USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 7
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
3158
1751
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Acts of the Deputies and their Correspondence. The Classis of Amsterdam to the Coetus of New York, May 3 1751. Vol. 30, page 205, No. 123. To the Rev. Coetus of New York:
Reverend, Godly and Learned Gentlemen and Beloved Brethren :---
A copy of the Acts of your Rev. Coetus, held Sept. 11, 1750, and following days same safely to hand. We heartily thank you for your friendly and fraternal com munication. We hope that these ecclesiastical gatherings of yours may be con tinued, and that the Rev. members although most of them must undertake a lon and difficult journey, as the agreeable letter of Revs. Ritzema and Du Bois accom panying these Acts inform us-will not allow themselves to be deterred from attend ing these Meetings. They can console themselves for all their trouble by the profi which may be anticipated, as we believe from such fraternal gatherings. We trus also that the Lord may command his blessing upon them, which may each of the brethren experience as well as the greater blessing of Eternal Life.
The report which was made to us by our Deputati ad Res Exteras concerning the Acts of the Coetus, as well as the peace and unanimity existing among all the mem bers, was heard by us with much satisfaction and joy. What we shall take the liberty to remark thereon need be very little.
We trust that our approbation of your decision in the case of Rev. Arondeus ha already reached you. We are also anxious to learn that our ratification of your deci sion has had a proper effect upon said minister, cum suis, so that he has come to a better mind. May the business be put in such a shape, according to Church Order that the unpleasant divisions may fully come to an end.
The case is not very clear to us regarding the exact position of the members of the Consistory of Oyster Bay, who were ordained by Rev. Goetschius. We think that this ordination was performed by his Reverence upon an order received from the Coetus. We therefore suppose that the Coetus has acknowledged the legality of their election and ordination. This, however, is not quite certain from the Minutes, but we trust that the matter is not of much importance.
The Rev. Van Hoevenberg has been properly dealt with. He is an unfortunate individual who deserves pity rather than censure. Yet his conduct in many things, as well as toward us, was of such a kind as to excite just displeasure. He com- plains greatly to us about his maltreatment in New York, especially in reference to the annulling of his call. But we have good reasons for refusing to be troubled any further about him.
Your acts in reference to Tappan, your decisions in the case of Muzelius, the completed examination of Verbryck with his ordination and installation, have all met with our entire approbation. We trust that with God's blessing he may greatly edify that people by his teachings and example.
We next notice that your Rev. Meeting has declared the conduct of John Van Driessen to have been very dishonorable, especially that he should have declared that he was reconciled to the Coetus, according to what appears in a certain letter. The letter of Revs. Ritzema and Du Bois give us additional information about him: "He does not belong to the Dutch Church; his extraordinary conduct is known everywhere," etc. All this we confidently assume as true, without being able just at present to examine our old Retro-Acta. We doubt not, however, that the Breth- ren do well and act in a Christian spirit, to keep a sharp lookout on him, following up the warnings given to us long ago.
But let not the Rev. Assembly be offended when we say that we cannot reconcile matters in our mind, under these circumstances, with the fact that Rev. Goetschius annulled the censure put by the Consistory of Kingston upon certain members at (New) Paltz for their stubborn adherence to Van Driessen by administering the Lord's Supper to them. This was reported to us by way of complaint by parties in Kingston. Rev. Goetschius, who is a member of Coetus, must have done this, as we suppose, according to the required qualifications. Of this, however, nothing was
Histor Mies
Wiela
3159
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1751
represented to us. Neither do we observe that his Reverence has received any cor- ection therefor in Coetus. Yet we cannot suppose that Rev. Mancius and his Con- sistory would have told such a thing if it had not happened. If Mr. John Van Driessen, according to former intimations, is a man to be avoided; if his conduct is unworthy and offensive; then certainly a censure put upon a class of people who pay no attention to warnings, and obstinately persist in adhering to such a man, cannot be considered unlawful. Nevertheless, the Rev. Goetschius has virtually declared this censure null and void by administering the Lord's Supper to those under such a censure. Yet this appears quite incomprehensible to us. And we say this the more strongly, because the three reasons given by the church of Kingston to Rev. Ritzema, to prove that the Paltz belongs to that congregation, seem to us not at all unacceptable.
We could have wished that the Rev. Coetus had not left the decisive judgement upon a matter of such importance, viz., as to whether the Paltz did or did not belong unto Kingston, to one person only; and also had not given him the right to act, according to his own pleasure, without further consultation with the Coetus, and to this end, giving him not a copy of the reasons alleged, but the entire letter of the Rev. Mancius. The matter seems to us to be very uncertain. It seems unrea- sonable that the Paltz, because of its growing population as well as its distance from Kingston, should [not?] have a pastor of its own, if such is desired. But you can easily understand that such a schism as was begun there by John Van Driessen, and which seems to have been countenanced by Rev. Goetschius, is by no means in harmony with Church Order, and does not deserve to be commended. We trust, therefore that your Rev. Coetus, within the bounds of Christian prudence, will remove the reasons of complaint by Kingston, if such reasons are well founded; otherwise those brethren will only be encouraged by Coetus in their persistent, and to us, painful opposition.
We have also another matter of importance to refer to, viz., what we have learned about P. De Wind, after his departure from us. We prefer, however, to present this in Rev. Wynstok's own words. He is pastor at Harderwyk, and we send you a copy of his letter, which will astonish you not a little, as it did us. From it we perceived with deep anguish of soul that it is only too probable that both yourselves and ourselves have been basely deceived by him. We hope that the letter sent sub- sequently by Mr. Kloppert arrived in time to prevent the installation of such a man, and that you will have the opportunity to bring him to a stern account. By no means permit his installation, until the truth or falsehood of the suspicions against him shall have further appeared to us. It would be a matter of gravest moment, Brethren, if one should be able to press himself into the ministry of the Gospel by means of forged certificates.
May God give you all needed wisdom and prudence in this case, to combine a holy zeal in preventing such a crime, with that caution, so necessary to guard the Church of Christ from injury in those distant regions. We conclude with the wish and prayer for all grace to rest on your Reverences, esteemed by us, and upon your Sacred Ministry.
We remain, Signed as before.
In our Assembly, May 3, 1751.
P. S .- We request you, if possible, to obtain the original certificates of Rev. P. De Wind, and to send them to us. Rev. Harderwyk has promised to send us authentic copies of the Acts of the Classis of Neder Veluwe, and a further report with information in reference to P. De Wind. When we receive them, we will also send them to you.
POSTSCRIPT.
Resolutions of the Classis of Neder Veluwe, May 12, 1751, concerning Peter De Wind, Vol. 30, page 207, No. 137.
Article 47. Strict Examinations :
It was represented to this Meeting, that in the Journal of January 1751, it was reported that a certain Peter De Wind was peremptoir examined by the Rev. Classis
3160
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1751
of Amsterdam, having been called as pastor to Bergen and Staten Island in New Netherland, and that he had been sent thither. This De Wind is described as a can- didate in the Classis of Neder Veluwe. Not only this circumstance was a matter of surprise to this Assembly, but there was also received a letter from Rev. John Van der Vorm, a pastor at Amsterdam and one of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, wherein it was stated that De Wind also presented to the Rev. Classis of Amster- dam, a copy of a church certificate from Rev. Peter Wynstok, pastor at Harderwyk, under the assumed date of Feb. 26, 1749. But this De Wind has never been known as a member by the Consistory of Harderwyk, nor has he ever even communicated with them; much less has Rev. Wynstok ever handed him a certificate to that effect. It is, moreover, stated in said letter, that on Feb. 14, 1749, he was furnished with his Testimonium Examinis et Admissionis, as candidate, by Rev. Alexander Medenbach, Clerk of our Classis. Our Assembly, having learned all these things with great sur- prise; and having deliberated as to its course of action in order to counteract such evil conduct whereby the Classis of Amsterdam has been so sadly imposed on, while a notorious falsehood has been practiced upon the Classis of Neder Veluwe; is unani- mously of the opinion that these circumstances should all be entered upon our Journal; viz., That Peter De Wind has never been known by the Rev. Classis of Neder Veluwe, much less examined or admitted as a candidate, according to the statement made in our Journal, by report, in Jan. 1751; and that a copy of our action be sent to Rev. Van der Vorm, for the use of the Classis of Amsterdam, or its Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs.
That this copy agrees substantially with the original, I testify,
Theodorus Floor, V. D. M. at Heerde, and Scribe of the Classis of Neder Veluwe, hactempore. Collata concordant Quod attestor James Tyken, Dep. Cl. Amst. p. t. Scriba.
Heerde,
May, 12, 1751.
CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Acts of the Deputies and their Correspondence.
May 3, 1751. The Classis of Amsterdam to the Worthy Con- sistory of Kingston. Vol. 30, No. 124, page 209.
Rev. Sir, Beloved Brother; and the other members of Consistory: Worthy Men and Brethren :-
From the two letters addressed by you to us, the one of April 26, and the other of Dec. 10, 1750, we perceive that various complaints are made to us, particularly con- cerning the conduct of Rev. Goetschius at the Pals, (New Paltz,) and of the action of Coetus concerning the Consistory of Kingston. (You say) that the former, (Goet- schius) has administered the Lord's Supper at the Pals, to those who had been cen- sured for their stubborn adherence to John Van Driessen; that he (Goetschius?) avowed that he did this by order of Coetus; that Coetus itself, without explaining the reason, why the Pals, being neutral, should belong to Kingston, had given the letter, (written by your Reverence to Rev. Ritzema) to the Pals, by Rev. Freimoeth, who instituted and ordained a Consistory there, etc., etc .- Now you request of us a decisive answer and judgment upon three different matters, with the threat that you will otherwise go to Synod, and present the matter for decision there. You give also three reasons why you, the same, continue to refuse submission to Coetus, while you desire to remain directly subordinate to us.
We are very sorry to hear continually of these unpleasant relations, persistent and growing more aggravated, between you and the Coetus. We, indeed, must acknowl- edge that the conduct of Rev. Goetschius, as represented to us by you, does not seem to be at all commendable. The three reasons presented by you to prove the dependence of the Pals upon Kingston, are very agreeable to us; but we do not know but that on the other hand, something might be adduced which would weaken these arguments.
b
=
A
T COL in
ciu Jet COD up def th of
all Ch pla WI ha
nes ha tio ho
ha
ap
bi le
to b
fo in
3161
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1751
The Coetus, (as there was no one present to represent the Pals,) gave the letter containing these reasons to Rev. Freienmoeth, and commissioned him, (if he should find that the Pals was an independent congregation, and not subject to Rev. Man- cius), to provide the same with a lawful Consistory. This he did, according to your letter-Although, indeed, there is in this transaction something which we do not commend, as it is represented to us; yet we can pronounce no decisive judgment upon the same until we shall have heard what may be said by the other side in defence. Justice requires this-Therefore we request you to give us time to await the answer of Coetus to our letter to them, lest the Coetus should also have reason of complaint against us.
We notice with satisfaction, that the Consistory of Kingston is not unwilling to allow the Pals to separate, when the same may be brought about according to Church-Order. We are also verbally informed that the distance between the two places, together with the growth of the Pals, render such separation necessary. Wherefore we hope there may be found a way for removing the estrangement which has arisen through occasion of this (proposition to separate), and that we may give you such satisfaction as may be proper.
Nevertheless we can (not) omit to say that it is our opinion, that this unpleasant- ness would never have arisen, or at least would have been greatly mitigated, if you had heeded our former admonitions, and not persistently set yourselves in opposi- tion to Coetus, but had united therewith. It is difficult also for us to comprehend how this refusal can be consistent with your yet repeated profession of esteem and subordination to us. We wish that we had seen the proofs of said profession, or that we may yet see the same in your compliance with what we consider our well- founded wishes in the matter.
We think that we can see great benefit from the plan suggested. It would cer- tainly facilitate matters when complaints were made against a private person, to have them presented for decision before those who could best decide them. For an appeal to our Classis, in case of a supposed grievance, always remains open.
If you had a better understanding of the manifold troubles that we have had with foreign churches, (especially should each one of them desire to deal with us sepa- rately), we would not now be troubled with your request that you might have deal- ings only with us, (the Classis), and be permitted to have nothing to do with Coetus.
Thus, so far as we remember, we have touched upon and replied to the principal topics of your letter, in proof that we have (not) lost you out of our eye or heart, however difficult such a separate correspondence may be to us. And although we are greatly interested in maintaining the Coetus, nevertheless we would dislike to see a Consistory which is not subordinate to the same, have any just cause of com- plaint against it. We now conclude, praying that the Supreme may multiply his blessings upon your persons and ministry; yea, may he make his favor constant to length of days, even to eternity.
We remain, (Signed as above.)
In our Meeting, May 3, 1751.
MORAVIAN CHURCH IN NEW YORK. MAY '23, 1751.
May it please your Excellency
We Deputies of the Unitas Fratrum his Majestys Dutifull and Loyall Subjects being duely Sensible of the freedom and Liberty of Conscience we Enjoy under the Government of so good and mild a King as also under the Government of your Excellency Hereby beg Leave to acquaint you of our Intention of Building a Church in this City for the publick Worship of God, in which we Humbly hope for your Excellency's Fatherly Care and Protection.
We are your Excellency's Dutifull Humble Servants,
New York May 23rd, 1751.
Owen Rice Rudolphus Van Dyck.
-Doc. Hist. N. Y. Vol. iii. pp. 621, 622.
3162
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1751
[JOHN AEMILIUS WERNIG [WERNICH].
Statement of the Churches of the " River " (Mohawk) and " Stone Arabia." July 14, 1751. (Original in German.)
We, the undersigned of the united Consistory of the River and Stone Arabia, do hereby declare that, having repeatedly examined and made ourselves acquainted with the papers of our Pastor, we acknowledge him, and consider him worthy of his office, and to indicate our satisfaction, we subscribe this with our own hands. Stein Rabien, (Stone Arabia.)
July 14, 1751.
Peter Lutz
Jacob Kraus
Johannes Schnell
Adam Lauchs
Henrich Fehling
Conrad Kutz
Johann Jost Schnell
Friederich Gebmann
Severinus Deigert
Johannes Wallerat
Wilhelm Wermouth
Johann Henrich Klock
Henrich Lauchs
Wilhelm Lauchs
Caspar Kock Peter Kremps
Wilhelm Koppernoll
Johannes Kremps
Gottfried Helmer
Leonhardt Helmer
Friderich Bellinger, Junior.
Robert Gerder
Friederich Bellinger
Adam Wabel
Johann Leonhardt Helmer
Johann Henrich Riemenschneider
Henrich Merkel
Johannes Schnell, Junior
George Koppernoll
Henrich Lauchs, Junior
Dieterich Lauchs
Johannes Fehling.
[32 names].
[See letter of Classis to Coetus, July 17, 1752.]
ST. GEORGE'S CHAPEL, NEW YORK. JUNE 4, 1751.
"Mr. Oliver De Lancey acquainted this Board that he had received a letter from Sir Peter Warren, directing him to pay one hundred pounds sterling towards the building of St. George's Chappell, and desiring if it was not Inconsistent with the Rules of the Church that a pew might be appointed for Sir Peter and his Family in case they should come to this country; and Mr. De Lancy acquainted this Board that he was ready to pay the said money as this Board should order."
-Dix's Hist. Trinity Church. p. 258.
t
t
n
1 f
d
la
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3163
1751
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Letters from E. T. van Hoevenberg.
1751, July 19th. Art. 13. The Deputati ad res Exteras report a letter from Rev. E. T. van Hoevenberg to Rev. Brouwer, written from New York, Nov. 1, 1749, and another letter from the same, dated Jan. 3, 1751. The Rev. Deputati are requested to furnish the Assembly at the next Classis with suggestions, (pre-advice) thereon. xii. 245.
Synodalia. Typographical Errors in Bibles, Psalm-books and Liturgies .*
Art. 20. The Classis is of opinion that great care should be given to that which obviously militates in print against the prin- ciples which the translators probably laid down for themselves in' their translation; and that consequently such errors ought to be corrected and avoided. This would be to the general satisfaction of all the corresponding Synods as well as to the greater praise of our (Dutch) version :
1. Wherever the name Jehovah occurs in the Hebrew text, the translators employed the name LORD, (HEERE) in capitals. Nevertheless that name is found at Isaiah 45: 21, and Zephaniah 2: 2, in small type, (not in capitals).
2. Those grave linguists used no supplementary words and no parentheses, where the original text had the same word which they had translated elsewhere without parenthesis or a supple- mentary word. It is therefore, unnecessary at Hos. 9: 2, to place half the word threshing-floor in a parenthesis, thus; (threshing) floor; Dutch, (dorsch) vloer :- or to print the half of it in a different kind of type, while the whole word is printed without any such distinctions elsewhere, as at Hos. 9: 1 and 3: 3.1
* These books were used in New York at this time by the Dutch.
+ In Hebrew the word "floor" only, was used, while we (in English) generally say "threshing-floor". It would seem that the proof-readers of the Bible of the trans- lation in 1637, had taken certain liberties, not in harmony with the translators' own principles. The Dutch Bibles and other books of that date were generally printed in the German text, and where, in English, we use Italics, to make a distinction, they employ our plain Roman type.
57
3164
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1751
3. Even as these linguists did not desire to omit anything from the text that ought to be translated; so they did not introduce anything into their version which was unnecessary. Yet in Isaiah 45 : 22, the conjunction and (ende) is forgotten; and in Job. 40: 1, the Hebrew reads only " The Lord answered Job " while in our rendering there is added from chap. 38: 1, " out of the thun- der " (uit een onweder), without placing it in a parenthesis. *
4. It is supposable that what had to be expressed in a passive sense (or voice), according to the Hebrew Niphal, they would not translate in an active sense (or voice) in Kal; especially where the sense of the translation also reads better in the Passive. Now at Isaiah 28 : 13, stands " break " which should be " are broken ". In Hebrew it reads venishbaru and not yeshaberu. and'וְנִּשְׁבָּרוּ) .( יִשַׁבְּרוּ not T :
5. It may also be asserted that these linguists would not have written " the " (Dutch, de) in place of " of the", (der), as in Psalm 68: 26, " in the midst the " for " in the midst of the " (" in 't midden de ", for "in 't midden der ",) as probably may be read in the autographa, while the Hebrew tok) is in) תוך statu constructo. xii. 248, 249.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Synodalia. (Marinus and Johnathan Du Bois.)
1751, July 19th. The Classis also makes known to the Chris- tian Synod that one David Martinus (Marinus) a student, pro- vided with laudable certificates was examined in Pennsylvania by the Revs. Schlatter, Weiss, and Leidich. They wrote about this, their examination of him, to the Coetus at New York, (and asked that Coetus) to permit him to preach, without administer- ing the sacraments at Acquieghnonck, (Aquackononck, now Pas- saic), even as the Coetus of Pennsylvania had given permission to Jonathan du Bois, examined in the same way, to preach in
* But see July 17, 1752.
I
e
e
C
3165 1751
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
Bucks County, (Pa.) Of the former the Classis is still awaiting account. The latter fact has already been communicated to us by Rev. Schlatter in name of the (Pennsylvania) Coetus. The Classis would gladly see that in this case (of Marinus) this (courtesy) be conceded to that church .* xii. 252.
ACTS OF THE SYNOD OF NORTH HOLLAND, JULY 27-AUG. 5, 1751.
VOL. 63. Article 2.
Rev. Michael Schlatter gave a good testimony concerning the abandoned wife of Rev. (P. H.) Dorsius.
Article 36. Classical Changes.
Dismissed to Bergen and Staten Island in New Netherland, Rev. Pieter De Wind. As candidate, he presented good testi- monials from Rev. Classis of Neder Veluwe. He took his final examination Jan. 12, 1751. But after his departure very un- favorable reports have come in, full information about which cannot as yet be given.
(Much additional information in these Synodical Minutes about Rev. Schlatter and Pennsylvania. )
Church Union.
In regard to the combination of the German Churches with the Scotch Presbytery, etc. :
Last year our idea concerning the Scotch Presbytery and the ecclesiastical standing of Pennsylvania differed greatly from the idea we have of that (union) now, through certain reports. For at that time, we understood the Scotch Presbytery to be con- formed to the Church Order, Discipline and Forms of the Church of Scotland, which, according to its Confession, printed in the Latin Collection of the Confessions of all the Reformed and
* That the licensure of the Pennsylvania Coetus be recognized by the New York Coetus.
3166
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1751
Lutheran Churches, do not materially differ from our Doctrine and Forms. But now it becomes known that the Scotch Pres- bytery is not only entirely independent, but without Forms of Doctrine and Liturgies, so that neither now, nor ever, can one be sure of its opinions.
It is known also now that through the instrumentality of Rev. Schlatter, there have been organized there Coetual Conventions, which might be regarded as Classes. By means of these, provision can be made against the dispersion which was feared, especially when the Coetus can be made to correspond with the (Dutch) Church of New York, through which it might be enabled and obliged to correspond with the Deputies of both Synods.
We should thus guard against :
1. The anxiety concerning purity of Doctrine which might otherwise arise from the combination with such Presbytery.
2. The question whether they should come to us or we to them.
3. The question as to how much or how little they should have. to say about our ministers and ministries, and we, in turn, about theirs.
4. The jealousy, which, in the course of time is always born of the combination of two different nationalities.
But as the Rev. Deputies have written to Rev. (Gualterus) Du Bois in New York, about Pennsylvania matters in this and other respects, the Committee are of opinion that final action on this particular thing might be postponed until answer from Rev. Du Bois, together with the views of Rev. Deputies in both Synods shall have come in for their consideration and judgement.
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.