USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 74
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
This day, May 21, 1755, we were assembled at the house of Peter Zabriskie, one of the deacons of the consistory of the churches of Hackensack and Schralenburg, the Revs. Samuel Verbryck, David Marinus and Jonathan Du Bois, with elders from Tappan and Acquackanonck, being present. After the name of the Lord had been called upon, the business was transacted which is hereby made known.
Rev. Gerardus Haaghoort, with certain members of the churches at Hackensack and Schralenburgh, being assembled for the purpose of appointing a consistory among them, according to a notice given in the churches, we by a friendly petition, expressed our desire to hold a conference with them at the house of Peter Zabriskie. To this, Rev. Haaghoort made no reply. Six of the said members came for the church key. Whereupon the said three ministers stepped outside and again requested a friendly conference. To this they replied, that Rev. Gerardus Haag- hoort could (not) do that after he had done them (illegible); but they kept on asking for the key, for half an hour.
Again, an elder and a deacon were sent to them with the request to know, whether or not Rev. Haaghoort would consent to such a conference. But a conference was declined.
Still again, two elders were sent to Rev. Haaghoort to ask him whether he himself would not appoint a conference, and at some other house, where the ministers, with the elders from the neighboring places, might confer with him, before he proceeded with this matter. This he also refused. Whereupon a letter was sent to his Rev. which reads, word for word, as follows:
Rev. Sir, Rev. Gerardus Haaghoort:
We, the Consistories of both churches, have been informed of your Revs. Inten- tion to enter into our church at the present time, for the purpose of appointing a Consistory, etc. And as we consider such a purpose as one calculated to cause a disruption, and to be a dishonorable intrusion into another's ministry-which is reckoned (in our Constitution) among the great public sins: We, therefore, exhort your Rev., altogether in a brotherly spirit, to desist from such a purpose. We declare also that we will use every legal and ecclesiastical means, even to an extreme remedy, to protect ourselves and our church in our ecclesiastical rights, etc.
In the name and by the authority of the churches of Jesus Christ at Hackensack and Schralenburgh, now assembled with the consistory at Hackensack.
J. H. Goetschius.
May 21, 1755.
This he refused to read and so gave it back.
In the mean time the said parties had violently opened the churches. Whereupon Rev. Haaghoort, passing over to the church was thus accosted by Rev. Goetschius, as, with the consistories, he encountered him: "I exhort your Rev., and beseech and command you, not to intrude yourself upon the Church of Jesus Christ in this place, which has been entrusted to my care." As he passed on, he only replied, "Thank you."
An elder from Schralenburgh then said to him: "We admonish your Rev., and warn you, by authority of the consistory, to cause no rupture among us, and not to
thị
dd ag BLOD Sch Ch ere B ADO
elde the Ch reg
Fel ba
B The
In
Eg
ma at
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3691
1757
ascend the pulpit, or grieve God's children." To this he replied: "That is not my intention."
The present meeting therefore considers it very advisable to bring this important matter before the Ecclesiastical Meeting which is to be held the following week, for its judgment and advice.
In the name and by the authority of our meeting. Signed by,
Rev. J. H. Goetschius Rev. S. Verbryck Rev. D. Marinus Rev. Jonathan Du Bois, who happened to be present.
We, accordingly, presented our matter to that assembly which is called the Con- vention Assembly; and, following their Rev's. counsel, we called a special meeting of the Coetus. This meeting was held May 29, 1755. All parties having been cited in a regular manner, and Rev. Haaghoort with those church-members not appear- ing, the Special Coetus appointed four ministers and elders, with instructions enabling them to act as Commissioners in this business. They, in writing, invited Rev. Gerardus Haaghoort and the offending members to meet at the church of Hackensack, on June 2, 1755. They held a regular session, and, after an examina- tion of the matter, as the minutes show, exercised, according to the Word of God and Church Order, Christian discipline, in the case of Rev. Haaghoort and those members.
Notwithstanding that, however, Rev. Haaghoort proceeded to install them as elders and deacons on the 22nd of July 1755. The Commissioners placed their Acts before the Regular Coetus, held Oct. 7, 1755. These were approved. These disci- plined but incorrigible ones, then met at Paramus, Nov. 3, 1755. They called in Rev. Van der Linde also, and cited us. They then did what the gentlemen at New York signed on Nov. 28, [25th?] 1755, and which your Revs. have since come to know, from their own communications. Their intention was to put us under censure, but this was foiled by your Revs. answer of Jan. 13, 1756. They still continue in their course. In March, 1756 they took violent possession of the parsonage at Hacken- sack, and called Rev. John Schuyler of Schoharie. He came on the advice of Rev. Ritzema. His intrusion among us commenced on July 25, 1756. In opposition to many wholly fraternal admonitions from all quarters, nevertheless he was installed at Hackensack by Rev. Haaghoort. Thus this great wrong is perpetuated.
The ministers of the Jersey circuit were called together on Aug. 11, 1756, to con- sider a certain dispute in the church of Raritan. We then brought our complaint against Rev. Schuyler before them. They referred it to the following regular ses- sion of the Cotus. This was held Oct. 5, 1756. There, and at that time, Rev. John Schuyler, who had been cited but did not appear, was, according to God's Word and Church Order, suspended from the sacred ministry. But he paid no attention what- ever to this act, and is still perpetuating amongst us that grievous wrong.
Behold, then, worthy Fathers, how Revs. Haaghoort, Schuyler, etc., have acted, and how we have sought to save our churches. Thus have the Christian Church Assembly of our neighboring Consistories, our sessions of Coetus, our ministers and elders, those who are impartial and well-acquainted with all the facts, thus have they acted, in the name and fear of God, and according to His Word and our Church Order. And thus have they, with extreme humility and with most earnest requests, often, and for a long time past, presented their communications, if these have, indeed, reached your Revs. in the hope of securing our own preservation, as well as the reprobation of such offensive and ruinous irregularities; for such things have never been heard of in our land.
But, in a communication of April 5, 1756, to Revs. John Leydt, John C. Fryenmoet, Theodore Frielinghuysen, etc., Nota Bene, Your Revs. declared that you considered
90
7
1
3692
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1757
the Coetus to be a divided body; and that, therefore, all the special meetings, the resolutions, censures, plans, etc., of the one party as well as of the other, ever since the unfortunate separation took place, your Revs. hold to be null and void, and you also assert there is nothing that your Revs. can do, until we shall have united again with each other, in one Coetus. May the Lord be gracious to us! Did ever a Chris- tian Ecclesiastical Assembly reach a decision whereby those worthy of punishmen shall be also made judges to pass sentence on their own deeds? That the others may be satisfied therewith? That all other ways of acting are nil and of no value ?- If we understand matters correctly!
We are astonished and shocked in our very hearts. Thus, then, offences and con- fusion are to be encouraged! That is the very wish of the intruders. Such, who are at present in this country, have nothing else to fear except Church Order and church discipline. Do your Revs. send a certain minister over her, and set him over a certain church, and then permit another, sent also by your Revs., to drive him out? We cannot so understand it at all. Must the Revs. Ritzema, Haaghoort and Schuyler, then, simply unite again with our Coetus, regardless of what they have done? Do you suppose, for a moment, that their Revs. could be brought to unite again with the ministers and elders who have remained faithful to the Church Order? Indeed, that would be pretty hard on us.
And what would we have, then, to expect? Would not our intruder, John Schuyler while still acting as an intruder in one of our churches, have to attend the meet- ings of the Coetus? And would not his elder, also, have to do the same, although a member under discipline, according to the Word of God and the Church Order" And what could we expect of such a Coetus? And if that Coetus should continue to deal with their Revs. according to Church Order, how long would they remain in it' And if they did, again, drop out, and did, again separate themselves, then the Coetus would be a divided body again, and your Revs. would be unable to do any. thing of consequence for the preservation of our churches. And we, having beer treated by them, as we have been, might (not) complain to your Revs. until a unior with the Coetus had again been effected! This cannot take place until their Revs either confess themselves guilty, etc., or until they let other ecclesiastical parties with their Church Order, go.
Our long-complaining and oppressed churches would thus have to wait. But who would be inclined thus to wait? Who will be able to endure hope so long deferred' This visionary view of your Revs., of thus reuniting the divided Coetus, a Coetur divided on such grounds, will, we fear, really prevent your Revs., (who have stuck to such a scheme so long), from having, hereafter, anything of consequence to do in behalf of the New Netherland church; for ordine servato, mundus servatus, a illo ... neglecto, pessum totus et orbis obit. Machina perpetua coelestis ab ordine pendit.
We, therefore, most humbly beg of your Revs. once again, for the sake of the anguish of His soul, and the death on the cross which Jesus endured for His church to look upon our misery and necessities, to consider the injustice done us by the said individuals and grant to us that which is just for our preservation; and recog nize us, and do not ignore us, with all the care and labor of our worthy co-minis- ters. We implore you to exhort our opponents to penitence and to a renunciation of
of their evil ways, and cause them to return to the places out of which they have fallen.
Finally, as elders, appointed to have the oversight of the doctrine and life of the ministers, we hereby declare that, whatever our opponents may say or affirm to the contrary, our minister, John H. Goetschius, as long as we have known his Rev., is pure in doctrine and godly in his walk, and that his ministry among us is thus far fruitful.
In closing, we pray from our hearts that the Lord, who is the Refuge of His people from generation to generation, may grant that His work may appear untc His servants and His glory unto their children. Let the beauty of the Lord, our
Du
(R
ch t Tog
for
Feb
C
th Re als que
de th
oth ths
my
yo
N
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3693
1757
God, be upon us! May He establish the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands, may He establish it!
Very Rev. Sirs, Much Respected Fathers and Brethren, in all submission, we call ourselves,
Your Revs. obedient Servants, the Elders and Deacons of the Church of Jesus Christ at Hackensack, etc.
George Brinkerhof, Elder
Gerrit Hoppe,
Elder
David Van Orde,
Gerrit Lydecker,
David B. Demarest,
Deacon
Johannes Christie,
Johannis Vrelandt,
Sieba Banta,
Deacon
Johannes Van der Hoef,
66
Hendryck Blynckerhoef,
Elder
Jan Bogert,
William Christie,
Deacon
Pieter Zabriskie,
Samuel Durie,
Jean Bardan,
Elder
Hendrik Banta, Elder
North America, Bergen County in New Jersey, Jan. 29, 1757.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
Portfolio " New York " Vol. ii .- xxiii. 461.
Rev. John H. Goetschius to the Classis of Amsterdam, Feb. 1, 1757. Very Rev. Classical Assembly :- With your Very Revs. permission: Your Revs. decision on my case, in removing me for the sake of peace, from Long Island, in the year 1747-8, has caused me a loss of over three hundred pounds, New York money; for my opponents in those churches have, for six years past, withheld the part of the promised salary which was to come from them. I can secure this in no other way than through the government, [by law]. I have no means to do it in that way, nor do I feel at liberty to take that course, in a county where there is such a variety of denominations. Your Revs. can well imagine how frugal must be my living, with my large family of ten children, my aged mother, and my wife who is a cripple.
Wherefore I find myself under the necessity most humbly to beseech you, that your Revs. would be pleased to remember me and my family with mercy and sym- pathy. Each of my children needs a big Bible with marginal references. Other Dutch books, (I have a few in Latin,) a minister also needs, for the better and more efficient performance of his work. This your Revs. very well know. And, in order that I may educate my six sons in the languages and in the sciences, I beg of your Revs. liberality, that you would send them over the necessary school-books. I have also many poor catechumens in my churches. To these I should like to give certain question books, like S. de Molenaer's book, styled "Spiritual and Pure Milk", (Redelyke, onvervalschte Melk). I would also like, for some other poor but pious churchmembers, some other edifying books for their increase in truth and godliness. Together, these books would fill a box. And if sent by your Revs. to us, as objects of your Revs. liberality, as members of the household of faith, they would bring to us very much joy.
Commending your Revs. to the care of the All-sufficient One, I remain, Very Rev. Sire, Your Revs. most unworthy servant, who cordially offers himself to your Revs. for service in the New Netherland Church.
Johannes Henricus Goetschius, pastor at Hackensack and Schralenburgh, Helvetio Tigurinus.
February 1, 1757.
3694
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1757
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
Jakson, Reytsma and Posthumous.
1757, April 4th. Art. 4. The candidate William Jakson came before the Classis, requesting to be admitted to the final exami- nation. This was granted.
Also the Students Toeko Reytsma and John Michael Posthumus, request that they may be admitted to the preparatory examination at the Classis of next May. After they had handed in laudable Academical and proper Ecclesiastical certificates, their request was granted. There was assigned by the Examiner to Posthumus, the text Matt. 9: 27, 31: to Reytsma Ephes. 5: 8; and to both, in Hebrew, Psalm 16, and in Greek, Rom. 1. xiii. 135.
Depp. ad res Exteras.
Art. 7 ad 8. The Depp. ad res Exteras read a letter written by them to Revs. De Ronde, Ritsema etc., which was approved for forwarding.
There was also read an extract from a letter from Rev. Ulpianus van Sinderen of Flatbush, of June 22, 1756, marked No. 260. The Classis leaves it to the discretion of the Rev. Dep. whether or not to reply to this private letter. Also an extract was read from a letter from New York dated Oct. 7, 1756, signed by those who called themselves the President and Clerk of a Coetus, marked No. 261. It was resolved to leave it to the Rev. Depp. whether to answer it, and how. xiii. 136.
ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.
The Classis of Amsterdam to the Consistory of New York, April 4th, 1757. Vol. 31, page 122. No. 74.
To Domines L. De Ronde, J. Ritzema and other members of the Consistory of New York.
Rev. Sirs and Brethren :-
We have learned from your letter of July 10th, 1756 that you were displeased with our (last) communication. This fact you
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3695 1757
express in words which we would rather ascribe to your misappre- hension of our letter, or to the impatience of a rapid pen.
We will not therefore examine your words too carefully, or write to you in a similar spirit. A few remarks only will be suffi- cient to give you that clearer light on the subject which you need, in order that you may have a better opinion of our said communi- cation.
1. You affirm: " We have never meddled in that matter of Do. Haeghoort, (at the Paramus Assembly,) either in his behalf or against him. We have never given a final decision (in that busi- ness), but on the contrary, have kept quite aloof from it."-You also seem to think that we have magnified the significance of that long and confused document of that Paramus Assembly, accepting everything recorded therein as true. But, dear brethren, this is a complete misapprehension of the opinion of our Classis. We well understood its significance, but in order to end the matter, we did not think it worth while to answer the document of that violent and disorderly Assembly at Paramus. But we did answer a certain Consistory, (New York), from which we expected more prudence and calmness. Before that Consistory the whole busi- ness of that Assembly at Paramus was brought up in order to get its apporval and concurrence. To that Consistory indeed the pro- posed matters were presented by Rev. Haeghoort, according to the statement in the postscript. We now answer you, that you may exhort them to bring all their disorders to an end, by advising them to unite again with the Coetus, to which they properly belong. We hear that you have not yet given any final decision in that affair; but that is not from any lack of good-will on your part. For in that famous postscript of Nov. 24, 1755,* you say, in accordance with the proposition of Rev. Haeghoort, " that if both parties will leave the matter to the judgement of our Consistory, they will give a decision on the business, but that you are unable, under any other conditions, to do anything." And in the same strain your last letter runs: " That the Consistory of New York will not decide upon it, nor meddle with it, before that both parties'
* See under Nov. 25, 1755.
3696
1757
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
express a desire for their decision, and leave the whole matter (nota bene) to their judgment."
Now inasmuch as the Classis already understood that all the seven provinces, (of Holland), with all their cities, villages and congregations were not subordinate to her; and that it is equally true that all the congregations (in America) do not belong to the congregation of New York; (which beautiful illustration the Classis did not need in this case as an example of subordination, under our Church Rules;) the Classis also knows with no less clearness, that the Consistory (of New York) would have done better if she had not at all accepted of the office of Judge in this matter, but had kept aloof therefrom.
Since then, as we suppose the congregations where the dis- turbances prevailed, do not belong to New York, the Classis thinks that the New York Consistory, instead of encouraging the abolish- ment of the Coetus, which was established only a few years previously (namely, in 1747,) would have done better to have defended the Coetus, and to have carried this business before the proper legal tribunal.
2. In the second place you ask, " What has the New York Consistory to do with the quarrels there? We are surprised that the Classis suspects that Consistory of conspiring with the dis- affected. Is such a suspicion so very strange, brethren, when the Classis is hardly allowed to give an exhortation against it? Has the New York Consistory forgotten their resolution of Oct. 1st, 1754, which was communicated to us in a letter, in which your Assembly not only admits that the Coetus (in America) is without any further usefulness, but also declares that the clause in the call of Domine De Ronde, requiring him to be a member of the Coetus, is thereforth null and void. Gentlemen, how are we to understand these things? Does this look like having nothing to do with the quarrels of (the province of) New York, nor taking any part in them ? Can your action be regarded as exhibiting regularity of conduct and Christina love, and was it for the edi- fication of your congregation ? Or was not such conduct, to a greater or less extent, conductive to the destruction of the Coetus ?
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3697 1757
Nevertheless, for the establishment of that Coetus, you were among the petitioners to the Classis, but now your conduct has been one of the principal causes of the many disturbances which have arisen.
Although, therefore, we recently praised, in our Classical Assembly, the objections which you raised against the abolishment of the Coetus, as written in a letter to that body, Dec. 9th, 1755, in this other matter we praise you not. We have, however, instead of giving our opinion in violent language, done it in a calm manner, in a letter of July 21st, 1755. Therein we showed the unreasonableness of such a resolution, and agreed with your principle in the very words of your letter of Oct. 17th, 1754, namely : " That the conduct of some who care nothing for those things to which they have set their signatures in their calls, was to be disapproved." We therefore beg you, on this principle, to rescind your resolution, and do not separate yourselves from the Coetus, but remain with it, and harmonize with that Assembly in their spirit and desire for general usefulness. Instead of receiving from you an answer to this letter, we received none at all, except your signature on Nov. 24, 1755, which was appended to that document of the Assembly at Paramus, and in which you declare that you are ready to give your judgement on that matter, if both parties will leave that business to your judgement! But was not that a grave offence (literally, crime,) inasmuch as the Classis had most earnestly, and with tender love, exhorted you not to take any part with the disaffected.
3. Finally, there is yet something to be said about that com- munication concerning Rev. Ritzema, one of the members of your body (the Consistory of New York), whom we tried to dissuade from reviving that old affair of 1748, as we consider that to be settled; for we hope that all hold themselves to that, which the Classis has once acted on, endorsing all the Acts of the Classis. You ask: "Inasmuch as Rev. Ritzema has written personally, why is he not personally answered ?" We answer, simply we had neither time nor delight in the business, and also because we thought there would be no danger of erring in the interpretation
3698
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1757
of our letter. You clearly show this to be the case. But if we must be so very particular then we ought to have written one letter to the Consistory of New York; one to the leader of that Paramus Assembly; one to the Rev. Vander Linde, (pastor at Paramus) ; one to Rev. Goetschius; one to Rev. Ritzema; and one to Revs. Ritzema and De Ronde together-all to be signed, (according to the request of Rev. Haeghoort as expressed on the back of his letter,) exactly on Nov. 25th (1755).
But where would be the end of such things, and what would be their use ? What man is able, however attentive and active he may be, to write to every individual in particular, where so many heads, so many meetings, so many quarrels and disturbances exist ? And would it be conducive to quiet and peace ? Is it not unwise to say-" The Coetus is of no use," and then to wander farther off from the old household ? Moreover the Coetus passed a resolu- tion some time ago that " Inasmuch as our Deputati ad res Exteras had their hands full, they must not feel under obligations to write to individuals, unless it seemed absolutely necessary."
We hope, therefore, that you will not require this of us, but on the contrary, that you will do everything in your power to reestab- lish the Coetus, in order that it may be possible for us to conduct again a useful correspondence with you, and in a kind and less burdensome way. We beg of you, brethren, to exert all your powers to promote peace. Banish all strife away from you, that you may experience the fulfillment of that truth, that " Where brethren live in harmony, there God will give his blessing." This the Gospel requires of you, and Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace demands it of you. The Lord of the House, wherein you are laborers, is not within when the servants are beating each other. On the contrary, He loves those who are of a peaceful disposition, and who build his house in love and faith, and without the noise of the hammer. Keep before your eyes that which is the delight of the Church's King, namely, the progress of his Kingdom. Follow the teachings of the Gospel in your daily walk and conversation.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3699
1757
And now may our advice be followed up. It will make us happy to behold you in unity again, animated by a common love and purpose.
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.