USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 61
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
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3587
1755
(Answer.)
Gentlemen :-
I sincerely thank you for your kind congratulations on my arrival as well as for the favorable sentiments you entertain of me. The loyalty you express for his Majesty is very satisfactory to me, and you may be assured it shall be my care to protect his Majesty's subjects in this Province in their religious and civil rights.
Charles Hardy.
Fort George, New York, September 12, 1755.
[See Nov. 17, 1755.]
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
Rev. Anthonius Curtenius to the Classis of Amsterdam, Sept. 12, 1755.
Portfolio "New York ", Vol. ii. Extracts, xxiii. 430.
Addressed on the outside:
"To the Very Rev. Sirs, both ministers and elders, Constituting the Classis of Amsterdam at Amsterdam."
Very Rev. Fathers and Brethren in Christ, both ministers and elders, constituting the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam :-
After I had accepted that divine call, Rev. Van Sinderen and his Consistory set themselves against me by saying that, if I came to Long Island, they would quarrel with me. But I told them, "If you want to quarrel with me because I have accepted this divine call, I shall have to take it that you want to quarrel with God." They then said, "Rev. Van Sinderen should have been moderator of the Call", [ Consulent.] He had been asked to do this, but had declined. The Coetus, when it was yet in existence, passed a law giving each church the privilege of inviting such moderator as it chose. Rev. Mancius was chosen. It was said of him that he was not a member of the Coetus. I said: "Rev. Theodore Frielinghuysen of Albany moderated three or four calls, namely, those of his two brothers, who died at sea; that of Rev. Vrooman, and that of Rev. Schuneman, and he was never a member of the Coetus; and there have also been calls sent over to Holland which were not moderated by a minister at all, like that of Rev. Theodore Frielinghuysen, among others."
Rev. Van Sinderen and his Consistory have still further stirred up feeling against my divine call, by uniting with the village of Gravesand, [Gravesend], which was formerly united with the five villages. At that time the village could raise but a third part of the money required for a supply, but, one now hears, that it alone raised as much as thirty pounds for Rev. Frielinghuysen. Although, as Rev. Van Sinderen declares, he declined the call, Rev. Van Sinderen does not say whether he sent back the call; so that he has it, probably still in his possession, and may yet accept it when the College [High School] and a Classis have been secured from the Very Rev. Synod. For he is quite capable of filling both the office of a Minister with that of a Professor.
Finally I have understood from a letter, written May 30, 1755, in the name and by the authority of such an Assembly as, according to the judgment of the Coetus, on itself last year, is neither consistorial, classical, nor synodical, that Rev. Van Sin-
3588
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
deren had brought severe charges against me, without stating what the charges are.
1. Possibly he brought in that, when the call was offered me, I ought to have said, "Before I accept the call, you must promise me that you will pay him [Van Sinderen] the salary in arrears." For my part, I did as much as I could in that matter, as your Revs. can judge from my other letter. Rev. Van Sinderen went to law about the matter, and the consistory, no doubt, has its reasons for not paying him. So, really, that is a dispute that does not concern me.
2. Possibly he raises the objection that I intruded into his church. He cannot say that: for those five villages have always had two ministers. If he could only show that those one hundred and thirty odd families did not desire me for their minister, but that, I think, he cannot do. I can show, however, that, since my coming to the church, still more have come in, of such as, not having signed before for a second minister, are now signing for me. That objection springs from noth- ing else than his own aspirations; because he and his followers thought that they would be quite capable of compelling that large number to leave to them the call- ing of a second minister, and so they would have the choice of a minister to their own liking. Yea, indeed, I can say this much: that, if Rev. Van Sinderen had accepted those Peace Articles, and had gone with me from house to house through the five villages, the five churches would by this time have been at peace, and he would have won back their hearts.
3. The consistory which called me, in the name of the churches, is a consistory which the Rev. Classis and the Coetus have condemned for not being the regular consistory. But, I think, that the consistory which called me did, in a writing sent this year, show the Rev. Classis, as clearly as the sun, that it is the old and true consistory, and that Rev. Van Sinderen's is nothing but a picked up consistory.
Look at the two documents, marked A. and B. for the reason why he did not succeed in getting the arrearage on his salary by law. He let the old consistory go, and chose a new one, with one elder and a deacon or two who stood by him, electing others in addition. And suppose that I granted that the other was not the legal consistory; still let it be observed that it had been authorized by the churches to execute the call; and, in my letter, I have shown that the regular making of a call rests with the church.
4. Possibly, too, he may say that I am one of those who condemned Rev. Aron- deus. Not because the old consistory called him back from Raritan: for I do not know that the Word of God forbids a minister to go back to his former church when it wants him again for its minister. It is true that Rev. Van Sinderen was not the moderator; but he declined to act as such; for which he is to be rebuked, rather than praised. If Rev. Van Sinderen should bring in other complaints which your Revs. might deem of consequence, I hope that they may be presented to me, in order that I may answer them.
I close, wishing your Very Rev. every blessing, not only upon your persons and families, but also upon your holy ministries, I remain, Your Very Revs. obedient servant and fellow-brother,
Anthonius Curtenius.
Flatbush, Sept. 12, 1755.
No. 241.
CHURCH OF NEW YORK.
Manor of Fordham.
New York, September 25, 1755.
Consistory held. The committee on the Manor brought in a list of the farms with the prices which they thought they ought to bring per acre. Whereupon it was Resolved:
1
3589
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1755
1. If persons would not give this price, they might have them for twenty shillings less per acre, otherwise the farm should remain in the possession of the Church.
2. Terms of payment should be made in four equal sums; the first, due on delivery of the deed, which shall be on or before the 1st of April next; the 2nd on the first day of May 1757; and the third and fourth in the following years, 1758 and 1759. The buyer shall give three bonds for the last three installments with a mortgage on the land, for security.
3. The sale shall be made by the entire body of the Consistory, or else by a lawfully authorized Committee of a majority of the same.
Signed in name of all. Datum as above. J. Ritzema.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
The Opponents of an American Classis to the Classis of Amster- dam, Sept. 30, 1755.
Portfolio " New York ", Vol. ii. Extracts, xxiii, 427. To the Very Rev. Classis of Amsterdam.
Very Rev. Sirs, Fathers and Brethren :-
Your Revs.' letter, together with the Acts of the Synod of North Holland, 1754, we have received. We assure your Revs. of our grateful acknowledgement, and send your Revs. at this time the Acts of the Coetus, held last September, 1754. We had indeed, in our last letter, promised to send them to your Revs. in the spring; but to our sorrow, we were prevented from doing so. We consider ourselves, at present, obliged to inform your Revs. of that fact.
Your Revs. will understand, from the Acts of the Coetus, that a resolution was carried to get the Coetus changed into a Classis; and that to that end Circular Letters were sent to the churches for the purpose of obtaining their consent. Their answers were to be sent to four Commissioners, and by these to be, one and all, forwarded.
When Rev. Theodore Frielinghuysen, of Albany, came to know this, as also some other things, he threw the whole thing into confusion, by going personally through the congregations in the two Provinces of New York and New Jersey. He took 11 or 12 weeks for it, without the consent of his consistory, and committed other irregularities which it is too tedious to relate. It is also not necessary, as we know that your Revs. must have been informed of them. His object was, the setting up, not only a Classis, but also an Academy for the Dutch. To this a number of churches, either innocently or with some object in view, gave their consent; and, not once thinking what was their bounden duty as members of the Coetus, with the exception of two or three, refused to send in their answer. So, they, together with Rev. Frielinghuysen, have broken up the Coetus. Also, on the 27th of May, 1755, they held a meeting at New York. By stratagem, they obtained the documents of the Coetus. Contrary to our laws, they received members into that Assembly, without having given proper notice thereof, beforehand to any members. So they have set up, again, among themselves alone, a Coetus, having first broken up [the old body. ] They pass resolutions and appoint committees to carry out their matters seeking thereby to bring everything into confusion.
3590
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
Since, now, we understand that Rev. Frielinghuysen has been commissioned by his brethren to secure his object directly from the Synod, we, the undersigned, ministers and elders, fell ourselves obliged to send our protest also direct to the Synod, and we hope that your Revs. will do all in your power to support us in this matter.
United as we are in this, we know, also, that Revs. Marinus and Schuyler are perfectly one with us. We, therefore, most humbly request that your Revs. may recognize and write us, as such, [as a separate body, the Conferentie] in order that, in a friendly and fraternal way, we may continue our correspondence, for the promoting of those things which are for the welfare of our churches; especially, because we understand that Rev. Frielinghuysen and his followers mean to con- tinue their illegal meetings.
With this we close, praying God for His blessing upon your Revs.' persons and weighty ministries. With much respect we sign ourselves, Very Rev. Sirs,
Your Revs.' obedient servants and fellow-brethren,
Anthonius Curtenius, V. D. M. Jacobus Peck
Gerard Haeghoort, V. D. M.
Arya de Groot
Johannis Ritzema, V. D. M.
Cornelis Leydecker
Lambertus de Ronde, V. D. M.
Benjamin Westervelt
Benj. Van de Linde, V. D. M.
New York, Sept. 30, 1755.
P. S. Very Rev. Sirs: In order to avoid rewriting, we have taken the liberty to mention in our letter to the Synod, that Revs. Curtenius and Ritzema gave to the Classis of Amsterdam a circumstantial account in which we fully acquiesce. We kindly request, therefore, that that letter be sent along with the Correspondent, to the Synod, in order that that Very Rev. Church Assembly may be fully convinced of the fairness of our protest. [See letter of Sept. 3, 1755.]
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Arondeus.
1755, Oct. 6th. Art. 4., ad 6. Rev. John Arondeus having appeared before the Assembly. On the pre-advice of the Messrs. Deputies on this affair, the following resolution, with respect to the documents now handed back to him, was adopted, and read to him:
" Rev. Arondeus having requested of the Rev. Classis of Am- sterdam, that a certain document, together with still another- the two presented as a dismissal and certificate-might be at- tested by the Classis: the Classis caused the back-Acta to be examined by a committee on this business. Everything having been maturely considered, the Classis is of the opinion that the writers and subscribers of those documents were not qualified to give the dismissal; also that their testimony is at variance with the truth, since the conduct of Rev. Arondeus has been far from edifying, as well as from tending to the pure maintenance of discipline. Therefore the Classis judges (decides) that this re- quest of Rev. Arondeus cannot be granted, nor can he be per-
1755
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3591 1755
mitted to preach or to perform any of the other duties of the Sacred Ministry. Done at our Classical gathering, within Am- sterdam, October 6, 1755. xiii. 73, 74.
Theodore van Schelluynen, V. D. M. Hoc tempore, Clerk.
His papers were accordingly returned to him, and the above was noted thereon, for the information of all those to whom the same might be shown. xiii. 73, 74.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM, OCT. 6, 1755.
Report of the Committee in the Case of Rev. Arondeus.
(See Sept. 3.)
The Committee in the Case of J. Arondeus, having diligently examined the former Acts of Classis relating to his case, have carefully pondered them, and present the following pre-advice to Classis:
Section 1.
They lay down, as a foundation, that there have been brought in, against Arondeus, other and later accusations, upon which the Classis has already passed judgment.
I. The old accusations are of the years 1747 and 1748.
Of these, father (Gualterus) Du Bois mentions several in a letter written in the name of Coetus, on December 12, 1748. See Extract 54, page 115; and, especially :
1. Abandoning the village of Gravesend, without reason.
2. Omitting to call on several members in house visitation.
3. The electing of members of Consistory, without prayer or thanksgiving.
4. Presumptuous speech in the pulpit.
5. The violation of his call, and the alteration of a rent bill (huurceel, lease ?) of two years.
6. The declining of a call, without (good) reasons.
To some of these, replies were made in a letter from John Lott, Leffert Leffertse, on Long Island, Jan. 10,
1
3592
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
1749. Extr. No. 68, p. 180. Then there is No. 5. This, the Committee considers very important, being acknowledged by him and his friends, and laid down by the Rev. Classis as a basis for its action. It is as follows:
1. The unlawful and disorderly running from one church to another, having in view possibly temporal advantage. See Record Book of our letters, Vol. I. Nos. 107, 108. He went from Long Island to Raritan in 1747, in a private manner, and without any ecclesiastical separation. Extract 54, p. 116.
2. His removing did not take place without evidence of fanati- cism, or of a temperament which is greatly inclined thereto; unless that story of the moving of the ground, in answer to his prayers, by which he concluded that it was God's will that he should go to Albany was a complete invention; but this is still worse. See Extract, 68. This was accounted as a second objec- tion, and was transmitted, in writing, by his own friends, who were wishing to defend him.
3. The equally unlawful intruding of himself back into his for- mer church on Long Island. This is the third accusation.
(1). He returned thither (to Long Island, from Raritan) in July, 1748, without any dismission, at the request of only some, and in spite of, and against the protest of many families; beginning his ministry at New Utrecht and (new) Amersfoort. Extracts, 54, p. 116.
(2). Even as also he wishes to put forward a document, signed by four elders, who were appointed, it must be remembered, by himself, eight months after his return from Raritan, as a lawful call to the Church of Jamaica. (Thus it reads in the Record Book, Vol. I, No. 107; but there is probably an error in the writing; for Jamaica belongs in Queens County. Arondeus in that county removed the consistory, but was not himself a minister there. Therefore one should read: to the church of Kings County.) See Record Book, No. 107, Vol. I.
4. The fourth charge is illegal actions in the church of Long Island; in particular, with respect to Revs. Van Sinderen, Rit- zema, and the Coetus; to wit:
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3593
1755
(1). That on October 2, 1748, the lock of the church door at Flatbush was violently broken off and possession taken of the church. The same thing occurred on Jan. 21, 1749, at New Amersfoort; and thereupon Rev. Arondeus brought an elder and two deacons to the pulpit. The latter called off, at New Breu- kelen, on March 14, 1749, the names of some new members, and chose a Deacon from them, before he had ever partaken of the communion. Extract, 109, p. 19 A.
(2). That he had chosen members of consistory at Breukelen and New Utrecht, and thereby had deprived Van Sinderen of his collectors, (betaals-heeren ; or betaals-hurn, salary:) after they had unecclesiastically deposed him. Extract 69.
(3). That he wrote a letter to Rev. Ritzema, in September, 1750, whereof a copy may be found in our extracts, No. 109, p. 207, of an offensive character. He says in this: "That the Classis had not written to him, but had advised and requested his Consistory to leave the case to the Coetus. The Consistory there- upon had replied, through Captain Garrison, that he (Arondeus ?) had nothing to do with the Coetus, and that they would never have any dealings therewith, or subject themselves to it; and if Coetus had any desire to use force, they would oppose themselves in like manner, without regard to wine ( ?) or the pouring out of blood, or even death."
(4). That when Rev. Ritzema came, with the elder Banckert, to the house of Arondeus, in order to make peace, the latter had said: " If he had not left it to the Lord, he would rudely chase away Ritzema, as one who had forgotten honor and God. He ignored Ritzema and wished to have no arguments. He said, further, that it was too late to make peace, since many had cursed it and others had forfeited it." This is testified in these same words by his friends in a letter written in his defense; in which also occur more and similar indecent and vituperative expressions of the writers, against our clerk. Signed, Queens County, April 7, 1750, by H. E. Justus ; (Justice ?) A. Polhemus, Justus, and D. Ditmars, J. Noordstrand. Extracts, 113; p. 212.
3594
1755
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
5. Finally: The fifth charge is his disobedience and fickleness, when there was laid before him by the Coetus, one and another plan, for pacification, which had been approved by the Classis of Amsterdam; and that he had not honestly preached his penitential sermon. See Extracts, 159: p. 261-266.
II. The new accusations, mentioned in the letters of Coetus of September, 1753, consist of the following:
1. That he is antagonistic to, and has an aversion toward true inward piety.
2. That his conduct is scandalous:
(1). On account of his improper life with his servant-maid, and the domestic quarrels frequently occurring therefrom, to the great scandal even of his best friends.
(2). On account of drunkenness. The Coetus says that he is often overloaded with strong drink, and on several occasions has acted as a drunken man, or as one without sense, in the presence of several witnesses. See Extracts, No. 198.
This last accusation was already brought against him in the year 1750; for the members of his Consistory, R. Van Brandt, J. Lott, and J. Van Dyk, then defend him against it, in the name of all the members present ; in a letter dated, Kings County, August 10, 1750. Extracts, 112, p. 211.
But the Classis (Committee ?) disregards these new accusations, judging that they are not legally proven. It plants itself princi- pally upon the foregoing resolutions. They confirm the resolu- tion of the Coetus, in the case of Arondeus, adopted September 12, 1753. See Record Book, Vol. II, No. 24, for our letter, written May 6, 1754.
The resolution which is referred to in this letter, is, that Aron- deus can no longer remain pastor in those five churches. There- fore they notified the adherents of Arondeus, that they must no longer consider him as their pastor, etc. See Extracts, 198, p. 381.
This, however, was not regarded by the Classis as a final depo- sition, but as a simple prohibition to him to exercise the ministry in certain churches, on account of improper intrusion into the
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3595 1755
office, and dissensions caused thereby. This appears from a letter of the Rev. Classis, in which, after the peremptory decision of Coetus, issued on the 15th and 16th of April, 1752, (See Extracts, 159, pp. 267, 268), it effects yet a new " Testamen Concordiae." See our Record Book, Vol. I, Nos. 163 and 164; and from the wording of the resolution itself, viz., that Arondeus can be no longer a minister in those five churches.
Section 2.
The Committee having maturely considered everything, are of the opinion that those who drew up and signed these two docu- ments, handed over by Arondeus at the previous meeting of Clas- sis, were incompetent for the giving of that dismissal to him, as their testimony is at variance with the truth. For the conduct of Rev. Arondeus has been very far from edifying, and far from a tendency to the pure maintenance of discipline. Wherefore, they decide that this request of Rev. Arondeus cannot be granted ; and also that he cannot here be admitted to preaching, or any other functions of the sacred ministry.
Resolutions of Classis on the request of Rev. Arondeus.
This pre-advice, (or report), having been brought before Clas- sis, was approved by the Rev. Assembly, and it resolved to order its Clerk, to endorse the conclusion of this pre-advice, as the answer of this Assembly, upon the two documents of Rev. Aron- deus, that unknowing and simple people may not be misled there- by. This having been done, this conclusion was read to him upon his being called within, by the President. Whereupon the Presi- dent handed the two documents back to him again.
Vol. xxiv, pp. 36-41.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Acts of the Deputies, Oct. ? 1755. Letter to Rev. Van Sinderen.
There was also communicated to the Assembly a letter to Rev. Ulpianus van Sinderen, minister in Kings County. In this we 84
3596
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
ask-Where do the long promised Acta of the Coetus remain ? And how has it gone with the call and installation of Rev. Antonius Curtenius, in Kings County, in the place of Rev. John Arondeus ? For the call was made out by John Lott and J. Couwenhoven, who called themselves the old Consistory of Kings County, and who had protested against the decision of the Coetus on Rev. Arondeus; the call having been made in the beginning of the year 1755, and the installation by Rev. Ritzema, on May 8, 1755. He being finally requested therein, even though everything had not been done in the proper order, if it could be in any way tolerated, to overlook it so as at last to restore the peace. See this in our Record Book, No. 52, and compare the Extract from his letter, No. 219; and from the letter of A. Curtenius, No. 233.
To send the Acta of the Synod of North Holland to the Coetus of New York:
And finally it was resolved by a majority vote, notwithstanding we have not received the Acta of their last Coetus, and several among them seem disposed again to break up the (Coetus) Assembly, brought in being with so much trouble about nine years ago,-yet to send again to the Coetus of New York this year as heretofore, our Acta Synodi North Holland, held at Hoorn.
xxiv., 42. CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
The Classis of Amsterdam to Rev. U. Van Sinderin, October 6, 1755. Vol. 31, page -, No. 52, to be compared with No. 46. To Rev. Mr. Van Sinderin.
Rev. Sir and Respected Brother :- We do not know why you do not send the Acta Coetus, lately held, or at least some notes of it, inasmuch as we are receiving many rumors about the changes which are taking place on Long Island by the calling of Rev. Curtenius from the church of Hackensack to the five villages in Kings County.
We kindly request that we may receive some message from you on these matters, and pray you to seek to restore order if possible, even if it cannot be done perfectly. Seek to end those quarrels
d
a M
4 R
in
3597 1755
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
which destroy families and churches. And you can the more easily do this because Mr. Curtenius is a man who loves peace. No dark stains can be observed in his letters. Hoping that you will thus act, and having prayed God to grant you wisdom, and to bestow the spirit of love upon you, with his blessing on you and your important work, and testifying our true brotherly affec- tion for you, Rev. Sir and Brother, we remain, Your humble and obedient servant, In the Name of the Classis of Amsterdam,
W. Peiffers, Depp. Cl. h. t. Praeses. R. Schutte, Depp. Cl. h. t. Scriba.
Amsterdam, In our Classical Assembly,
October 6, 1755.
ACTS OF THE REGULAR COETUS HELD AT NEW YORK, OCTOBER 7-14, 1755.
Portfolio " New York ", Vol. ii. Abstract, xxiii, 436-9. Session I.
The Rev. Coetus was opened with an edifying and appropriate prayer to God by the Rev. Reynhart Erickson, President of the recent special Coetus.
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.