USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 67
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
Furthermore, the four Trustees of Schralenburgh had some negotiations with the Consistory of Rev. Goetschius. During that time they gave that Consistory to understand, that as it had left them and provided for a minister, they, two, had it in mind to provide a minister for themselves. To this Goetschius' consistory replied: "Do you want a minister and a consistory by yourselves? That is impossible. We are willing to call any minister for you." Afterwards Rev. Marinus mentioned this proposition to Rev. Haaghoort, and expressed his surprise that the offer had not been accepted. They would call for them any minister they desired, and each party should then support its own minister. Well may your Revs. judge whether such things can be! can a certain consistory call a minister for another church and that minister then stand subject under that other consistory? Is not that a return to the old domination? Does it not involve the declaration, on the part of such a separate church, that it is released from Rev. Goetschius, and is not obliged to raise its half of the salary. How can they have a church by themselves, supporting their own minister, without a consistory of their own to call said minister in a legal way? No wonder, the Trustees replied: "Then things will be just as bad again as they have been." Besides, the church has told us, that we should, in no respect, unite with it, because it wanted to be a church by itself, as proved by the documents which we have seen.
Whereupon those who were authorized, went forward and called the churches together. They fixed upon the time, and upon the Hackensack church as the place, for the purpose of proceeding to the election of a consistory. They notified Rev. Haaghoort, their moderator, and requested him to be present. The party of Rev. Goetschius then kept the church door shut, and refused to give up the key. With his consistory, and assisted by three ministers, Verbryck, Marinus and (Jonathan) Du Bois, he sought to hinder this work in every way. But it was in vain, because the church, being in part their own, was opened with violence, and the consistory for those churches was, under the direction of Rev. Haaghoort, as moderator, chosen in an orderly and legal way. Whereupon the three ministers named, not only gave a written certificate to the effect that Rev. Haaghoort had caused sedition in church affairs, they being present as witnesses to the fact: (a thing of which they themselves are far more to be accused, seeing that they had no business there:) supported Rev. Goetschius in his evil, and sought to hinder the good work; but they also devised the special Coetus, and contrived, with Rev. Goetschius and his consistory-as appears from a letter, written by Rev. Marinus to Rev. Haaghoort that same week-to persuade the latter to be present at their special Coetus on Tuesday following. This was really the time set for the Convention called by Rev. Frielinghuysen. At that Coetus, at the request of Rev. Verbryck, meddling-as Rev. Frielinghuysen remarked to Rev. Haaghoort-in another man's matters, Rev. Goetschius brought a never before heard of and somewhat disturbing complaint against him (Rev. Haaghoort). A committee was appointed, consisting of four min- isters, Leydt, Frielinghuysen, Freyenmoet and Vrooman, before which, in the church at Hackensack, he would have to defend himself, as well as the Trustees
.
1755
3631
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
and the consistory chosen by him. Goetschius was not ashamed to designate the consistory thus, and which was done in a superscription publicly, as the consistory chosen by Rev. Haaghoort. It was his desire and in fact, his order, that (the names of) that chosen consistory should not be published; or, if published, (its ordination) should be put off until the Committee had given its decision on the matter. On that false testimony, and the complaint of Rev. Goetschius and his consistory, and on the false proofs he advanced, they censured Rev. Haaghoort, and suspended him from his ministry, as a public schismatic and as an intruder into another field of ministry. They used severe language, as though his Rev. were a most scandalous fellow. By letter they gave their sentence to him personally. In a separate letter they informed all of his consistory, as also the Trustees, and the chosen consistory of Hackensack and Schralenburgh that they were all forbidden the use of the Holy Supper, until his Rev. and all of them, should, before them as the Coetus, and before his own (Goetschius') consistory, show penitence, and desist from these their doings .- All this, notwithstanding the fact that, in his answer to their citation, he had declared to them that he could not appear before them, as he could not recognize their Coetus or Conference as legal; but that he was willing to talk over and act in the matter with somne one who is impartial. The Trustees and the consistory declared the same thing. Yea, they could not consider their matter as a question or a dispute seeing that it was all too well known, and indisputable.
Rev. Haaghoort did not attempt to do anything to help along those people, now released from Rev. Goetschius, without the knowledge, advice, and even encourage- ment of his consistory at Second River. They carefully investigated everything, and both by writing and by word of mouth they received from Revs. Van der Linde and Curtenius the assurance of their release from Rev. Goetschius and his call. And having been many a time urged to go forward, as there was not the slightest difficulty in doing so, they came to know all these facts, and brought them before its meeting. The Trustees of Hackensack and Schralenburgh, being on hand, were allowed to come in to the meeting. All documentary evidence in the case was carefully looked into, examined and considered. Instead of requiring from their minister, Rev. Haaghoort, that he should show penitence, and have nothing more to do with this matter, they justified all that he had done, and ordered him to con- tinue on the same path; and so he did. On the Sunday following, he installed the lately chosen consistory, in the church at Hackensack; for Rev. Goetschius and his followers had closed against them, the church as well as the pulpit, at Schralen- burgh, with an iron bar. Yea, the censure, imposed at Hackensack, was declared to be illegal and without foundation, according to the Acts recorded July 17, 1755.
Now notwithstanding the fact that all this was known to that irregularly called (picked-up) Coetus; and that Rev. Haaghoort had complained to four of the con- sistories represented in it, about Revs. Marinus and Verbryck, for giving false tes- timony, and for their disgraceful acts; so that he demanded of them justice and satisfaction, as well as of Revs. Frielinghuysen and Erickson; of the former for his conduct in that business of the Committee, and of the latter as President of that special Coetus; and that he received no answer or satisfaction whatever, although he had set the whole matter before them in its true light: yet when the regular Coetus was held, it completely ratified what the Committee had done, only making the declaration that all the action on these matters should most earnestly be brought under the eye of the Rev. Classis. It is for that reason that Rev. Haag- hoort is now under the necessity of complaining to your Revs. about these consis- tories, as also his Rev. informed them that he would.
That that Coetus was, in general, illegal, has already been made clear. Of that special (Coetus), it is hardly worth while to prove its illegality in particular. This has been already shown, and does still more fully appear from its entire irregular mode of procedure. The president of the preceding Coetus was not recognized. But this was necessary because he must notify the members by circular letters, and he must inform them of the person who makes the request for the meeting, and of the matters to be considered, and of the time when the meeting is to be held. Four new members were received, without credentials, of whom Rev. (Theo- dore) Frelinghuysen himself was one. Two of these members, namely, Revs. Ver- bryck and Marinus, were witnesses and accusers, and at the same time judges. Only one then remained, Rev. (Jonathan) du Bois; but all this was at variance
3632
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
with 1 Tim. 5:19, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses," and that accusation was false. Rev. Haaghoort's consistory was passed by; yet there was imposed upon him the duty of showing penitence before his consistory, and so before the Classis also; for according to Church Order, the Classis is to judge whether such a one shall be entirely deposed, in case the censure is found to be legal and just. (Church Order, 1619, Art. 76.)
From all this the Rev. Classis can understand what sort of a man Rev. Goetschius is; and how he has gone to work recklessly, rashly, violently, and-what is more than probable-against his own better knowledge; and how he has been the cause of the split in his own church, yea, of all. the evils and mischiefs which have now befallen the Church. His Rev., therefore, deserves to be suspended from his min- istry, and his consistory to be immediately deposed, etc., etc .; especially as they have been arraigned before the Higher Authorities as worthy of punishment. One is astonished at seeing such a man, his character known no less to other brethren than to us, thus shielded and strengthened in his evil way. Especially is one aston- ished at Rev. Erickson, the eldest of us all, for placing himself at the head of such defendents-one who even denounced Rev. Haaghoort once in his own house as a very Judas and a church-traitor. Your Revs. ought to take notice of this. But the Rev. Classis understands as well as we do, what the upshot of all this matter is, namely, domination, playing the master, taking advantage of circumstances, (lit., using the present occasion,) now that they begin to have a majority. This is intol- erable, coming, as it does, from those who, most of them have been ordained (pro- moted) by us here and have only recently come in, and who in a variety of ways, have been helped along and favored, and all this done to men of Gray heads, advanced in years; men who were sent over here by the Classis, and who have been serving the Church of God here, blamelessly, for such a long time.
However, as only Rev. Haaghort with his elder was present, (for Rev. Curtenius was unable to be present, and Rev. Marinus did not appear), we, by the advice of the Consistory of Hackensack and Schralenburgh, and with their consent, suspended our judgement on the censure of Rev. Goetschius, and on the deposition of his con- sistory. We resolved to lay this whole matter before the consistory of Rev. Cur- tenius and the Consistory of New York, or their Commissioners, as our neighbors, in order to obtain their advice, assent and concurrence.
We have thus felt in conscience bound to defend our good cause against the injurious and disgraceful treatment of this assumed Coetus of our brethren; and, at the same time, to pour out our bitter complaint, about its violent domination and assumed authority, into the bosom of the Rev. Classis. We are saddened by the disturbances, divisions, reproach among the churches, and the ridicule from the world, and especially from those that are without. So we are moved to make this, our humble request; that it would please the Rev. Classis, by its authority and power, to put a stop to all this trouble, in order that far greater evils may not result therefrom.
Done, and thus resolved upon, at Paramus, on the day and at the house above named.
Holout Winter Jacob Kip Laurens Ackerman Hartman Blinkerhof
Pieter Dury Caarel D B (his mark) De Baan
Roelof R M (his mark) Martense Pieter Da-demarest
Trustees of Hackensack and Schralenburgh.
Jacob Cors. t (his mark) Banta Paulus P M (his mark) Martense Jan Coenelis Bogert
Abraham Westervelt Deacons of Hackensack.
Gerard Haaghoort, Director Hendrick Coeyemans Hendrik IK (his mark) Kip
Ary de Groot Joris Van Gesin Benjamin B W (his mark) Westervelt
Jacobus Demarest
Joost V (his mark) Sobrisko
Jacobus Peek
Cornelius Leydecker Elders of Hackensack and Schralenburgh.
Silvester Earle Jacobus Lozier Jan Durie Marten Roelofsen
Deacons of Schralenburgh.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3633
1755
On Nov. 24, 1755 this matter was laid before the Consistory of New York. Rev. Curtenius, who had been requested to be present at its meeting, excused himself, chiefly on the ground that he had been put under censure by that Assembly which now called itself a Coetus; and because the consequences of his attending might make matters worse in his church. The Consistory gave hearing to this document from beginning to end, but took the following verbal action thereon:
"On motion of Rev. Haaghoort, as Director of a conference held at Paramus, etc. Resolved, That, if both parties will leave the matter to the decision of our Con- sistory, (of New York), they will then give their judgment on it. Otherwise they can take no action on it."
Signed in the name of all, J. Ritzema, p. t. Praeses.
Thus it is clear that, on our part, we carried out our purpose, yet we have been unable to attain our object. We have, therefore, delayed the execution of the censure imposed on Goetschius and his followers; and give the whole matter, as thus presented, into your Revs. hands.
Gerard Haaghoort, In name of all, as Director.
P. S. We confirm by our signature the truth of all this, and also of what this document contains with reference to the conduct of the newly organized Coetus.
Joan. Ritzema Lambertus De Ronde.
New York, Nov. 25, 1755.
(See Report on this paper in April, 1756. This was the beginning of those sad troubles which led on to Rev. Solomon Froeligh's Secession, in 1822. See also July 10, 1756, and Article, Froeligh, Solomon, in Corwin's Manual.)
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
Petition of the Consistories, the Elders and Deacons, of the Dutch Reformed Churches at Hackensack and Schralenburgh, to the Classis of Amsterdam. Nov. ? 1755 ?
Portfolio " New York ", Vol. ii.
Very Reverend Classical Assembly :---
From the previous report, sent by our neighboring ministers, if it has, indeed, come to your hands, your Revs. have already learned of the action so offensive and painful to us, of Rev. Gerardus Haaghoort. Supported by Rev. Curtenius, who has removed to Long Island, and by Rev. Van der Linde, and in opposition to our earnest dissuasions as well as those of the neighboring ministers, he appointed a (new) Consistory for certain ones of our (distant) separated members, in each of the two churches ; and occasionally he has preached for them. His action, having been examined by our Rev. Coetus, was repudiated, his Rev. himself was suspended, and the leaders of those separatists were forbidden the Lord's Supper. This was done, first, by a committee appointed by the Rev. Coetus; and later by the Rev. Coetus itself which approved their action. (You have also learned) of the unjust treatment accorded us as well as the churches under our care, by the above men- tioned ministers.
Concerning this, we might have kept quiet, but, following the example of the turbulent Long Islanders, by whom also they were stirred up, we have learned that our said opponents were also about to attack our minister, J. H. Goetschius, with a very elaborate complaint. This it is said, must have been already dispatched to your Revs. Wherefore, in order that, according to our oath and duty as elders, we might not neglect to do what conduces to the saving of our already disrupted church, we beg of your Revs. not to take this very weighty business out of the hands of the Rev. Coetus, as is the desire of our enraged opponents ; but we request you to oblige
3634
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
them, as well as ourselves, to submit to the judgment of the Rev. Coetus. We belong to the Coetus, and you yourselves have instituted that body.
All our ecclesiastical Acts, even to our calling and ordaining ministers, are founded upon its authority. We cannot in good conscience throw the Coetus overboard, as our said opponents are doing. For, we are sure that, if we should return with them to the old regime, our New Netherland Church would be a field without a fence. We most humbly beg of your Revs. to give us the opportunity to defend ourselves here at home and before the Coetus; and to send back the original (eigenhandig) complaint of our opponents (tegenparty), to the Rev. Coetus. The whole affair on both sides, will be so elaborate, and tedious, that it will cost your Revs. an inex- pressible amount of trouble and time.
Please do not take this request, as if it were prescribing laws for your Revs., or did not want to entrust you with dealing with this matter. Not at all. It is only with the design that our opponents may not by their misrepresentations gain an advantage over us; and also, that besides our own churches, other churches may not be ruined by the said ministers, and that our minister, (Goetschius) may not suffer any more injustice to his good name notwithstanding Rev. Haaghoort's many efforts to bring about such results. We have a right to expect that your Revs., as defenders of the Church of God, will in no wise be able to endure such confusion and injustice. With good conscience, we bear our testimony to Rev. J. H. Goet- schius, both as to the purity of his teaching and the blamelessness of his conduct. His ministry among us has been blessed, and will be honorably remembered forever.
We abominate unjust dealing with our ministers. We are sure it is a great sin to rob them of their good name; to withhold from them their just dues; to seek to drive them away, as, alas, our opponents are doing. Already too many ministers are treated in this unchristian way in this land of ours. Should our opponents find the least hearing with your Revs., then, in a very short time, our ministers and churches would be in a bad case, and even a legal consistory would be of little value to a church. In short, as your Revs. very well understand, if a number of dissatis- fied members are permitted to rise up against their minister and consistory, and be formally organized as a (new) consistory and church by other ministers, in oppo- sition to the legal minister, consistory and church ; and if the houses of God may then be violently taken possession of, and " Readers " appointed, and the calling of another minister contemplated, and so on-things which, in fact, as God knows, has taken place among us-such a course of action, (if permitted) will be the shortest way of destroying God's Church altogether.
We must also include in our complaint to your Revs. the inconsiderate action of Rev. Van der Linde. He, on the 3rd of November last, cited our minister and con- sistory at Schralenburgh to appear before those members of ours who were under censure, and whom his Rev. had called together at his house, as though they were neighboring consistories, with Rev. Haaghoort as president. Before such a Church Assembly, his Rev. pretended that we, according to Church Order, must answer his Rev's. charges. These were to this effect: "That, (we) had, with (some of) our church members, gone to make a new settlement at Spitsberg ( ?) in the midst of all sorts of sects, a place more than thirteen English miles distant from his Rev's. church at Paramus; and having obtained from the proprietors a grant of Church- land, for the planting of a new Dutch Reformed Church, we had, in a fraternal spirit, invited Rev. Van der Linde and his consistory to co-operate therein ; but that then, inasmuch as they refused, we had, according to Church Order and custom, although much against Van der Linde's wish, chosen two elders and deacons."
But since that time, the Rev. Coetus has been in session three times, and his Rev. was present at the first session, yet he made no complaint ; but only now, and before such an assembly as mentioned above, consisting of eight of our censured members, and Rev. Haaghoort, a suspended minister, (he makes complaint). These members, now, the President and Van der Linde recognize as neighboring consistories, despite the fact that his Rev., a few weeks before, had by the Rev. Coetus, been fraternally exhorted, in writing, not to unite in sin with Rev. Haaghoort and those people, lest he should also participate in their punishment. And not only did his Rev. do this, but he now sustains and promotes that separation, by marrying and baptizing the children of those people, etc.
All of these things we now earnestly present to your Revs. We humbly ask your Revs. to be pleased to oblige him to appear before the Rev. Coetus and to let that
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3635
1755
body judge of our respective complaints, according to Church Order. This will give us satisfaction, and will compell him also to place himself under the supervision of the Rev. Coetus from which he has withdrawn. This is the just thing to do. It will also certainly prevent him and our dissatisfied opponents from carrying out their evil design ; but more than this; it will be wholesome to his church and ours, as well as other churches.
In closing, we commend ourselves, in our miserable condition as a church, and with all the injustice done us in our official action, we commend ourselves, next to God, to your Revs.' Christian care and supervision. We wish nothing more heartily than that your Revs. may thoroughly understand the condition of our New Nether- land Church, and the behavior of the said ministers and of their followers; also their injurious designs ; so that you may protect the better-minded against them ; and also, in order that truth and piety, without which we cannot be a Church of God, may abide among us.
Meanwhile, may it please the Almighty to be your Revs.' shield and very great reward ! May He bless your persons, your labors and your families, your going out and your coming in, from now, henceforth and forever ! Pray for us, that the Word of God may have its free course among us, and that it may be the blessed means for promoting the Confession not only, but also the experience and the practice of true godliness.
We, the undersigned, with all respect and humility, are your Very Revs.' wholly subordinate servants, the consistories of both the churches.
Gerrit Hoppe Jan Berdan
Gerrit Lydecker
George Brinkerhof
Hendrik Blinkerhof
David Van Orde
Johannes Christie
Sieba Banta
David B. Demarest
William Christie
Samuel Durai.
No. 246, V. ( ?)
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Letters from Abroad.
1755, Dec. 9th. Art. 3 ad Art. 8. The Committee are thanked for the commission carried out in regard to the Assembly of the xvii, (the Board of Directors of the East India Company), whereto a reply was amicably made, but only in general terms ; and was further recommended to the Committee.
An extract was read from a letter of certain of the delegates of the Coetus of New York, of September 30, 1755; with the Acta of Coetus of September 1754. The answer thereto was approved. xiii. 80.
New Netherland.
1755, Dec. 9th. Art. 2, ad Art. 2. The Committee reported the sad condition of New Netherland. The church there was much agitated, and threatened with ruin by reason of the disputes, disagreements and dissensions, caused by novelties introduced. To show the condition, the Deputies read an extract from a letter
Johannes Vrelant Pieter Zabriskie Johannis Van der Hoef Jan Bougart
3636
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1755
from Curtenius and Ritzema, ministers on Long Island and New York, of September 3, 1755, about an Academy (or College) pro- posed to be erected by Rev. Theodore Frielinghuysen. There was also a letter from the Consistory of Kingston, of July 27, 1755, on the same subject, and a copy of an announcement of a meeting of the Conferentie.
Whereupon an answer to the Consistory of Kingston, which had been drawn up by the Committee, was read and approved.
There was also read a letter from Rev. Ritzema, dated Aug. 20, 1755; together with a lengthy account of a meeting at Peremes (Paramus) on Nov. 2, 1755. Also a postscript of Rev. J. Ritzema, as President of the Consistory of New York. A reply by the Committee, was read, and the Assembly thanked them for this draft of a reply and adopts the same. xiii 81.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
The Classis of Amsterdam to the Coetus of New York, Dec. 9, 1755. Vol. 31, page 97, No. 55. (Addressed to all, without recognizing the schism which had taken place, but favoring the Conservatives.) Reference, xxiv. 47, 51.
To the Coetus of New York, (See Acts of Classis, Vol. xxiv. 47.) Rev. Gentlemen, Much-beloved Brethren, Members of the Coetus of New York :-
The Classis beholds at last, not without surprise, the long- awaited Acta Coetus, held on Sept. 17, 1754, together with a docu- ment relating to the change of the Coetus into a Classis, dated Sept. 19 of the same year; also a letter, written and signed a full year later, by five ministers and four elders. The contents relate mostly to a proposal toward the improvement of the Rev. Coetus. Some of the members are in favor of leaving it in statu quo, and only correct its defects. Others think that an entire reconstruc- tion is necessary ; that a change should be made which would trans- form the Coetus into a Classis, as the proceedings show, and this was finally unanimously concluded according to the Acts of the second meeting. (May, 1755.) It is also said that a Committee
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.