USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 87
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 this indulgence of Classis will not be exercised so long as Coetus is not properly a united body in itself, in the bonds of love, peace, and unity. xiii. 260, 261.
ACTS OF THE DEPUTIES. ABOUT OCTOBER, 1760. Extract from a letter of Rev. Gerardus Haaghoort to the Classis of Amsterdam, dated May 13, 1760. (In Vol. 33, page 30. No. 293.)
Letter to the Classis of Amsterdam, signed by Rev. Gerard Haaghoort, at Second River, in East Jersey, May 13, 1760.
The Rev. writer mentions the fact that, at the request of the Coetus, they had all, in accordance with the last letter from the Classis, assembled together. (May 6, 1760.)
The writer, as the oldest member of the Conferentie Assembly, expressed his advice, to the effect that they should reunite them- selves in a Coetus, on the former basis, and then leave it to the Classis to promote, according to its promises, the welfare of the New (York and New) Jersey churches.
I t
3794
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
The first article of this advice was adopted, that is, in the Conferentie Assembly. But two other articles had been added, namely : that weighty matters should not be settled by a mere majority vote, but be left to the decision of the Classis; and that those individuals who had been promoted by the Coetus should not be recognized by the Conferentie Assembly until those who had the right and power had declared them legal members.
The Coetus, in order to unite on the former basis, adopted the first of these articles very willingly; but it could not give its consent to the second, as being contrary to Church Order. The settling of weighty matters by a majority vote had taken place in the previous meetings of Coetus also-a procedure which the writer of this letter declares to be a fact, and in which he justifies the Coetus. The Coetus had also urged Union, because, when once reunited, it could work to better advantage for improvement, that is, for the improvement of the fundamental regulations of the Coetus. This last item the writer does not approve. The third, the Coetus rejected utterly, maintaining its right of making promotions, desiring to promote, not in the name of the Classis, but in the name of God. Its understanding is that its subordina- tion to the Classis does not go beyond correspondence and consul- tation with the Classis, and appeals to the same.
So the work for reunion was broken off. All are, indeed, still in favor of it, but they differ as to the manner of it. They are all agreed in asserting their right and power to promote; but, as to the second point, he says, they differ: the Conferentie Assembly is willing to unite, with subordination to the Classis; the Coetus on the contrary, only upon the basis given above.
This difference the Classis will have to settle. His Rev. had his advice, as reported, so framed as to be, he thought, most accept- able to both parties, and in agreement with the careful and wise judgment of the Classis.
It is further said, that the Coetus was inclined thereto-that is, to unite; and that the leading members of it had, as delegates, expressed themselves in the Conference to the effect that it was possible to have such a union take place, and other members of
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3795 1760
the Coetus had declared that his advice was in closest agreement with the letter of the Classis, and that it was a pity that they did not unite themselves. Yea, the entire Coetus had further testified that they desired this union from their very hearts, and would leave all the rest to the Classis, that it might direct the matter for the best interest of the churches.
But all this was rejected by the Conferentie Assembly. Where- fore, the writer also had not fallen in with the judgment of that Assembly, and had, therefore, separated himself from it, by saying that he would for himself write to the Classis. This he did, and gives, besides, other reasons for his separation. He could indeed bring in some weighty objection against some persons, but he leaves that for a more favorable opportunity, in the hope that the union may yet be effected.
He gives, also, as reasons for his change in this matter,- namely, of his being now so much in favor of the union, whereas formerly, as in a letter to Professor Arsenius, he had declared that he would never come into that Assembly-first his yielding disposition ; secondly, his confidence in the Classis-that, namely, when their Assembly was once again united, the Classis would set it on a better footing. To this end, he wishes the Classis God's grace and the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, the writer excuses himself, in case he had been some- what lengthy-that seemed to be somewhat natural to his Rev. He deplored, besides, the public correction of his bad spelling; and asks for a new spelling book, that he may learn how to im- prove; although he fears that he has now become to old for that. He closes with congratulations. He asks, in a postscript, whether it were not possible for the Rev. Classis to recognize the power of approval and consent (to the Acts of the Coetus ?)
EXTRACT FROM A LETTER OF THE COETUS, PER REVS. ERICKSON AND LEYDT, TO THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM, DATED JUNE (MAY?) 27, 1760. IN VOL. 33, PAGE 28. No. 300.)
Letter from New York, signed at New Brunswick, June 27, 1760, by Reinhart Erickson and John Leydt, members of the present Coetus.
3796
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
After greeting the Classis, they mention that they received our brief letter, besides those enclosed to the respective Consistories. The latter they have delivered. Their action in the matter (is then given), and the result.
1. A special Coetus was called which met on the first Tuesday in May. Notice thereof had also been given to the members of a body which calls itself a Conferentie Assembly. These, however, refused to appear in our Coetus, but requested that they might speak with some committee.
2. The Coetus having appointed a committee to meet these dis- senters, the committee found only ministers but no elders. They received these preliminary Articles as the condition of union : namely,
(a) That, when in weighty matters a difference should arise, the decision should rest with the Classis.
(b) That they disapprove of the promotion of students, as well as of what had already taken place, as appears from the accom- panying document, No. 3.
3. To this the Coetus replied as per document, No. 4, to this effect :
(a) That the Coetus was glad to learn that those brethren were willing to unite again with the Coetus on the former basis ; but
(b) That it found, to its sorrow, that the second point made by them was too much at variance with the first, for the fact was that the Coetus had, on that old basis, decided matters by majority vote, according to the 31st Article* of the Church Order;
(c) And as to the third article, it was sorry that the brethren disapproved of the examination and promotion of sudents, as the Coetus is ready to show the legality thereof according to the salu- tary form of government of the Reformed Church.
4. After a fruitless discussion of these points, the members of the Conferentie Assembly asked the Coetus to take this matter once more under consideration. This was done, with the result
* Article 31. If any person conceive himself aggrieved by the decision of a lesser Assembly, he shall have the right and liberty of appealing to a higher: and that which is determined by a majority of voices in such Assembly, shall be held decisive and binding unless it can be demonstrated to be contrary to the Word of God and these Articles.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3797
1760
of the answer contained in Doc. 5, which amounted to this :- That the Coetus having again considered the matter, it abides by its opinion. It believes that the Fundamental Rules of the Coetus have been well framed from the beginning; and, if at any point changes and amendments ought to be made, that could much better be done after all had again united together in love. At the same time it expresses its grief at the suspicions expressed by the brethren. It is anxious to have every article cleared out of the way, and longs to see the brethren willing to come again into a salutary union.
5. To this overture, the Conferentie Assembly replied, in turn : That it must leave the matter in dispute until further informed ; inasmuch as the answer of the Coetus appeared to it to be without meaning; that it consisted of shrewdly chosen words which had nothing to do with the case. See Document 6.
6. At this point, the whole matter stuck fast. One of these ministers, however, who was willing to unite with the Coetus according to the letter from the Classis, now separated himself from the Conferentie Assembly, and protested against its action. Here the Coetus further exhibited :
(a) What proof they had given of their willingness to yield ; in that they had entered into negotiations with ministers, who were assembled, but without elders; and
(b) The reasons why they could not accept the preliminaries proposed. As regards the first ; that would only open the way for accomplishing nothing, for all differences might be called matters of weight. And as regards the second; the promotions already made can as little be undone as a legal baptism (can be undone). Besides, (say they) the welfare and the peace of their churches absolutely require that they should never agree to that article. Therefore they ask the Classis to approve the promotions made and so further peace. They conclude with congratulation.
3798
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
EXTRACT FROM A LETTER OF THE CONFERENTIE, TO THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM, DATED MAY 8, 1760; WITH REMARKS OF THE DEPUTATI THEREON. (IN VOL. 33, PAGE 30. No. 301.)
Extract.
Letter from New York, signed May 8, 1760, by Revs. John Ritzema, Lambertus De Ronde, Mancius, Fryenmoet, Rozecraus, Schuyler, Van Sinderen, Van der Linde. (Also by Rubel.)
Our (Classical) missive of May 7, 1759, with the Acts of Synod, was duly received by them, and they thank us for the same. Upon notice from the Coetus, the above named members (of the Conferentie) were present, with the exception of Rozencraus, Schuyler and Van der Linde; and they unanimously resolved to make the following statement to the Coetus :
1. Although the Classis had not at all replied to their proposi- tion, they were, nevertheless, considering the eranest exhortation to union, and were favorably disposed to it.
2. Not, however, unless the decision in weighty matters which might come into dispute should rest with the Classis.
3. The examinations and promotions performed by the Coetus, they (the Conferentie) were not willing to recognize.
Answer was sent to this, as can be seen from the preceding letter, No. 299.
After conferring with one another about this matter, the per- sons whose names appear above, renewed the request that the brethren, who called themselves the old Coetus, would once more take the matter into serious consideration. After deliberation, further answer was given as stated in the foregoing letter, besides the counter-answer to the above, also to be found in said letter.
Thus they (the Conferentie) have given an honest account of the entire proceeding. They are of opinion that they have given heed to the admonition and exhortation of the Rev. Classis. And they further assign, as a reason why they cannot unite together, except on the conditions proposed, that the Classis had never recog- nized or permitted a Coetus, even though subordinated to the Classis, except on the ground of the distinct exclusion of exam-
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3799
1760
ining and promoting students, deciding on matters of doctrine, etc. This appears from its letter of Nov. 1739. The reason is there given : that that right is reserved by the Synod of Dordrecht, only to the Classis. If that was Church Order then, it must be just as much the same now. Thus they further show in what an irregular way the Coetus has gone to work.
From this the Classis can see what the matter in dispute is; also that the undersigned (the Conferentie) do not deserve to be looked upon as disturbers of the peace, but are men who seek peace-with truth. They further ask the Classis to consider well the replies made, and to send them a straightforward answer. They close with salutation.
P. S. They say, also, that Rev. Haaghoort, who has frequently strange plans on hand, had dissuaded two of the ministers, (Schuyler and Van der Linde) from attending the Conferentie Meeting. Nevertheless, he had attended himself; then he scratched out his name at the bottom of the letter, which he had sent together with the other brethren named; and later, in their last answer to the Coetus, he had separated himself entirely from them, (the Conferentie).
REV. SAMUEL SEABURY TO THE SOCIETY FOR PROPAGATING THE
GOSPEL.
Jamaica, October 6, 1760.
Reverend Sir :-
With respect to the state on my own Mission things are considerably mended especially at Flushing which has ever been the seat of Quakerism and infidelity- Many young people of both sexes have steadily attended Service the past Summer whose Parents are either Quakers or Deists, and behaved with great decency-They are now finishing the Church which before was only enclosed so as to keep out the weather and I hope in my next letter to acquaint the Society of its being completed.
At Newtown also they are repairing the Church & have rebuilt the Steeple from the ground at a considerable expence and I had the pleasure the last time I admin- istered the Communion at the Parish Church to find three added to the number of the Communicants.
I must beg leave to repeat my request to the honored Society for a number of Common Prayer Books which I am lately encouraged to think may be distributed to advantage.
I am etc., etc. Samuel Seabury. -Doc. Hist. N. Y. Vol. iii. p. 196.
1760, Oct. 25. George III begins his reign. His seal:
Doc. Hist. N. Y. iv. 3.
[1760, Oct. 27. Suit of the Brower Family against Trinity Church, for 62 acres of land, after a litigation of 20 years, decided in favor of Trinity Church. Dix's Hist. Trinity Church, 1. 294.]
3800 ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1760
CHURCH OF NEW YORK. New York, October 30, 1760.
Consistory held after calling on God's name.
Mr. Abram Lefferts presented the accounts for the new house, amounting to £635. 3. 9. Of this £283. had been paid. Resolved, That Mr. Abram Van Wyck should contribute £27. 3. 2, and the Deacons £50 .; that the £275. remaining should be taken up on interest, at five per cent from Mr. John T. Lansing. The accounts were examined and found correct. The above sum was immediately obtained from Mr. Lansing, who received an obliga- tion for it, sealed and signed by the President.
In name etc.,
J. Ritzema, p. t. President.
THE DUTCH CHURCH OF ALBANY BORROWS FROM POOR FUND TO PAY EXPENSES OF MINISTER, NOVEMBER 10, 1760.
Know all men by these presents that we the subscribers, elders of the Reformed Dutch Church of Albany in consideration of the sum of one hundred and sixty five pounds current money of New York, received from Messrs. Volkert Douw and Wil- liam Winne, deacons of the said Church being money collected for the poor, which sum of money has been borrowed by us to pay the debts which said Church has made in calling and having brought over our Rev. Minister, Eilardus Westerlo. Therefore we promise to pay annually to the deacons, who have charge of the money chest for the poor, (de armen kist) the balance of the income of the church pasture as soon as there is any.
In consideration whereof we bind ourselves and successors. Witness our hands, Albany this 10th day of November, 1760.
Witness, John Douw.
Gerrit Van Den Bergh Jacob C. Ten Eyck.
-Munsell's Annals of Albany, Vol. vii. p. 239.
t
1053
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.