USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume VI > Part 27
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
That an alien may not justly sit as judge the law will sufficiently establish.
I adhere therefore to my protest and the remarks which accompanied it, and I further declare that it has much astonished me that you who profess to seek peace have been unwilling to join with me in appointing another Convention before which we could lay our affairs with mutual satisfaction. I have proposed and requested such a course of my Consistory on many previous occasions and again lately have renewed the request by Do. Cock. This course only shall satisfy me. and it as I trust will tend to the restoration of mutual peace. I therefore again bring it to your notice, before the difficulty increases, as it is natural to suppose it will, and I request that you as messengers of peace will strive to incite my Consistory, by urging it upon them as their duty demanded by the Word of God, to show them- selves willing to promote the peace of the Church in the way suggested. This letter will be an additional evidence of my desire for peace.
The Lord be judge between me and my Consistory, and between me and your- selves. I subscribe myself, Your obedient servant,
Kingston, Oct. 9, 1764.
H. Meyer.
THE CONVENTION AT KINGSTON FOR THE SO-CALLED TRIAL OF REV. HERMANUS MEYER, OCT. 9, 10, 1764.
On the 9th of Oct. Do. J. C. Fryenmoet, Minister of Manor Livingston, and Do. G. D. Cock, Minister of Camp etc., with their respective Elders, Capt. Johs. Best and Capt. Jacob Dekker, Elders of Manor Livingston, and Philip Klum and Cor- nelius Müller, Elders of Camp etc., at the request of the Consistory of Kingston came together at 10 o'clock A. M. in the Consistory Room, to act ecclesiastically upon the important difficulty between them and their Minister, and to seek to adjust the same. Their Convention was opened with an earnest prayer by Do. J. C. Fryenmoet.
Whereupon the request of the Consistory was read to us, together with their names :-
Elders Johannes Wynkoop Johannes Turk Cornelis Persen
Jan van Driesen
Deacons. Lucus Elmendorph Ezechiel Marten Benjamin ten Broek Conraad Jacob Elmendorph
Therein they accuse their Minister, Hermanus Meyer, of several sins-namely:
I. Of exciting Schism in the Church;
II. Of despising ecclesiastical advice;
III. Of refusing to acknowledge subordination to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam and in connexion therewith of rejecting the request of the Consistory for friendly conference upon the subject.
3956
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1764
Whereupon the Convention resolved unanimously to acquaint Do. Meyer of these charges and affectionately to request him to appear before us at 2 o'clock this afternoon to defend himself against them, that by these means a way might be found of composing the difficulty between hint and his Consistory and restoring precious peace to those under their charge.
This resolution being passed, before our letter was sent to him, we received from him a letter addressed to us-to which our letter already written served as a reply, the same having been read before the Consistory and fully approved-To this letter Do. Meyer returned an answer In which he declared that our Convention was Illegal and contrary to the usage of the Church, since the Cousistory of the neighboring Church at the Paltz had not been invited to send a delegation, anil on this account he sald he did not consider himself obliged to appear before us; but he promised to appear before any other lawful Convention which the Consistory might call. The above being at his request made known to the Consistory of Kingston we with them passed the following resolution-Namely; That the first reason for which he considers our Convention unlawful I. e. because the Minister and Consistory of the nelghboring Church ns he considers that of Paltz have not been summoned in accordance with Art. 9 .- is entirely without foundation-for- certainly It is well enough known that Rheinbeck and Camp and according to our best Information Livingston Manor are much neurer than Paltz and Schnowenge- kong-und besides we unanimously agree that If the Church mentioned were the nearest It would not be able to act since It acknowledges the Coetus.
And as for the matter of the renmining reason-the charge that Do. Cock Is null Allen und a foreigner we consider of the same character-as the fact that he has taken the onth of allegiance which he couslders fuiconsistent with the subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam. For If Do. Cock may not have a share In the juris- dletion of the Church which is an essenthl part of his office certainly it Is entirely unhiwfui for him to discharge the other duties of his office. For these reasons the Consistory of the Church of Kingston adhere to their opinion and resolution, and consider our Convention as regular and lawful, urging us to proceed to ecclesiastical action and desiring ns to umke known this their resolution and request to Do. Meyer, und once more and for the Ist time affectionately to invite him to appear before us and bring this umpiensant affnir to an end.
This was done-a letter to this effect having been written and approved by the Convention it was sent to him in the renewed expectation either of his personni appearance before us, or an answer hy the bearer of our letter. We received an answer-In reference to which the Consistory remarked-that the reasons on account of which Do. Meyer sought to make ont our Convention to be irregular and unlawful and for which he had so far refused to appear before us did not prove the point at which they nhned-that we could not receive his protest because he now refused to acknowledge subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam and at this very time stood under no Classis In Holland-that his observation In reference to Do. Cock had no relation to Ecclesiastical affairs and therefore could be nothing to this Convention-that we could not acknowledge the Church of the Paltz as a Church which receives the Constitution of the Netherlands Churches-for certainly It does not adhere to it, but directly opposes Itself to it, Inasmuch as It acknow !- edges the Cortus, and the Cortus not only refuses to acknowledge subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam although by the resohitlon of the highest Church Court of the Netherlands, the Synod of North Holland it was most kindly directed so to do, but continually and repentedly breaks through that subordination by positive nets in disregarding the express prohibition of the Classis and the Synod against "inmining and ordaining youth.
The Convention in accordance with the last request of Do. Meyer earnestly recommended to the Consistory of Kingston his terms of reconciliation as he called them and urged them to fail In with a plan proposed by Do. Meyer for restoring peace. But the Consistory manimously decided that It had been impossible all along to restore peace In this way-and they therefore unanimously persevered in acknowledging ns as the neighboring Consistories, and requested that we would proceed as a Convention regularly and lawfully organized, to act upon their differences.
The Convention thereupon resolved to nsk of the Couslstory of Kingston reasons and proofs of their charges bronght by them against their minister-and
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3957 1764
1. In reference to his Contempt of Ecclesiastical Advice.
Do. Meyer was requested in all kindness by the Consistory and several particular members of this Church, to suffer himself to be married by Do. Westerlo of Albany and not by Do. Hardenberg who was a minister of the Coetus and the genuineness and lawfulness of whose ordination was disputed in the Church. This request was made in conformity to the unanimous desire of the Church and because the opposite course would occasion great displeasure, especially since particular members of the Church had promised him more than once that they would bring down Do. Westerlo from Albany and carry him home again rather than have unpleasant feelings awakened in the Congregation on this account. But all this counsel both of the Consistory and of particular members of the Church Do. Meyer despised and suf- fered himself to be married by the above mentioned Hardenberg on which account universal displeasure was felt throughout the Church. These facts were established by Mr. Jan Jansen and Joh. Du Bois who at that time were Elders, and by Mr. Frantz Henrikson who then was Deacon as well as by the present Elders and Deacons who were then in office with them. Mr. Petrus Edm. Elmendorph also testified that he had promised Do. Meyer to bring Do. Westerlo from Albany at the time mentioned at his own expense. Conraad Jacob Elmendorph also who is now a Deacon and then was a member of the Church, declared that he, as Doctor riding about a great deal in the Congregation and thinking there was reason to anticipate general dissatisfaction, had besought Do. Meyer not to be married by Do. Harden- berg even if he was lawfully ordained but by Do. Westerlo since the other course might occasion disturbance, offering him by way of defraying the increased expenses five pounds. Jacobus Elten testified to the same effect-that he before harvest spoke to Do. Meyer in reference to his marriage by Do. Hardenberg and said to him that he as a shepherd should seek the peace of his flock and that therefore he should not be married by Do. Hardenberg but should follow the advice of his Consistory which warned him of discord and dissatisfaction in the Church. To which Do. Meyer replied that by adopting his own course he would show the Con- sistory and the Congregation that he regarded Hardenberg as a lawful minister and that he himself would not be entirely subject to the dictation of the Church.
On Oct. 10th, at nine o'clock A. M. Do. J. C. Fryenmoet and Do. G. D. Cock with their respective Elders as above named again came together as a Convention to listen further to the proof that Do. Meyer had despised ecclesiastical advice.
Mr. Jan Jansen who formerly was Elder and Joh. Wynkoop and Joh. Turk ruling Elders united in testifying that they, fearing that Do. Meyer by his marriage might perhaps come under the Coetus, had made a formal request to him to maintain peace and unanimity with them and that he in reply had pledged himself to make his action in all particulars conform with their own. If the Consistory wished to remain neutral he would do so. If the Consistory wished to be under the Confer- entie he would concur with them. This promise, they testify he had broken since according to the declaration of the Consistory he in the sequel refused to act in concert with them. Mr. John Turk ruling Elder also testified that Do. Meyer regarded the Coetus as a lawful Classis, notwithstanding that he previously had not approved of it; and that by so doing he had given occasion of discord.
And Secondly-that Do. Meyer and his Consistory of Kingston having met together in the Consistory Room on the afternoon of Sunday July 8th, Do. Meyer himself called the attention of the Consistory to the necessity and also the advantage of subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam, and that consequently they agreed to meet on Thursday to pass a resolution upon the subject, and to take measures for communicating the same to the great Consistory in order to receive their assent. Whereupon Do. Meyer hmself presented the subject of subordination to some of the great Consistory and asked them whether they did not agree with him in regarding it proper and advantageous for them to acknowledge the same. On Thursday the Consistory came together for the purpose specified and unanimously passed a resolution in favor of subordination-which was approved by the greater part of the great Consistory (a single voice only dissenting). This resolution Do. Meyer himself drew up and brought to the Consistory meeting-and that it was approved by the whole Consistory appeared from a copy of it which Mr. Wynkoop in our Convention testified to be a true copy.
This resolution Do. Meyer agreed to forward to Do. Ritzema at New York but on the Saturday following in the presence of John Turk one of his Elders and also of
3958
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1764
the John Turk testifying, the oath of allegiance to Great Britain was demanded of him by Col. Abrah. Hasenbroek, and Abraham van Keuren and Frantz Petu Roggen. These being asked by this Elder for what reason they made this demand the answer was made-that they protested against the resolution of the Consistory concerning subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam. On the following day, Sunday, Do. Meyer narrated these circumstances to the Consistory, after sermon, and signified his wish to confer with the Consistory in reference to this demand. The Consis- tory therefore unanimously agreed to meet in the Consistory Room the next day, Monday at two o'clock P. M. to consider the reasons for which this oath was demanded. But the Elder Joh. Wynkoop, having learned on Sunday evening that Major Paling was to come to the place on Monday forenoon, suspected that Do. Meyer might perhaps take the oath before their meeting in the afternoon. He therefore desired Dr. Coenr Eimendorph one of the Dencons to request Do. Meyer that if Major Paling should come before noon he would instantly send for the Con- sistory. It did so happen-and Do. Meyer sent for Mr. Wynkoop who instantly repaired to his house and found there Major Paling and Lewis Bevier two of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace, and also Col. Hasenbroek. These Mr. Wynkoop asked, what was their aim in demanding this oath. Col. Hasenbroek answered I come in the name of King Jesus and King George. The same he repeated in the presence of other members of the Consistory. Upon Mr. Wynkoop's insisting that if they proceeded in this business the meeting in the afternoon would be useless. Major Paling postponed aff action till that meeting. In the afternoon necordingly the Consistory met with these men for the purpose of conferring with them on the subject but no progress could be nmde since these obstinately adhered to their pur- pose. The Consistory therefore with Do. Meyer resolved at length to nsk of Major Paling a delay of three weeks since this was a new and unheard of nmtter, in order that they might inform themselves concerning it and learn whether it wns proper and necessary that the thing demanded should be done. This request to Major Paling Do. Meyer agreed to present to him, as he did; and he received Major Pai- ing's acqulescence. But to the astonishment of the Consistory he shortly after showed himself entirely willing to take the onth at once, saying that he regarded himself as having niready taken it in effect .- By all this miscondnet, in breaking his promise and despising aff brotherly advice of the Consistory. Do. Meyer hns mnde himself unworthy of the respect of the Consistory and Congregation and has occasioned in the Church great disquiet and sorrow the evidence of which were dally heard and seen by Mr. Person (while engaged with Do. Meyer in visitation) In the complaints and tears of many aged members of the Church, awakened by such condnet on the part of a minister. The same has been to the Consistory the occasion of much pain and sorrow, especially since aff menns employed for the removal of the difficulty have proved of no avail.
Three weeks afterward i. e. upon Ang. 6. the four ruling Eiders went to Do. Meyer and acquainted him with the advice of a friend in New York who in accordance with the counsei of several lawyers and other weil informed persons decided that no Reformed Minister was bound to take the oath of allegiance but oniy Roman Catholics. And they further requested him if he intended to take the oath to follow the advice of the advocate .. .and the counsel of the Consistory and not do so until a lawful summons should be received by hint. And they assured him that if he would follow their advice by so doing he would satisfy the Consistory and the Congregation, and that in that case they would shicid him from injury, but if he chose rather to follow the advice of others he must look to them for protection. This counsel Do. Meyer also disregarded and very soon after on the very same day took the oath.
The Consistory found no cause of offence in Do. Meyer so far as the taking of the oath is in itself considered, but only because his willingness to take it furnished ground for the suspicion that he wished to find in it an excuse for refusing subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam as if the oath was incompatible with such subordination : they therefore met with him on Aug. 23 and addressed unanimously to him a proposal to concur with them in acknowledging subordination to the Classis in conformity with their former resolution as appears from (No. 9.) requesting at the same time an answer in writing. Do. Meyer accordingly returned to them such to this effect. That in consequence of the oath which he had taken, and which bound his conscience he could not acknowledge subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam as will appear more fully from (No. 10.)
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3959
1764
From this letter of Do. Meyer it also appears that he would not acknowledge the subordination even if he were clearly shown how it was entirely consistent with the oath he had taken, since Mr. Wynkoop had before read to Do. Meyer from a letter of Do. Ritzema the manner in which the subordination was to be understood- Namely that the Classis of Amsterdam demanded of us no subordination that was inconsistent with the freedom of this land, as appears from (No. 11.)
On the 17th of Sept. the Consistory of Kingston, having again met with Do. Meyer renewed the proposal which they made to him on the 23rd of August- namely that he would consent to the subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam and Do. Meyer returned the same answer as at the meeting of Aug. 23, as appears from (No. 12.)
II. In reference to the division in the Church.
The Consistory complained that in consequence of the above mentioned misconduct of Do. Meyer some who formerly held with the Consistory and Church after the taking of the oath and the refusal of subordination had deserted the Consistory and Church for his party-and not only this-but a great number of members of the Church had more than once met together and appointed a Committee of five to join with the Consistory in devising ways and means for the removal of the disturbance in the Church or for the punishment and removal of their minister since they could not live on in this manner.
III. In reference to his refusal to acknowledge subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam the preceding proof is sufficient ; yet the following bears upon this point, that the Consistory of Kingston appointed two of its Elders, namely, Joh. Wynkoop and Cornelis Persen to go with Do. Cock and his two Elders, Philip Klum and Cornelis Müller to Do. Meyer and request him to appear ecclesiastically and confer with them in reference to the disturbance in the Church, which request Do. Meyer refused, whence it is sufficiently clear that Do. Meyer has despised ecclesiastical admonition as appears also from the former part of our minutes.
The Rev. Convention having carefully weighed all the Complaints and charges of the Consistory of Kingston against Do. Meyer their minister, we find ourselves with the most sincere regret in conscience bound to declare him worthy of suspen- sion from his office in the Church of Kingston because he has been guilty not only of multiplied and obstinate acts of contempt of ecclesiastical advice addressed to him in general by his own Consistory and in particular by Do. Cock and his Consistory and also by this Convention-and consequently of sowing discord and dissention in the Church-but also of absolutely refusing subordination. Yet we postpone the execution of this sentence for such time as shall be sufficient to receive the brotherly advice of the ministers and their respective Consistories in New York which belong to the Netherlands and High Dutch Reformed Churches; to whom we will send an attested copy of all our proceedings by the hands of Do. Cock. We take this course because this matter is one that shall be handled with the greatest wisdom. Do. Meyer himself has also appealed to Do. Laidlie one of the ministers of New . York. The matter of subordination is referred by the Coetus with consent of our Conven- tion (which acknowledges it) to the future decision of the Synod.
In token of this our resolution and intention we subscribe ourselves with our hands,
(Signed) J. C. Fryenmoet, V. D. M. in Manor Livingston. Gerhard Daniel Cock, V. D. M. in Rheinbeck and Camp. Johannes Bert Philip Klum Jacob Dekker Cornelis Müller.
Done in our Convention in the
Consistory Room at Kingston Oct. 10, 1764.
3960
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1764
JOURNAL OF THE NEW YORK COUNCIL. Moravians and Quakers.
1764, Oct. 11. C. Colden, Lieutenant Governor.
Assembly sends to the Council a Bill entitled, "An act to appropriate the moneys that have arlsen in Kings County and Queens County by the fines and forfeltures from the people of the church or congregation called Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren, and from the people called Quakers by virtue of the Acts therein men- tioned. Council Journal, 1151. Read, Committed, 1151-2. Assembly inquires of the Council what progress made on this BIIl, 1158. Council declines to act, 1158.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
Rev. Jacob Hardenbergh to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, October 12, 1764. Right Rev. SIrs and Highly Esteemed Fathers in Christ :-
Do not take It amiss that I make a request of you In a most fraternal spirit. It is for a further elucidatlon of what Is said In your letters to the Rev. Coetus, of Oct. 3, 1763, as follows : That I, being authorized by the Rev. Coetus, laid a request before the Class's, asking that the Rev Classis of Amsterdam would be pleased to change the Coctus of New York into a Classis. Your Revs. must have plainly understood from all my communications, that I was not provided with any other letters of authority except these : Namely, the letter to the Rev. Classis, as your Revs. know; and another letter with the same request, to the High Rev. Synod, to be laid before them; and I was to give a further elucidation of the matter as the occasion might require.
Dld I not give that letter to Domine Budde, at the house of my worthy mother-in- law ?. And In that letter the Coctus expressly declares that she considers herself, and thinks that she ought to be considered by others, as a (lawful) Assembly of Church Officers, cristing under the authority and right given by God; to perform anything and all things that a Classis in the Netherlands is accustomed to do. The request Is thus worded in the letter.
Therefore, just this is the intention, the desire and the prayer of the Rev. Coctus: that the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, pondering the divine authority for the existence and powers of our (Coctual) Assembly, would be pleased to acknowledge it as such, and declare the fact. But what then must the Rev. Coetus think of me, as to the execution of my Commission, when she observes your Revs.' report concerning pro- posals innde by me ? Is It not an undenlable truth that I, (personally) never made any proposals to the Rev. Classis?
For when I had dellvered my credentials, was I not requested to withdraw? And when I was called In again, was I not then told by the President, that the Rev. Assembly had already spent much time in thelr dellberation of these matters; that she had also already received information from particular members, with whom I had conversed on the subject ; and that if I had yet anything more to add, by way of elucidatlon, I would be pleased to be short? Whereupon I had nothing further to communicate on that subject to your Rev. Assembly. I spoke, however, of the con- ditlon of the two congregations which had extended calls, respectively, to the Rev. Henricus Frelinghuysen and to the Rev. (John) Mauritius Goetschlus. Those con- gregations had made application to the Rev. Coetus for the promotion (ordination) of those young men whom they had called.
In speaking with particular Indlvlduals, I do not remember that I ever alluded to my making such a request of them. On the other hand, I do very well remember of once being at the house of Domine Kulenkamp. In talking there about our affairs, his Rev. sald to me, "Domine Ilardenbergh, you folks want of us what we cannot possibly give your Revs. We cannot transform your Ilevs. Into a Classis." Upon which I answered. My dear Sir does not understand our request. We believe that we are already a Classis; but we would like the approbation of your Revs.
*See Corwin's Manual, 4th ed. 1902, page 513.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3961 1764
I believe that when the Rev. (Classical) Assembly recalls what then took place she will remember that I, (personally) never made any such proposal. And even if I had made it, I could not have done it in the name of the Rev. Coetus, as the Coetus had definitely expressed their desires in their letter. Your Revs. must there- fore have taken up the matter under this (wrong) impression, and without any proper introductory remarks.
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.