USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 44
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
75
1
:
3452
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1753
of Fordham, and for granting us some further liberties and privileges for the better management of our affairs and the well-ordering of our churches.
This kind indulgence of the Legislature we trust shall always be. The Act is not to take effect, until such time as it receives the approbation of our most Gracious Sovereign. We humbly request the favor of your Honor's interest with the ministry at home, that this Act may be recommended to his Sacred Majesty for his royal assent. This, Sir, will add a new obligation to those wherein we are already bound.
And that the Almighty God may abundantly reward your Honor, shall be the constant prayer of
Your Honor's most dutiful and obedient servants.
HIS HONOR'S ANSWER.
Gentlemen:
I thank you for this address. I readily gave my assent to the Act you mention, being persuaded it would be of service to your church. And as I am convinced from the principles you profess, that you will use the further liberties and privileges granted to your church for promoting Religion and Loyalty, I shall recommend the Act for his Majesty's most gracious approbation.
NOTE ON THE MANOR OF FORDHAM, THE PROPERTY OF THE REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH OF NEW YORK.
For a general history of the Manors in New York, see Scharf's History of West- chester County, 1886. Therein is found a map of the Manors in Westchester County, and an elaborate history of most of those Manors. That of "Colen-Donck" or "Adrian van der Donck's Colony" is found on page 66, seq. He was styled by the Director and Council "the Yoncker", which is a corruption of Jonkheer, "a young gentleman," and which is perpetuated in the name Yonkers.
Vander Donck died in 1655. On Oct. 8th, the title to his estate was confirmed, by Gov. Nicolls, to Hugh O'Neale and Mary, his wife, the latter having been Vander Donck's widow. She was the daughter of Rev. Francis Doughty of Flushing. On Oct. 30, 1666, a sale was made of this estate to Elias Doughty of Flushing, a brother of Mrs. O'Neale. In 1667 he began to sell it in parcels, one of the first sales being to John Archer. Four years later, Nov. 13, 1671, Archer's purchase, with some adjoin- ing parcels, was erected, in his favor, into the MANOR OF FORDHAM, by Gov- ernor Lovelace, acting under James, the Duke of York and Albany. This Manor was a parallelogram, embracing land between the Harlem river and the Bronx; on the Harlem extending from near Kings Bridge to a little south of the present High Bridge; and on the Bronx, from Williams Bridge to West Farms. It contained four or five square miles, and was the oldest of the Westchester Manors .*
The patent which Archer received from Governor Lovelace in 1671, says, concern- ing church matters: That when there should be a sufficient number of inhabitants in the town of Fordham, and in the Manor, capable of maintaining a minister, and to carry on public affairs, the neighboring inhabitants between the Harlem and the Bronx should be obliged to contribute toward the maintenance of the minister and other public charges.
* There were six of these Freehold Manors, (not Feudal Manors), in Westchester County, as follows:
1. The Manor of Fordham, as above, granted Nov. 13, 1671.
2. The Manor of Pelham, between Hutchinson Creek and the Sound, (purchased as were all the English Manors), and granted to Thos. Pell, by Gov. Dongan, acting under King James II. Date Oct. 3, 1687.
3. The Manor of Philipsborough, running from the mouth of the Harlem, along the Hudson, to Croton Point, and extending eastward to the Bronx, granted to Frederick Philipse, by Gov. Fletcher, acting under William and Mary. Dated June 12, 1693.
4. The Manor of Morrisania, south of the Manor of Fordham, between the Harlem and the Bronx, and extending south to the Sound, granted to Lewis Morris, by Gov. Fletcher, under William III, June 17, 1697.
5. The Manor of Cortland, running from Croton Point, along the Hudson, to Put- nam County, and eastward, almost to Connecticut, granted to Stephen Van Cort- landt, by Gov. Fletcher, on the same date as the preceding.
6. The Manor of Scarsdale, north of Pelham Manor, granted to Caleb Heathcote, by Lt. Gov. Nanfan, acting under William. Dated March 21, 1701.
3453 1753
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
Archer soon leased most of his farms to different parties. In 1671 the leases began to stipulate that the rents should be paid to Cornelius Steenwyck, his secretary. For as early as Sept. 11, 1669, Archer had given a mortgage on his lands to Steen- wyck for eleven hundred guilders, to be paid in wampum. Additional mortgages were given him in 1671 and 1676.
But Archer was arbitrary in his rule over his tenants, and they found great fault with him. In 1673, the tenants made complaint to Governor Colve and his councillor, Steenwyck, and obtained the right to nominate six magistrates of the Reformed Religion, half of whom should be Dutch, out of whom the Governor would choose three for the Manor. Archer agreed to this on condition that he should retain his lands. Numerous suits were subsequently brought against him, and execution was allowed against his personal property. He died in 1680, and shortly after the entire Manor, by foreclosures of mortgages or otherwise, passed into the possession of Cornelius Steenwyck of New York City. On Nov. 20, 1684, (see document under this date) Steenwyck and wife, by form of "pre-legacy", bequeathed their interests in the Manor to the Dutch Church of New York City. Steenwyck died within a year, and his widow, on Sept. 16, 1685, formally transferred these rights to the said Church. The Consistory accepted the same, on the same date, on condition that the widow would clear the Manor of all claims. On Oct. 16, 1685, the son and only heir of Archer, for a consideration, gave a quit claim to Mrs. Steenwyck. In 1686, Mrs. Steenwyck married domine Henricus Selyns, the minister of said church, and on Jan. 1, 1694-5, (see document under said date) they conveyed the said Manor, to the elders, and their successors, as trustees, in behalf of said Dutch Church of New York. The names of the elders in 1695 were Col. Nich. Bayard, Capt. Isaac Ver- milye, Jacob Boelen Roelofson, and John Harpendinck. This, no doubt, hastened the efforts of that church to secure a charter, which was accomplished on May 11, 1696. After holding the Manor for about sixty eight years, they secured an Act on Dec. 12, 1753 to allow them to sell it. It had been a constant source of annoyance, and the income from it was not very great; and as it was given for the support of the ministers of said church, (and the expenses of the church, with new buildings and additional ministers, had greatly increased,) it was believed that the moneys arising from the sale of the Manor could be far more usefully employed, in purchas- ing and improving other lands which would much better answer the pious designs of the donor; therefore, they sought this special Act of the Assembly of the State to enable them to sell. Notice of the Consistory's application for this Act was given for three Sundays previously, in the Manor Church. The privilege was accord- ingly given them to sell the Manor in one or more lots and to execute sufficient deeds, the moneys to be used only for the purpose indicated. Their Charter was also now re-affirmed, the privilege of enlarging their Consistory given them, as well as general liberty of action in all matters pertaining to their churches; and their right of income raised from two hundred pounds New York money (1696) to one thousand pounds sterling, (1753).
NOTE ON THE EARLY CHURCHES OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N. Y.
The Manor of Fordham formally became the property of the Dutch Church of New York in 1694. That region was chiefly in possession of Reformed Dutch people. This was virtually acknowledged in the Patent of the Manor of Fordham, to Archer in 1671. The Patent only stipulated that when there was a sufficient number of people, they should be obliged to contribute toward the maintenance of their minister, and other necessary charges. This did not establish any one sect, although coming from an English Governor, but left it to the people. In 1693, the Ministry Act divided Westchester County into two parishes, but no denomination was men- tioned in the Act. The French Church of New Rochelle had already been in exist- ence since 1688. The two parishes mentioned were called Westchester and Rye. The Parish of Westchester embraced Westchester, Eastchester, Yonkers, and the Manor of Pelham, and the Episcopal Church of St. Peters was at once founded at West- chester. The Parish of Rye embraced the towns of Rye, Mamaroneck and Bedford, and the Episcopal Church of Rye was at once founded. This division into these two parishes, did not, however, practically interfere with the preferences of the people in the Manor of Fordham, which belonged to the Dutch Church of New York. That Consistory established a Reformed Church at Fordham in 1696, the very year
1
. ยท ,
1
.
1
3454
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1753
in which it secured its charter, and if the minor dates are correct, on the very day that charter was signed; but it was probably only a dependency of the city church, until 1802. A French minister, Rev. John Montaigne, began at once to supply this church in 1696, but how long he continued, is not known. Rev. Henricus Beys may have visited it before he went to Holland in 1708, as he was about this time, per- suaded by Col. Lewis Morris to go to England and receive Episcopal ordination. Rev. John Peter Tetard was pastor, 1712-44. It was then supplied by Ritzema, or the other Collegiate Church ministers until the Revolution.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
Church of Jamaica to the Classis of Amsterdam, Dec. 1753.
Portfolio " New York ", Vol. ii. Extracts, Vol. xxiii : 408.
Very Reverend Fathers in Christ :-
We, the consistories of the Church of Jesus Christ at Jamaica, (etc?) formed by the Rev. Coetus, and declared to be legal; having requested, obtained and success- fully used our authority and liberty in calling a minister, did in October last, send your Revs. a letter. We had such confidence in the righteousness of our cause and the authority of the Rev. Coetus, that we did not even think of troubling your Revs, with reports of this. Rumors from a distance, however, have alarmed us. (Some of) our party is already turning back. We have still to cross the sea. We think, we have reason to complain of their irregular conduct.
1. We find it hard that they did not protest against us in Classis or Coetus four years ago, when we were organized in name and by authority of the Rev. Coetus. They made objection against one of our number chosen, accusing him, though very unjustly, of misconduct. As they said that they had nothing against the others, we left him uninstalled, and took it for granted, then, that they had, in some measure recognized us. True, five or six of them went to work in the church in a rather high-handed manner, taking possession of the pulpit, a proceding which, neither at that time nor since has met with (formal) ecclesiastical opposition. But now, that we have made a call, so long a time after our appointment, they hope at least to delay matters. Recently they appeared in the Coetus opposing us with a protest against the call made. We heard of it and asked to know what it was they had against it. They then withdraw their protest; but when the Coetus is about to adjourn, they send word again that their protest must stand. The Coetus then appoints a Committee to reply to it. For two months longer it is withheld, One of the Committee goes in person to get it, but it is refused. Now when all oppor- tunity for sending letters is past, it is handed in to us.
2. We find it difficult to appear with them in court, as we do not have the same advantage. We are of opinion that we must not exercise our own judgement, but subject ourselves to the judgement of the Coetus, with the right of further class- ical or ecclesiastical appeal. They, on the contrary, have, evidently, other ideas, For four years already have they been under the condemnation of the Rev. Coetus and Arondeus has never been (settled?) heretofore in Queens County; and yet, in one matter and another, they have kept on in their own way, without protest or appeal. Refer, for yourselves, to the pages of their former letters, composed for them by Arondeus, as his handwriting shows, but signed by them. In these, as we are informed, they wrote with sufficient definiteness, that they were not willing to listen to your judgement either, (as well as not to the Coetus.) These letters were from those justices of the peace, and from that pretended consistory. We, on the contrary, submit ourselves, or sought an ecclesiastical remedy, as soon as you ordered us to let Goetschius go. Although it grieved our church, we submitted. In choosing a consistory we are unwilling to do anything without asking advice of the Rev. Coetus; and in making out a call, we also take its advice. It is a part of our religion to obey authority, out of deference to the will of God. It is theirs, to do so when it is to their own profit; otherwise, not. This fact has, on certain occa- sions, as we think, led to your treating them with indulgence. However, we look to your Revs., and to God who knows all things, for just treatment.
3. It is hard for us to unite with them in making out a call, although we did invite, individually, all of them. Several of them, however, told us to go ahead;
3455 1753
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
because according to their religious views, when a minister is not to their liking, especially if he favors very strict piety, they dismiss him, refusing the support promised him. This was the case with Rev. (John H.) Goetschius. As soon as the Lord led him to newness of heart and life, as we hoped, they refused to support him. They then accused him of a crime committed in the time when he was a minister after their own heart. The aged Rev. Frielinghuysen, that blessed instru- ment of good in the hand of God, had received similar treatment from them. This goes to show that they are the same sort of people now that they were then. Van Sinderen, although for other reasons, experienced also something of the same kind of treatment. But in such cases the conscientious portion of the church has to support the minister. Therefore we have so made out our call that it will not affect (be no loss or benefit to) the minister whether they pay salary or not. Our religious views oblige us to keep our promises.
4. We find it hard to bear a heavy accusation. We call it a slander and a lie. Now the event, in which we saw the good hand of God, is this : Goetschius had stepped aside. Our consistory, organized by the aged Rev. Frielinghuysen, had also, for the reasons given by you, upon your request, resigned. The Seceders then, wanted to force in that offensive Arondeus; but the consistory was not according to their mind. By the hand of Rev. du Bois the Coetus then sends us a writing containing five articles. Of these the Seceders selected the first. Our church assembles. One cries out this thing, and another that; until one of the oldest of the members, Teunis Couvert, said, " If we perish, we perish ; let us select the same article, only with the written addition of submission to the Rev. Coetus."
The Committee of the Coetus accepted this proposition. Rev. du Bois made it known to them and to us by letter. We acquiesced ; but they now reviled that aged minister and broke off. It is this article as we truthfully said, that they did not now want to stand by, while we did; although they had themselves selected it for controlling our action. We stay by the Rev. Coetus ; but they go away without us, and fetch in Arondeus, and he hurriedly, in one day, organized, out of their number, a consistory. Their names, as elders, appear in a call, which, if we remember rightly, is older by two months than their eldership. Remember what Rev. Ritzema wrote to your Revs, as to what he himself saw in Arondeus' call. Thus easily, they make out a call; and we, although we have been elders for four years already, are not allowed to do the same without protesting against it. Now the Rev. Coetus, or their Committee, stuck to the first article, on condition of submission (to the Coetus). They run away, and let Arondeus organize them (into a Consistory) at once, so as to be the oldest. And yet they say that it is we who have made the Coetus believe lies. It makes but little difference to us, what proceeds out of their slanderous mouths; as their election and installation by Arondeus, before we had been at all organized by the Rev. Coetus, made the Coetus and Committee under- stand and realize that they had, indeed, seceded. Our request is that the liars be punished.
5. Now, as regards a church within a church, we know that that cannot be. But a number of Seceders does not prevent a church from remaining a church. And we leave it to your judgment whether we or they are the church ?- we, who stood by Rev. Goetschius, and kept watch of the church; and who, upon being elected by the church, were installed by the aged Rev. Frielinghuysen; or they, who suddenly, without waiting, for your decision, left their seats of eldership, and refused to pay the salary ?- we, who accepted your judgment, dropping Goetschius; and also at your request, dropping our legal consistory, which the aged Rev. Frielinghuysen had formed, and which belonged to the Coetus and held to that article which the others had first selected ; or they, who did not want to listen to you, who withheld from Goetschius his bread and salary, contrary to the judgment of the Coetus; who, abandoned the Coetus, and their own chosen article; yea, who forsook yourselves, and brought in Arondeus, to make a consistory out of the worst elements; and then having called him, kept him, in opposition to every decision of the Coetus and Classis, because his walk and theirs accorded so well together; for as the Coetus says, they and he are opposed to real heart piety ?
In our judgement, therefore, WE did not organize a church within a church. May your Reverences have a better idea also of our Coetus, than to think that all those wise men whom it sent, would go to work and organize us into a consistory, when the others were already the consistory. Such a thing might be thought possible of some inexperienced youth. But none of our country people had a hand in it. That
3456
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1753
the gray-haired Mr. du Bois, and the experienced Ritzema, who would never in the world commit such an irregularity, should have organized us into a consistory over a part of the church: that is a thing we never desired or expected; nor, so far as we know, did such a thought ever occur to the mind of the Coetus. What is pri- vately said by some, for the purpose of breaking our call, rests on a different basis. This appears from the Minute of the last Coetus, which holds the consistory of Arondeus to be illegal. If that is not so, let those be punished, who have consti- tuted us, poor ignorant people a consistory. Let those make confession, who declare us the legal Consistory, and gave us power and help in making out a call.
However, let the Rev. Assembly understand that we are willing to do anything for the sake of peace; yet we cannot consider it as a light matter to let our min- ister go again for the sake of our opponents. There is the loss of all the expense incurred; and then, too, we would be deprived of his services, after God should have safely brought him back to us again; while other churches sometimes lose their ministers on the great waters. Deprivation of him now would touch us very deeply. We do not want to rebel, or make threats; but we do want to have justice established, even to the remotest corners of the land. Our own consciences vindi- cate us. The Coetus justifies us. The better-disposed, among the English and the Germans, commend our side. Necessity urges us to seek a minister, and, having obtained one, to keep him.
6. As regards the Church: It is true that they too own seats in it; but the Church belongs to the legal consistory, for the use of a Reformed Dutch minister. And we have been declared the legal consistory, and they have been declared illegal. We have also worshipped God in said church, without hindrance, on every occasion of service, since their last fury, now more than four years ago. Revs. Ritzema, Erik- son, Van Sinderen, Leydt, Goetschius, Verbryck and both the Frielinghuysens, have preached therein; and Meinema has also offered his service therein, during our occu- pancy. We have also the annual rental of the minister's house in the village of Jamaica; for when those evil minded people brought us before the English law, they lost their case.
Your Revs., then, have our matters before you. Will you condemn us-your obedient servants; and, contrary to all order, justify the rebellious? Will you con- demn us, who have been constituted (the consistory) by the Rev. Coetus, and who have done nothing without its advice and approval? and legalized those who, against all good order, have so long stubbornly rebelled? shall our tears and petitions be rejected, their abusive and lying words be accepted, and we, for a length of time, be deprived of all religious services? Shall not then the evil-disposed become bolder, and the good despondent? Will not favor shown them cause every one to despise the Coetus and to act according to his own pleasure? We therefore expect that your Revs., by reason of your great watchfulness and desire for Zion's welfare even in these uttermost parts of the world, will not put us on the same level with the disobedient. If, however, unexpected by us, we should have been condemned ere this letter could have been of service, we appeal from you, to you, if we may so speak; from you, who, through our inexperience, have not received sufficient light on these matters; to you, who must have sufficient light now. Although we come late, may it not be too late; for our way lies far. For the rest, as we have been, so we wish further to show ourselves to be, O Fathers, your obedient servants, the suffering church of Jamaica.
Elders
Deacons
Elbert Hogelaent Joost Durye Teuneus Couvert Jeronemus Rapalje Kom. Norstrant
Done, December, 1753.
NOTE : " THE INDEPENDENT REFLECTOR " AND OTHER PAPERS OF 1753-4.
After William Livingston had published his fifty-two Articles, one each week, during 1753, in "The Independent Reflector, relating to various policies of Church and State, his paper was suppressed by exciting fears in the printer. He then wrote an elaborate Preface to those fifty-two Articles, and reprinted them all, with a long Preface. Such a bound volume was purchased by the writer (E. T. C.) at the sale of Henry C. Murphy's Library, and is now in the Sage Library at New Brunswick, N. J.
3457
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1753
In this Preface he refers to the great opposition which his articles had met with from the officials of the day; to the difference between ceremonialism and pure religion; to the strength of traditional prejudices; yet his firm belief in the triumph of the right. He was violently attacked in many Articles in the New York Mercury ; but an unknown friend, Philo-Reflector, vindicated him for a while in the New York Gazette, until its columns were closed against this writer. Philo-Reflector then issued a pamphlet, styled "The Craftsman" on Livingston's side of the controversy. From this, Livingston gives in this Preface, a lengthy extract.
But soon another paper appeared, styled "The Occasional Reverberator", in which the friends of an Unsectarian College expressed their views. But after the issue of only four numbers, the printers were made afraid to print it. Livingston also in the said Preface, publishes a long letter of his to one of the editors of the Mercury, who was a clergyman, urging the propriety of an Unsectarian College, but no answer was made to it. He then elaborately argues the whole question of the proposed College, in which all the churches were so deeply interested, and shows the dangers to the liberties of the colony, if the College should be controlled by a State-Church party. (See Extract below).
He also quotes from the successive Acts relating to the raising of funds for the College, by lottery, a common practice at the time, and by the duty on Excise, and how that money ought to be controlled and used ; that it should not be used except by permission of the Legislature; that the Acts were defective as to the proper qualifications of the trustees, etc .; and he appeals to the Dutch Church, as most of the members of the Legislature were of Dutch stock. He emphasizes the importance of a free Academy or College.
His opponents had referred to the effects on the students of denominational con- trol, in Yale and Harvard; and in the Presbyterian College in New Jersey ; that the students imbibed the religious sentiments of their teachers; and hence their present opposition to the Church of England. Livingston turns these statements against them as a reason why the College in New York should be entirely unsectarian, if it was to be supported by public funds, when nine-tenths of the population were of other religious persuasions. He suggested a form of worship, made up chiefly of passages of Scripture properly arranged. On any other conditions, he declared the College would be destitute of students. He here gives a statement of the reasons why the Dutch Church was losing ground. (See Extract below). These remarks were all made simply in the interests of an Unsectarian College, if supported by the public funds.
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.