USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 66
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
But they did not wait for this nor for any other vindication. Rev. Verbryck him- self, one of the four Commissioners, joined hands with Rev. Theodorus Frieling- huysen and others, who never belonged to our Coetus. But these were, neverthe- less, recognized and notified by the Coetus about the (proposed) formation of a Classis, and they also signed the petition requesting the Synod to allow a Classis here; yea, also to allow an Academy. For that purpose they met in Special Con- vention .¿ No one needed to go to this Convention who did not desire to, just as was the case heretofore in reference to the Coetus, and which Rev. Frielinghuysen had also said to Rev. Haaghoort. At this meeting his Rev. (Rev. Theodore Frie- linghuysen) was appointed to go to Holland, and make requests (for a Classis and
* Sept. 19, 1754. 7 Sept. 17-19, 1754. į May 27-30, 1755.
C d
P
C 8 g 8
f
4
0
R
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3625
1755
Academy) of the Synod in person. All this goes to show clearly that the work undertaken in a regular and legal manner, by the Coetus, for the formation of a Classis, has, in an irregular and illegal manner, been taken out of our hands, and disgracefully crippled; and that we have been prevented from meeting together (according to arrangement) in April and October. Thus also the Coetus has been rendered contemptible, has been disorganized and broken up. But all this has been more fully set forth, and in all its aggravating circumstances, in the protest against their proceedings, now before the Synod ;* and, in other ways already before the Classis.
Now suppose we had come together in October, as certainly we were obliged to do, according to the action taken by the previous Coetus, which action is also recorded in their Minutes. This would have been the regular Coetus to take the primary action to change itself into a Classis, and this would have been agreed to by nearly all the brethren, and thus the proposed Classis would have been placed upon a better footing. This would also have met the sole condition on which Rev. Haaghoort had dropped his previous protest against the Coetus, well-known to the Classis. It would have been the same Coetus also, which had addressed all the churches, requesting them to give their consent to a Classis. Under such circum- stances, would that Assembly still have been a Coetus? Suppose the churches had given their consent for the Classis, which had been resolved upon, surely that con- sent would have made the Coetus a Classis, at once, and the four Commissioners would, in April, have simply notified the Classis (of Amsterdam) and the Synod (of North Holland) of that fact. And such was the honest intention. The Coetus would thus already have been changed into a Classis, and it would at once, have organized itself as such; and immediate evidence thereof would have been given in the promotion of the student, (Henricus) Frelinghuysen. Or, if the Classis, as pro- posed by the Coetus, had not received the approval of a majority of the churches, this was also a possibility which should have been considered; whereas, Rev. (Theo- dore) Frielinghuysen began his work (of getting votes for a Classis) already in the winter, long before April. In that case, (if the vote had been against a Classis), would not that Assembly have been a Coetus still,-that Assembly, at which the four Commissioners were obliged to make the fact known, as the answer of the churches ?
Under all these circumstances, then, is there a Coetus now? If it be a fact, that the Coetus is no less than dissolved, then the student, (Henricus) Frielinghuysen, was illegally ordained. As to how he was allowed, by some of the brethren, pub- licly to preach as a candidate, we leave that to their own responsibility. Then, also, the protest of Rev. Haaghoort must still stand. The New York Consistory, too, had already refused its Consistory-chamber, (Kerkekamer) for the use of the Coetus, and ordered, or at least requested, its ministers not to attend its meetings. Thus the first reason, as to the present inconsistency, etc., of the Coetus, still holds; and, according to its own statement, the Coetus continues to be subject to contempt from without, and to confusion within. Who, then, ought not to be ashamed of wanting to uphold such a Coetus?
If, however, it is maintained that there is still a Coetus, and that it is not dis- solved, because a Classis was simply asked for, (from the churches,) but not obtained by the Coetus, let this fact then be proved-that it was not obtained. For the Coetus itself interrupted its own career, and destroyed the consent of the churches to its request. On the other hand, however, it secured what it wanted, independently, and from itself, but in an illegal and fraudulent manner. The posi- tion is, therefore, that the request of the Coetus (for a Classis) was neither obtained Dor refused (legally considered) but the whole business was entirely overthrown. Also, the churches were only requested to give their consent to the organization of a Classis by the Coetus; but it was never implied that this same request. should then be made of the Synod (of North Holland), but only, that the Classis (of Amsterdam) should be informed of it, etc. But was not such a procedure, a viola- tion of the (Constitution of the) Coetus, and a dissolution of the same? And, not- withstanding all this, in case it is the purpose still to hold meetings of a Coetus, as the facts seem to show, then it must be a new Coetus, one illegally scraped up; inasmuch as, in a manner wholly different to that proposed by the old Coetus, a. CLASSIS, yea, even an ACADEMY is to be petitioned for of the Synod, through Rev. Frielinghuysen.
* See under July 27, 1756.
3626
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
But what does all that amount to, to those who will have nothing to do with this new body? And, then, for this new body to sit in judgment on the action of others! and to exercise authority and government over others! and especially, if it be merely a Convention, as indeed it was called in the letters of notification! But how can it then, be at the same time, a Coetus, possessing and exercising authority, either special or regular? But it was contrived to meet a special emergency, and then set itself up over others, whose rights have been; wrested from them, and whose authority has been usurped! But, as the Coetus had utterly fallen into ruin, the Consistory of New York protested against the Classis thus formed, shortly after this had been done. That is, indeed, no rule or reason for others doing the same thing, or for not going on with the organization of the (American) Classis. It was necessary, however, to abide the proper time for doing that thing, and for the four Commissioners to present the matter to the Assembly in October. Even, if the formation of a Classis had been refused (by the churches), the Coetus should be considered as having ceased to exist for the reasons given. And, even though it be thought that the formation of a Classis failed, because of the protest of the New York Consistory, while yet the Coetus continues in existence; why does not the establishment of both the Classis and an Academy, undertaken by them in such an illegal way fail, because of the many protests that have come in against them? Why was not that whole business stopped, and the (old) Coetus allowed to take its course, instead of adding a Coetus that is illegal? And especially, inasmuch as Rev. Haaghoort had previously, in those days of the Convention, asked Rev. Frie- linghuysen for permission to stop the work so badly begun, and had urged him to do so, and to bring the matter first to the attention of the Synod?
In the meantime one could easily have understood how that Plan for a New York (Episcopal) College with a Dutch Professor (of Theology) placed in it, would turn out. Instead of that, however, they went madly on, and he (Frielinghuysen) was not willing to listen to anything. The protests were shoved one side as though they did not at all concern him. No copy of their action, and no credentials, were given him as had been requested. Yea, indeed, inasmuch as the Coetus, in spite of all this, was by them still kept up,-both as a special Coetus at the time when their Convention was held and as a regular Coetus of the first Tuesday in October, when complaints were heard against those who did not belong to it,-a committee was appointed ; before this Committee the accused were cited to appear for examination. Sentence was pronounced, discipline was exercised and ratified, and thus power was wielded over other churches and brethren. All this, in the proper place, will speedily be further set forth.
Rev. Van der Linde is minister at Paramus. He, together with his Consistory, is also among those who protested against Rev. Frielinghuysen and his enterprise. Also, like ourselves, he does not belong to that illegal enterprise and Assembly. He has declared himself on these sad and lamentable circumstances. He and his church did not know whither to turn themselves, and then finally came to us, their neigh- boring Consistories, that is to say, the Consistory of Second River (Belleville) and of Acquackononk ; also to the Consistories of Hackensack and of Schralenburg of which two, Koertenius (Curtenius) was (one of the) ministers. They asked us to judge, after a previous investigation, between them and Rev. Goetschius and his Consistory. They were obliged to pass by Rev. Goetschius's own Consistory, because it was sharing in his guilt in the case. So we came together on the 3rd of Novem- ber, 1755, at the house of Christian Zabriskie, (Sabriskie), at Paramus. Rev. Cur- tenius excused himself from attending. The Consistory of Acquackononk would not promise to take part. Rev. Haaghoort was present with his elder, Hendrik Coey- mans, (Koeyemans), as delegates from the Consistory of Second River ; also were present part of the Consistory of Hackensack and Schralenburgh. The object was to investigate and pass judgment on the misconduct of Rev. Goetschius and his Con- sistory, in relation to the wild schemes which they pursued in their congregation. Rev. Haaghoort was chosen Manager of the meeting. After the meeting had been opened with prayer, Rev. Van der Linde and his Consistory were asked why they had invited us. Their answer was, that as there was no longer any legal Coetus, they had turned themselves to us, as neighboring consistories, etc., etc.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3627
1755
I. Complaint of Rev. Van der Linde against Rev. Goetschius and his Consistory. -
The complaint and grievance which Rev. Van der Linde and his Consistory brought in, was as follows :
1. Rev. Goetschius, with his Consistory, namely, Abraham Lydecker, and ex-elder, David Van Oudr and Joris Blinkerhof, elders still in service at Schraalenburg, did, in their congregation at Paramus, form and install a (new) consistory, and thereby carry on public worship there. They thus caused a public schism; and he (Goet- schius) intruded himself into ministerial service there, contrary to their promise of preventing him, unless the Classis should give him the right to do so. Yea, he did this notwithstanding he was very often in a most Christian spirit, and in a variety of ways, exhorted to desist therefrom.
2. Rev. Goetschius, with only one of his deacons, Pieter Zabriskie, (Sabriskie), thus impertinently intruded himself among us, although he had never been invited to come. And, when remonstrated with, instead of giving us a decent answer, he detained us with brawling, raving and slandering. He made us out to be fit sub- jects of discipline; that we were shut out from the Kingdom of God, that we were spewed out of Christ's mouth: persons whom he could not possibly recognize. At last he declared that he recognized the (newly) installed consistory as his own legal consistory; but he was willing to give that consistory over to Rev. Van der Linde on condition that Rev. Van der Linde should choose some additional members; and that then every minister should have the liberty to go and preach there.
II. The judgment of the Assembly thereon.
1. This matter having been carefully investigated, and considered in all its bear- ings, we could not see our way to find otherwise than that the Consistory of Rev. Goetschius, which is still in power, deserve to be at once deposed as such; and that those thus excluded, should be declared unworthy of ever again serving as members of a Consistory. Also that Rev. Goetschius should be suspended from the ministry, leaving it to the Classis to decide whether he shall be wholly deposed therefrom. This is all according to Articles 79 and 80 of the Church Order.
2. Confirmation by additional reasons: Especially because Rev. Goetschius, as also to some degree also his Consistory, has during his ministry, conducted himself in his own congregation, as a schismatic; and as a minister, he is unworthy in his- teaching and his life. The proofs are the following:
(1) Rev. Goetschius did, with his Consistory, nullify his own call. It was not Rev. Curtenius who did that. Curtenius's salary, according to the contract made in Coetus, had to be paid first, so that Rev. Goetschius would have to be satisfied with the balance. On the contrary, Rev. Goetschius received his full salary (first), while Rev. Curtenius was deprived of what was due him. He (nullified) also the old- order of choosing a Consistory, in order to get one to his own liking, that thus he- might rule. Having accomplished that, he did the choosing with his own men, from time to time, and so he played the master.
(2) Both by word and deed his Rev. then made a distinction between his own adherents, and others. He with his own adherents, would not recognize Rev. Cur- tenius as an orthodox minister. He called himself and his adherents the truly regenerated ones, or God's people. The others were the family of Cain, men of the world, and children of Belial, those who had been rejected.
(3) From time to time his Rev. lias tried to introduce, and did at one time intro- duce, and allow others to introduce and hold special conventicles and meetings. Thus many persons have assumed official functions, and have been permitted to preach publicly at private houses, even up to the present time.
(4) In his teachings, his Rev. behaved in an uproarious and offensive manner. He taught that where there was division and discord, there was the true church; that . what he preached, men must believe. His was the true doctrine, and whoever dis- believed it, was lost. Upon such an understanding, he received members. Indeed, he indulged altogether in slanders, scoldings, and in judging and condemning others.
86
3628
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
(5) His Rev. denounced and scolded his congregation as the very dregs of the people. When, however, he was spoken to about this, he declared before God and the congregation that he had never said anything of the kind; yet the truth of this declaration was testified to under oath. Then Peace, yea, Eternal Peace was made. But shortly after, he broke the peace again. He has, therefore, not con- ducted himself among us as a worthy minister.
(6) Besides all this, the odium yet remains of his former tarnished life. Up to the present time, he has never been able satisfactorily to clear himself of those charges, although his Consistory has spoken to him about them. This matter at least in part has been already for some time known to the Classis. The Rev. Curtenius will exhibit fuller particulars about it.
Now all these facts, which more fully show his unworthiness, we consider our- selves obliged to present, and at this time, to make known to the Classis. This we do by reason of a Classical letter, received at the time when his Rev. was, by your order, about to be promoted and ordained as a minister called to Hackensack and Schralenburgh. You then ordered us to keep a watchful eye on him. And all the more do we feel that we must make such a report, because this has not yet "been done by that Committee which was appointed, by the re-formed Coetus, to go to Hackensack to examine his complaint, and to pass judgment on it. No inquiry into his conduct has been made, although the Committee had special orders from the Coetus, to find out whether, according to the testimony of the then president,. Rev. Erickson, given to Rev. Haaghcort, he had in any way caused schism. Yea, indeed, nothing has been done, although Rev. Haaghoort, in his reply to their cita- tion, recommended them to find out how he had conducted himself in Rev. Van der Linde's congregation. But who are better warranted, and who are more competent to do this than his neighbors, especially, Rev. Curtenius who has been his colleague hitherto? And where can the facts better be found out than among those who have previously been in his church and even in his consistory? Yea, where, than from those who, as a neighboring consistory, have at this very time been invited and have come together in this place, for this very purpose? Yea, where, than from those who are now, by the departure of Rev. Curtenius (to Long Island), released of his; and who have openly declared that they will never have anything more, either directly or indirectly, to do with such an unworthy minister (as Goetschius?) as will be further shown.
(7) Then, also, it is chiefly for the reason that, he, Rev. Goetschius, together with his consistory, is the source, and is at the bottom of all the mischief, offences and disturbances which are now prevalent. All these things have been brought about by the formation of such a Coetus as now exists, and, therefore, we desire to set this matter in its true light, and thus give your Revs. a clear idea of the whole affair. The Classis (of Amsterdam) should know that the call of Rev. Goetschius to this place never gave general satisfaction. Indeed, it was done against the wish of many and not without much commotion and disturbance, (but finally submitted to), to preserve rest and peace on the whole. But forty families never gave their consent, nor signed in his favor. The document in evidence of this is in the hands of Rev. Haaghoort and has been seen by us. Moreover, before his Rev. was called to Hackensack, he (Goetschius) had in his pocket a call from the church at Schem- miny (Neshaminy, Bucks County), Pennsylvania. But he wanted to try Hackensack first, and when he got what he wanted there, he disappointed the other church shamefully.
His call to Hackensack was signed on this condition-that if either of the minis- ters went away, or became unable to preach, the signers were thereby released from their obligations. This was so understood by Rev. Curtenius. He maintains that this condition applied to himself, as well as to Rev. Goetschius; so that, if Rev. Goetschius went away, etc., the signers would thereby have been released from their signatures to his own call. It is true, indeed, that the little word "this" is interlined, above their signatures. Therefore it has no force in law, because the interlineation is not also confirmed by the two witnesses. Were it not for such a provision, anything might be interlined (in any document). It appears, therefore, that any "discharge" has reference to both ministers. It cannot refer to Rev. Goetschius alone, as then it would of course be unnecessary. Nevertheless, as the condition further reads, the minister who remains is obliged to conduct preaching services, one Sunday at Hackensack and the next Sunday at Schralenburg. There-
1755
3629
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
fore he who continues to be the minister there has still a right to preach in the churches by turns, to those who are his adherents, and who renew their subscrip- tions for him.
The Rev. Curtenius has never demurred to this, or disputed with them about it. And that the adherents of Rev. Goetschius would so have understood this in case Rev. Goetschius had gone away, has beyond all question already appeared from the open rupture they have made, and from their own proposal, that each party would pay and keep its own minister. That they so understood this, at once and in fact, is plain from the circumstance that even before Rev. Curtenius went away, they went around to get new signatures for Rev. Goetschius alone, and not includ- ing therein a second minister. This the followers of Rev. Curtenius, with right and reason, refused; because they had now been released from him, (Goetschius?) and they neither could nor would have any thing more to do, directly or indirectly with such an unworthy minister. They have now, therefore, to take care of themselves, even as the others had taken care of themselves. To that end, they (the adherents of Curtenius) chose four TRUSTEES. They gave them power to do everything that would be conducive to the welfare of the church. To that end, also, these (Trustees), not without consultation with their other (former) very worthy, but long oppressed minister, Curtenius, chose for their moderator (or adviser, con- sulent) the Rev. Haaghoort, minister at Second River, one of the oldest neighboring ministers.
The strongest proof, which is also irrefutable, of their discharge of Rev. Goet- schius, is the Fourth Article of a certain form of Church Articles which reads thus: "When one of the ministers dies, or goes away, or no longer continues his service, the one who remains shall then supply by turns, the two churches for the entire year; and each church shall pay half of the salary, besides all other expenses."
Now for what purpose was this Article framed? Surely for the purpose in case the discharge does not go into effect, of nullifying those conditional signatures as to discharge in his call, and of putting each church under obligation, etc. Now it is none the less sure that that Article cannot stand, because those Church Articles have never been signed by any one, nor ordered to be placed on record in the Church Book of Schralenburgh. Rev. Goetschius, however, recorded them in that book, but not in the book of Hackensack. Furthermore, eight persons, who were in the Consistory at the time, took oath before a Justice of the Peace, on the Holy Gospel, that they had never had any knowledge of such a Fourth Article, and never gave their consent to it, although they did know of, and consent to, the other Three Articles. They had never heard of it up to the time of Rev. Curtenius's departure. Nevertheless, one of them says that it had indeed been spoken of, but that nothing had been done about it.
Another says, that he had seen, indeed, a copy of it at Rev. Curtenius's before that time. A certain Justice of the Peace, also, Rynier Van Giese, affirmed before another Justice of the Peace, that it is a hard thing to be tied down to one min- ister; that he had been taught that the Church exists by the bonds of genuine love. He had understood that it was stated at the bottom of Rev. Goetschius' call, that after the departure of Rev. Curtenius, Hackensack and Schralenburgh should each be obliged to raise for him one half the salary. He therefore felt bound to say, that at the beginning two men had come to see him. They with one mind, declared that that statement was not there; but that the whole purport and import was, that in the event of the death or departure of Rev. Curtenius, we should be released from both. He had himself read it (the call) twice or three times, but had not found such a statement therein. He had never had anything to do with calling Rev. Goetschius, nor had he given any suggestions with regard to it. But, from time to time, he had been robbed of his religion, so that, since the time of Rev. Goetschius's coming, he had received the communion but twice a year, because he could never commune with Rev. Goetschius. He had long been under constraint, and had to pray the Lord that he would remove from him this yoke and burden, and be pleased to give him an unhampered (free) religion.
The four Trustees at Schralenburgh, also, those who had once been elders and deacons, the first ones under Rev. Goetschius, declared over their own signatures, that they never came to this church with that Fourth Article nor did they ever make it known. They have, however, a faint remembrance of there having been some talk of it, but not of its ever having been recorded in the Church Book. It is
3630
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
without the signatures of the Consistory or of Church-members; for we never knew of it until the day the Trustees were elected. Yea, all the church-members of Rev. Curtenius's party, both at Hackensack and Schralenburgh, declared to us, church- members, over their own signatures, that they had never given any consent or signature to that Fourth Article, or made any contract of that kind. All of these documents and proofs are in the hands of Rev. Haaghoort, and with our own eyes we have seen and read them.
But let it be granted that that Fourth Article had been drawn up in consistory, as is affirmed and as has been sworn to by five of Rev. Goetschius's consistory, and once published in the newspapers, yet it cannot be binding on the congregation. This is so, not only because the congregation never knew of it, but also because it held itself solely to the document of the original signatures; but from this, we are now by the departure of our old and very much respected pastor and teacher, the Rev. Antonius Curtenius, released, as in the documents of proof is more fully stated. Then, no consistory has any power that extends thus far. For such a purpose, there is required in this country a special right and authority granted by the (Civil) Assembly, the government of the country, and Rev. Curtenius has, hitherto, always so understood and explained it. From all of this your Revs. can easily understand and judge just what there is of this matter.
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.