USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 40
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
(2) His deportment is such as to make him a scandal, not only to Van Sinderen's followers, but also to a multitude of his own. This arises especially from his behavior to his servant-maid, which has caused many family disputes, and induced his best friends to tell him to turn her out of his house; instead of which, on the contrary, when he was sick, not long since, he made his will, as one of his friends assures us, in her favor, to the exclusion of his
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3425 1753
own brother in Rotterdam. Hence it comes, that he is often overcome by strong drink, and on different occasions has acted like a drunken man or a madman, in the presence of many wit- nesses.
For these and many other reasons, the Assembly was led to the conclusion expressed in their previous minutes (p. lxxx.)
Now as to the Reasons of that Conclusion.
1. The restoration of the congregation could not be effected without a lawful Consistory, chosen from both parties; and this would be no detriment, but rather an advantage to Arondeus's followers, since they would thus become one body with the others.
2. Nor was it to their detriment that they were somewhat limited in their freedom, (of choice of a minister,) since they had often desired this very thing, and thus their wishes were gratified ; and since, on the other hand, such a person, being without any appearance of partisanship, could be useful to both parties.
3. It was in accordance with the usage of the fatherland, and also to their advantage, not at once to put them entirely under the ministry of Van Sinderen, but to give them the ministrations of others when Arondeus ceased to serve. If they had objections to any of our members, these would have yielded for the sake of peace.
4. It was also manifestly for their advantage, in that thus the balance in the Consistory was preserved, and no one party got the ascendency.
Hence Rev. Fathers, we think that all was done impartially by us for the attainment of the desired end, without wounding our consciences, and in our view, no occasion was given for any such protest; still we submit it entirely and readily to your wise and considerate judgement.
Now as to the protest, it may be reduced to two chief points :
I. It declares that the decision made on the 16th of April, 1752, was unjust: 1. Because they were not heard; and 2. Because their protest was refused by Dom. Haeghoort as President.
3426
1753
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
To this the Assembly reply, that the decision complained of was not then made for the first time, but was simply a new declara- tion of a former decision, adopted on good grounds by the Coetus, and confirmed by the Rev. Classis.
It is true, we were requested, if it were possible and expedient, to restore the deposed person, which with great forbearance we tried to do, although a large portion of the congregation protested against it. Yet it seemed inexpedient to us to restore a man who had misconducted himself as Arondeus had been proved to have done, without some appearance of repentance; wherefore, while acting toward him with great patience and indulgence, we still required some acknowledgements from him. These he engaged to make, but never did, nay, rather aggravated his faults, and showed himself to be just such a man as we had declared him to be in our sentence. His persistent misbehavior, too, so alienated the hearts of the people from him, that we could see nothing but mischief in his restoration. It would moreover close the door to the healing of the schism throughout the Island, so long as he remained to keep the flame of discord blazing in Queens County, whereby the congregation would remain vacant and exposed, and the village of Gravesend, which he had cut off, would continue separated from the others and unable to call
another pastor. And as it was impossible for us in any way to induce Van Sinderen's party to call Arondeus, it seemed desirable, both for him and the congregation, that he should leave them : for him, because, as he still retained his office, he could not go to another congregation where this judgement would have no force, just as was the case with Dom. Goetschius; and for the congregation of Long Isand, because they would be settled by uniting, as we advised them, in the call of a man not connected with either party. Our decision therefore was not unjust, because,
1. Our sentence, and the declaration of it, made April 16, 1752, were not without a hearing of them. The charge, indeed, is rather against the Classis than us; yet it is untrue, for they were heard by the Classis, and the grounds on which that body acted are now seen to be well taken, since he himself undertook to make acknowledgments for them as misdeeds.
3427 1753
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
Nor were they unheard the second time that we refused to restore Arondeus, for both the Coetus and the committee gave them a long hearing, in which the former are to be blamed rather for patience and forbearance than for precipitation.
2. As to the refusal of their protest by Dom. Haeghoort as President, no protest was offered, no appeal was desired by them. But there were abusive words and ebullitions of bitter feelings, which compelled us to order them to withdraw, when in strict justice we might have put them under censure.
II. As to the second feature of the protest, which charges us with disregarding the propositions of the Classis, the reasons already as signed will justify us in our course, besides the fact that the Classis gave us entire liberty in the matter.
As to the " keeping in the dark," of which they complain, in regard to the propositions of the Rev. Classis, the seals of our letters must have lain unbroken on their table.
The proposition we have now made is the best we can devise to unite and preserve this congregation, as the above-named reasons show. And our request to you, Rev. Fathers, is, that you will reject this groundless protest, and unite hand in hand with us in bringing into effect the means we have mentioned for producing harmony.
That this is our reply, I testify.
Sam'l Verbryck, V. D. M., p. t. Pres. New York, Sept. 20, 1753.
WAS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND EVER ESTABLISHED IN NEW YORK. The Arguments in support of an Ecclesiastical Establishment in
this Province, impartially considered, and refuted.
By Hon. Wm. Livingston .* Sept. 27, 1753.
Eripe turpi
Colla jugo : Liber, liber sum, dic age. Hor.
Whether the Church of England is equally established in the Colonies, as in the Southern Parts of Great Britain, is a Question that has often been controverted. Those who hold the Affirmative, have drawn a long Train of Consequences in favour of the Episcopalians, taking it for granted, that the Truth is on their Side. The Presbyterians, Independents, Congregationalists, Anabaptists, Quakers, and all those among us, who in England would fall under the general Denomination of Dis- senters, are warm in the Negative. I beg Leave, therefore, to interpose in the
* See Sedgewick's Life of Wm. Livingston.
3428
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1753
Debate; and as I promised in the Introduction to these Papers to vindicate the religious, as well as civil Rights and Privileges of my Countrymen, I shall devote this Paper to a Consideration of so important a Point; to which I am the more strongly inclined, because such Establishment has often been urged against the Scheme I have proposed for the Constitution of our College. My opinion is, that the Notion of a general religious' Establishment in this Province, is entirely ground- less. According to the strict Rules of Controversy, the Onus probandi, or the Burden of the Proof, lies upon those who affirm the Position; and it would, there- fore, be sufficient for me barely to deny it, till those who advance the Doctrine of an Establishment, have exhibited their Proofs to maintain it. I shall, nevertheless, waive the Advantage of this Rule of the Schools, and, as becomes an Impartial Advocate for Truth, proceed to state the Arguments, which are generally urged in support of an Establishment. I shall then show their Insufficiency, and conclude with the particular Reasons upon which my Opinion is founded.
They who assert, that the Church of England is established in this Province, never, that I have heard of, pretended that it owes its Establishment to any pro- vincial Law of our own making. Nor, indeed, is there the least Ground for such a Supposition. The Acts that establish a Ministry in this, and three other Counties, do not affect the whole Colony; and therefore can, by no Means, be urged in support of a general Establishment. Nor were they originally designed to establish the Episcopalians in Preference or Exclusion of any other Protestants in those counties to which they are limited. But as the Proposition is, that the Establish- ment of the Church of England, is equally binding here as in England; so agree- able thereto, the Arguments they adduce are the following :
First, That as we are an English Colony, the constitutional Laws of our Mother Country, antecedent to a Legislature of our own, are binding upon us; and there- fore, at the planting of this Colony, the English religious Establishment immediately took Place.
Secondly, That the Act which established the Episcopal Church in South-Britain, previous to the Union of England and Scotland, extends to, and equally affects all the Colonies.
These are the only Arguments that can be offered with the least Plausibility, and if they are shown to be inconclusive the Position is disproved, and the Arguments of consequence must be impertinent and groundless. I shall begin with an Examina- tion of the First : and here it must be confessed for undoubted Law, that every new Colony, 'till it has a Legislature of its own, is in general subject to the Laws of the Country from which it originally sprang; But that all of them without Dis- tinction, are to be supposed binding upon such Planters, is neither agreeable to Law nor Reason. The Laws which they carry with them, and to which they are subject, are such as are absolutely necessary to answer the original Intention of our entering into a State of Society. Such as are requisite in their New-Colony State, for the Advancement of their and the general Prosperity; such, without which they will neither be protected in their Lives, Liberty nor Property : And the true Reason of their being considered even subject to such Laws, arises from the absolute Necessity of their being under some Kind of Government, their sup- porting a Colony, Relation and Dependence, and the evident Fitness of their Sub- jection to the Laws of their Mother Country, with which alone they can be supposed to be acquainted. Even at this Day we extend every general Act of Parliament which we think reasonable and fit for us, though it was neither designed to be a Law upon us, nor has Words to include us, and has even been enacted long since we had a Legislature of our own. This is a Practice we have introduced for our conveniency ; but that the English Laws, so far as I have dis- tinguished them, should be binding upon us, antecedent to our having a Legislature of our own, is of absolute unavoidable Necessity. But no such Necessity, can be pretended in favour of the Introduction of any religious Establishment whatsoever ; because, it is evident that different Societies do exist with different ecclesiastical Laws, or which is sufficient to my Purpose, wthout such as the English Establish- ments ; and that Civil Society, as it is antecedent to any ecclesiastical Establish- ments, is in its Nature unconnected with them, independent of them, and all social Happiness compleatly attainable without them.
Secondly, To suppose all the Laws of England, without Distinction, obligatory upon every new Colony at its Implantation, is absurd, and would effectually pre- vent the Subjects from undertaking so hazardous an Adventure. Upon such a Supposition, a thousand Laws will be introduced, inconsistent with the State of a
3429
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1753
new Country, and destructive of the Planters. To use the Words of the present Attorney General, SIR DUDLEY RYDER, "It would be acting the Part of an unskilful Physician, who should prescribe the same Dose to every Patient, without distinguishing the Variety of Distempers and Constitutions". According to this Doctrine, we are subject to the payment of Tythes, ought to have a spiritual Court, and impoverished, as the first Settlers of the Province must have been, they were yet liable to the payment of the Land Tax. And had this been the Sense of our Rulers, and their Conduct conformable thereto, scarce ever would our Colonies have appeared in their present flourishing Condition ; especially if it be considered, that the first Settlers of most of them, sought an exemption in these American Wilds, from the Establishment to which they were subject at Home.
Thirdly, If the Planters of every new Colony, carry with them the established Religion of the Country from whence they migrate, it follows, that of a Colony had been planted when the English Nation were Pagans, the Establishment in such Colony must be of Paganism alone: And in like Manner, had this Colony been planted while Popery was established in England, the Religion of Papists must have been our established Religion ; and if it is our Duty to conform to the Religion established at Home, we are equally bound, against conscience and the Bible, to be Pagans, Papists or Protestants, according to the particular Religion they shall please to adopt. A Doctrine that can never be urged, but with a very ill grace indeed, by any Protestant Minister.
Fourthly, If the Church of England is established in this Colony, it must either be founded on Acts of Parliament, or the Common Law. That it is not yet estab- lished by the First, I shall prove in the Sequel ; and that it cannot be established by the Common Law, appears from the following Considerations.
The Common Law of England properly defined, consists of those general Laws to which the English have been accustomed from time to time, whereof there is no Memory to the Contrary ; and every Law deriving its Validity from such immemorial Custom must be carried back as far as to the Reign of RICHARD I. whose Death happened on the 6th of April, 1199. But the present Establishment of the Church of England, was not 'till the fifth year of Queen ANN. And hence it is apparent, that the Establishment of the Church of England, can never be argued from the Common Law, even in England; nor can be any part of it, since it depends not for its Validity, upon Custom immemorial. And therefore, though it be admitted, that every English Colony is subject to the Common Law of the Realm, it by no Means follows, that the Church of England is established in the Colonies ; because, the Common Law knows of no such religious Establishment, nor considers any religious Establishment whatever, as any part of the English Constitution. It does, indeed, incourage Religion ; but that, and a particular Church Government, are Things intirely different.
I proceed now to a Consideration of the second Argument insisted on, to prove an Episcopal Establishment in the Colonies, founded on the Act which established the Church of England, passed in the fifth year of Queen ANN, recited and ratified in the Act for an Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland. And that this Act does not establish the Church of England in the Colonies, has been so fully shewn by Mr. HOBART, in his second Address to the Episcopal Separation in New England, that I shall content myself with an Extract from the Works of that ingenious Gentleman, which with very little Alteration, is as follows :
" The Act we are now disputing about, was made in the fifth year of Queen ANN, and is entitled, 'An Act for securing the Church of England, as by Law established.' The Occasion of the Statute was this: The Parliament in Scotland, when treating of an Union with England, were apprehensive of its endangering their ecclesiastical Establishment. Scotland was to have but a small Share in the Legislature of Great Britain, but forty five Members in the House of Commons, which consist of above five hundred, and but sixteen in the House of Lords, which then consisted of near an hundred, and might be increased by the Sovereign at Pleasure. The Scots, therefore, to prevent having their ecclesiastical Establishment repealed in a British Parliament, where they might be so easily out-voted by the English Mem- bers, passed an Act previous to the Union, establishing the Presbyterian Church within the Kingdom of Scotland, in perpetuity, and made this Act an essential and fundamental Part of the Union which might not be repealed, or altered by any subsequent British Parliament; And this put the English Parliament upon passing this Act for securing the Church of England. Neither of them designed to enlarge
3430
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1753
the Bounds of their ecclesiastical Constitution, or extend their Establishment further than it reached before, but only to secure and perpetuate it in its then present Extent. This is evident, not only from the Occasion of the Act, but from the charitable Temper the English Parliament was under the influence of, when they passed it. The Lords NORTH and GREY offered a Rider to be added to the Bill for an Union, viz .- That it might not extend to an Approbation or Acknowledge- ment of the Truth of the Presbyterian Way of Worship, or allowing the Religion of the Church of Scotland to be what it is stiled, the true protestant Religion. But this Clause was rejected ... ... .A Parliament that would acknowledge the Religion of the Church of Scotland, to be the true protestant Religion, and allow their Acts to extend to an Approbation of the Presbyterian Way of Worship, though they might think it best to secure and perpetuate the Church of England within those Bounds wherein it was before established, can hardly be supposed to have designed to extend it beyond them.".
" The Title of the Act is exactly agreeable to what we have said of the Design of it, and of the Temper of the Parliament that passed it. 'Tis entitled, An Act not for enlarging, but for securing the Church of England, and that not in the American Plantations, but as it is now by Law established; which plainly means no more than to perpetuate it within its ancient Boundaries."
"The Provision made in the Act itself, is well adapted to this Design; for it enacts, That the Act of the 13th of ELIZABETH, [1564] and the Act of Uniformity, passed in the 13th Year of CHARLES II. [1671] and all and singular other Acts of Parliament then in Force for the Establishment and Preservation of the Church of England, should remain in full Force forever; and that every succeeding Sovereign should at his Coronation, take and subscribe an Oath to maintain and preserve inviolably, the said Settlement of the Church of England, as by Law Established, within the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, the Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the Territories thereunto belonging. This Act doth not use such expressions as would have been proper and even necessary, had the Design been to have made a new Establishment, but only such as are proper to ratify and confirm an old One. The Settlement which the King is sworn to preserve, is represented as existing previously to the passing this Act, and not as made by it. The Words of the Oath are, to maintain and preserve inviolably the said Settlement. If it be asked, What Settlement? The Answer must be, a Settle- ment hereofore made and confirmed by certain Statutes, which for the greater Certainty and Security are enumerated in this Act, and declared to be unalterable. This is the Settlement the King is sworn to preserve, and this Settlement has no Relation to us in America; for the Act which originally made it, did not reach hither, and this Act which perpetuates them, does not extend them to us."
It is a Mistake to imagine, that the Words Territories necessarily means these American Colonies. " These Countries are usually in Law, as well as other Writ- ings, stiled Colonies or Plantations, and not Territories. An Instance of this we have in the Charter to the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge". And it is the invariable Practice of the Legislature, in every Act of Parliament, both before and after this Act, designed to affect us to use the Words Colonies or Plantations. Nor is it to be supposed, that in so important a Matter, Words of so direct and broad an Intent would have been omitted. "The Islands of Jersey and Guernsey, were properly Territories belonging to the Kingdom of England, before the Union took Place; and they stand in the same Relation to the Kingdom of Great Britain since. The Church of England was established in these Islands, and the Legislature intended to perpetuate it in them, as well as in England itself ; so that as these Islands were not particularly named in the Act, there was Occasion to use the Word Territories, even upon the Supposition, that they did not design to make the establishment more extensive than it was before this Law passed ". Further, in order to include the Plantations in the Word Territories, we must suppose it always to mean, every other Part of the Dominions not par- ticularly mentioned in the Instrument, that uses it, which is a Construction that can never be admitted: For, hence it will follow, that those Commissions which give the Government of a Colony, and the Territories thereon depending in America (and this is the Case of every one of them) extend to all the American Colonies, and their Governors must of Consequence have reciprocal Superintendencies ; and should any Commission include the Word Territories generally, unrestricted to America, by the same Construction the Governor therein mentioned, might exercise
a
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3431 1753
an Authority under it, not only in America, but in Africa, and the Indies, and even in the Kingdom of Ireland, and perhaps, in the absence of the King, in Great-Britain itself. Mr. HOBART goes on, and argues against the Establishment from the Light in which the Act of Union has, ever since it was passed, been considered. " Dr. BISSE, Bishop of Hereford, (says he) a Member of the Society, preached the annual Sermon, February 21, 1717, ten Years after the Act of Union took Place, and he says, it would have well become the Wisdom wherewith that great Work (the Reformation or Establishment of the Church of England) was conducted in this Kingdom, that this foreign Enterprise (the Settlement of Plantations in America) also should have been carried on by the Government, in the like regular Way. But he owns the Government at home did not interpose in the Case, or establish any Form of Religion for us. In Truth, (says his Lordship) the whole was left to the Wisdom of the first Proprietors, and to the Conduct of every private Man. He observes, that of late Years the Civil Interest hath been regarded, and the Dependence of the Colonies, on the Imperial Crown of the Realm, secured : But then, with regard to the Religion of the Plantations, his Lordship acknowledges, that the Government itself here at Home, sovereign as it is, and invested doubtless with sufficient Authority there, hath not thought fit to interpose in this Matter, other- wise than in this charitable Way: It hath enabled us to ask the Benevolence of all good Christians towards the Support of Missionaries to be sent among them. Thus Bishop BISSE thought as I do, and that the Act of Union, nor any other Law prior thereto, did extend the Establishment to the Plantations : And if the Society had not been of the same Opinion, they would hardly have printed and dispersed his Sermon. Neither did the Civil Rulers of the Nation, who may justly be supposed acquainted with its Laws, think the Act of Union, or any other Law, established the Church of England in America. This is plain from the Letter of the Lords Justices to Governor Dummer, in the Year 1725, almost twenty Years after the Union, wherein they say, there is no regular Establishment of any national or provincial Church in these Plantations."
" If it be urged, that the King's Commission to the Bishop of London, proves an ecclesiastical Establishment here, it is sufficient to answer, that his Lordship was remarkable for skill in the Laws, so far as they relate to ecclesiastical Affairs, as appears from his Codex: And he was of the contrary Opinion; for in his Letter to Dr. COLMAN, of May 24, 1735, he writes thus : My opinion has always been, that the religious State of NEW-ENGLAND, is founded in an equal Liberty to all Protestants; none of which can claim the Name of a national Establishment, or any kind of Superiority over the rest. This Opinion the Bishop gave, not only since the Act of Union, but even seven Years after he had received his Commission, and surely it must be admitted, that as he had time enough to consider it, so he of all others best understood it". Thus far Mr. Hobart. With Respect to the Act of Union, I beg leave only to subjoin, that it is highly probable the Scotch Parliament believed the English intended to establish their Church only in England; for in the Close of the Act by which they had established the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, it is declared in these express Words, That the Parliament of England may provide for the Security of the Church of England. And whatever Latitude the Word King- dom has in common Speech, it in a legal Sense is limitted, to England properly so called, and excludes the Plantations.
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.