending as soon as possible to leave Harderwyk, where, he says, he has studied for a time, etc." Rev. Wynstok, too, must have been a man wholly inex- perienced in church matters and without sense, if, as P. de Wint makes out, he had entered with him into (such a) conversation. Still more sensible it would have been for him to give de Wint, contrary to all Church Order and offical duty, yea, against better knowledge, the promise of procuring for him a certificate from the Classis; and to accomplish that, as de Wint further pretends, against all truth and con- science. But, if that alleged conversation or transaction of Rev. Wynstok with P. de Wint is compared with the way in which the matters were conducted, and with the result, namely, the quasi examination and the giving of the testimonial, it reveals so clearly, that, no one can fail to see, the inconsistencies which can come only from one who, at the expense of truth and the good name and honor of his neighbor, tries to palliate and cover up his own shameful and punishable conduct.
Pieter de Wint pretends, "to have been examined by Rev. Wynstok on 1 Pet. 2:25, and on some other theological points;" but he openly confesses, "that he had neither preached nor been examined in the languages, either by Rev. Wynstok or by the Classis." Is it possible to conceive greater ignorance in Church matters, or more contradictions in a matter of that kind? For all those statements remarkably tend to convince every one who looks into them, of P. de Wint's lying spirit. How was that examination on 1 Pet. 2:25 carred on, seeing that the testimonial states, as above alleged, that he preached from that text? How about the theological points to the exclusion of the Sacred Languages? What points were they? How was Rev. Wynstok qualified; and how could he examine therein a person whom he knew intus et in lute, had never attended a theological college; or even remained long enough at Harderwyk to learn Hebrew by private instruction of the late Rev. Jac. Kalverslager. This is evident from his slyly trying to escape the examination in languages? How was it possible for him to pass over the examination in the Sacred Languages? And how could that examination take place without the Classis not only, but, as the event proved, without any foreknowledge or consent of that Classis, and contrary to its established order? When then, and in what form, was that so-called examination held? No matter for the discrepancy, de Wint says "that the accompanying original testimonial of candidacy, signed by Rev. Medenbach as regular scribe of the last meeting of Classis, was delivered to him by Rev. Wynstok."
63
3260
1752
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
Every expression occurring here is an untruth, for it is notoriously false that Rev. A. D. Medenbach, who never made the acquaintance of P. de Wint, was the regular scribe of the Classis in 1749. However, in the said year, 1749, a "Classis contracta" was held at Harderwyk for the final examination of Rev. H. Ribbers, of which, according to classical usage, the Deputies of the three districts were moderators, and also examiners. So de Wint presumably called to mind the name of Rev. Medenbach that of a neighboring minister who often came to what was then his lodging place; and so also, without further thought, made use of the name Harderwyk Classis.
If the man had been fit for examination, and if he had been legalized, (which was not the case,) he could for the usual fee of thirty guilders have been examined by that "Classis contracta"; and thus falls to the ground, as false, that pretended effort on the part of Rev. Wynstok to dissaude him from calling a meeting of Classis to avoid expense. This has been made out to be the unfortunate bottom of such a fatal occurrence. If we were in possession of the ecclesiastical and classical testi- monial, the original of which P. de Wint laid before the Rev. Coetus, but a copy of which only has come to your Revs.' hands, we should be able to make the necessary observations on the hand-writing and the signature, for both the one and the other are clearly false.
P. de Wint, in order to protect himself against all attack on account of such doings, does not hesitate to declare Rev. Wynstok to be the guilty man, and him- self innocent; insinuating also, as he does, that Rev. Wynstok must be guilty of falsifying which is worthy of severe punishment, in a matter of such great moment, and of such far reaching consequences. For de Wint says "that he gave Rev. Wynstok six ducats for that testimonial." But where did that happen? Did he in person, or through someone else, pay that money to Rev. Wynstok? If through someone else-and it seems to point that way-then who is that man? Where does he live?
Now, in order to prevent people from not accepting these statements, for the reason that Rev. Wynstok could not keep himself from being exposed, one lie is piled up on top of the other. For, to that end, is gotten up the condition which Rev. Wynstok is said to have made, "that P. de Wint must not accept a call, or become a minister, or even show his testimonial in Holland, nor preach there; but only in the West Indies." Here de Wint speaks first of becoming a minister, and then of preaching; and of Rev. Wynstok's giving him the liberty to do each of the things in the West Indies. Evidently, if one should be at all disposed to admit the truth of this statement, one must conclude that Rev. Wynstok-not to speak of a wicked perversity-was as ignorant in church matters at that time as P. de Wint who clearly shows that he neither had then, nor has now, any knowledge of such matters whatever. How could de Wint, in officiating as a candidate in the West Indies, expect to keep himself concealed from the Classis in the Fatherland? Or, how could he possibly gain his end in the West Indies without being commissioned from the Fatherland. In a close defence on questions put to P. de Wint by the Rev. Coetus, his reply to the inquiry, "Why he had willingly and knowingly deceived the Classis by presenting false Certificates", was the bare pretext of ignorance. He could not do otherwise. When it was insisted, "whether de Wint did not know, then, that he had not been examined by the Classis in full, or by Rev. Wynstok in the languages," he could get no farther with his reply than pretend the same ignor- ance which he pleaded in the case of the falseness of the testimonials.
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.