USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume VI > Part 36
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
This motion and request of his Rev. appeared quite strange to the Consistory. For ever since the year 1754, when the Coetus broke up, having been rent asunder, and when this congregation put herself again directly in the household of Your Right Rev. (Classical) Assembly, according to the contents of the letter of October 17, 1754, we had never been asked to attend the said meeting (of the Conferentie) ; and what is more that meeting never consulted us, concerning anything in con- nection with their affairs. Only we must except last year, when all the ministers, at the request of Your Revs. met, to try if it were possible, to settle all the differences ; then there were also three Elders of this congregation appointed to attend that General Meeting, who were to use their influence for the peace of the Church. But when that desired end could not be attained, they have since attended neither one nor the other meeting.
The Consistory, however, having taken this motion and request into due con- sideration, unanimously resolved (with exception of Dominies Ritzema and De Ronde), that in order to preserve peace in the congregation, it would be best for our Consistory not to unite with the said Brethren, neither with those of the so-called Coetus; for it appeared to the Consistory, to their sorrow, after having considered all these matters, that neither the one side nor the other have so much in view the spread of the Holy Gospel with its true doctrines, as the desire for power. And for this reason they cannot forbear to remark that the said letter of (Oct. 17) of the year 1754, seems to have been dictated by a prophetic pen, because the facts and results therein foretold, Och lacie! yield only too many evidences of their truth in these regions.
And for these reasons the Consistory feels it her duty, to refer, with all respect to the said letter, and to explain, in the name of the congregation entrusted to her care, why they are resolved to adhere to the contents of that letter and to remain firmly attached to your Revs. according to the original state of things, so long as Your Revs. will be pleased to favor us with Your kindness, in counsel and deeds. We will not unite ourselves with either of the said Assemblies (the Coetus or Conferentie.) For we are conscious that, under Your Revs. direction, we shall be better able not only to govern our own congregation and to promote the service of God therein, but also can be of more benefit to others, than we could be, if we should unite with either party. For as soon as one belongs to either one body or the other, party-spirit appears, and such a one becomes a determined enemy of the other. And thus, instead of promoting religion thereby, they generally give cause, in the language of the catechism, that the Name of God be blasphemed. For this reason, the Consistory could not conscientiously comply with the above request, but felt it their duty to keep this congregation separate from said Assembly.
But when we declare that the desire for power manifests itself more than the desire to spread the knowledge of salvation, we do not wish to speak too severely of every member of this Assembly ; rather do we find it our duty to state, that we do not include the Rev. gentleman, Domine Ritzema among them; inasmuch as his Rev. says that his intention is only to keep the doctrine and Constitution of
1
-
4016
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1765
our Church pure and undefiled in all respects. Therefore, permit us to inform Your Revs. that although his Rev. declares that he Is conscientlously obliged to be present at the Assembly, and that he will never forsake it, unless he may be speclally authorized to do so : Yet, he could not forbear to express himself thus :- "That rather than attend an Assembly where all his labors and efforts are fruitless, he would prefer to be released from the same." And therefore we cannot forbear, since his Rev. is already far advanced in years, and the whole weight (of that Assembly) rests on his shoulders, to request of Your Revs. that full liberty be given him to withdraw from those Assemblies if he so choose, since he is now old and gray-headed; and so that he may be of more benefit to the souls especially entrusted to him. Nevertheless, his Rev. knows nothing concerning this request.
Happy, yea, thrice happy would we consider ourselves, could we give the same testimony about all the brethren belonging to the sald (Conferentie) body. Yet if it should please God to take this said gentleman (Ritzema) away hy death or remove him in any other way, in whom else would they find the ability to con- duct that Assembly and keep it on the right path. We must confess, we don't know. One has one opinion, and another, another. And should it be asked-Ilave you not yet Domine De Ronde? Even so; we have hls Rev. and must keep him; but we cannot say that his Rev. equally bears the "Ark of God " on his shoulders as do his colleagues; and we must add that his Rev. seems to preach Christ from envy, more than for any other reason. This arises from jealousy, as far as we can judge ; for Domine Laidlle has a larger audience than he; and also on account of a passlon which he has for preaching In English, for which he Is not in the feast qualified. This has led him to hold Engilsh services in private houses ; and subsequently he went also to New Jersey, to preach in Presbyterlan churches there. He was admonlshed in a friendly manner about these things by his consistory ; tirst about hls preaching in private houses, as being contrary to his office as a minister ; and secondly, about its belng contrary to the subordination due to the Classis of Amsterdam. Ifis Rev. has answered-that it was his right "to sow beslde ali waters," and that he would continue to do so. When he was asked further, Whether, if the Rev. Classis should forbid him to preach In English in churches outside (of our own Denomination), he would [dls?] obey them ? he answered, No ; but that he would appeal to the High Rev. Synod. And being asked further-Whether, if the Synod should disapprove of hls course he would discon- tinue? he only answered that, In such case, he would take it into consideration.
Behold then, Worthy Sirs, what a beautiful subordination is this! And what do Your Revs. now think? Would it be wise for the church of this city (by its elders) to take part In an Assembly whereln are found such members? Would we not then be in danger of getting Independent ministers in our pulpit? In short : Would we not, in so doing, prepare the way to banish the Constitution of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, together with Its doctrines, altogether from these regions? Great, very great danger do we see In taking part In the sald (Conferentie) Assemblies ; and for this reason we hope that we may not be requested to do so; especially, because this body has already been meeting for eleven years, and has deliberated on many questlons without ever recognizing (the elders of) this congregation ; and since we have been of no importance for so long a time, we cannot now understand how our presence has become so very necessary. We also prefer to request Your Revs. to speak to Domine De Ronde concerning his unbecoming conduct. The Consistory has notified his Rev. that they have informed Your Revs. of hls conduct, as noticed above.
And here we would close, If it were not also our duty to defend the innocent. We refer to that worthy gentleman, Domine Laidile, who has read a letter to us from Your Reys. In this his Rev. was very much censured, among other things, because his Reverence had acted so as to intensify the dissensions already existing In this land. We do not know who has accused him to Your Revs., but this we unreservedly say: Be the accuser whoever he may, he is a false accuser; and we cannot Imagine why it was done except through personal hatred. In proof of this, permit us to relate the circumstances just as they happened :-
When all the ministers were assembled last year, as Is stated above, Domine Laidife was there also with hls elder; yet If we are correctly informed, he was never duly invited. His Rev. being a stranger here, and having met with much opposition In his congregation on account of preaching English, in a Dutch
4017
1765
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
Church, he was advised not only by nearly all his friends, but also by his Consis- tory, to keep himself neutral; and to join neither the Conferentie nor the Coetus party, unless the separated brethren should first unite. This advice he promptly followed. But inasmuch as the union attempted, (June 19, 1764) did not take place, he was then asked by each party to join in with them; but he refused to join either, and has expressed his desire to remain, together with his Consistory, only under the Rev. Classis. It seems that this action offended the brethren of one of the parties, (the Conferentie) and that for this reason, he has been thus reported to you. But, Worthy Fathers, was such a proceeding Christlike? Ought the accuser not to have acted according to the Golden Rule, to do, as he would have others do unto him? Ought he not to have given a copy of his accusations to his Rev., and not as it were, to stab him in his back? We think that according to the rule of love, the accuser should, at least, have felt obliged to do this.
There is now, again, Rev. Fathers, an opportunity for the accusers; inasmuch as Domine Laidlie, at the request of his Consistory, did not attend the last Assem- bly of the aforementioned (Conferentie) Brethren. On the other hand, he declared in full Consistory, that he "subordinated" himself, with his Consistory, to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, as this matter had been already expressed, in the said letter of Oct. 17th, 1754. He was convinced of the great necessity of this. What further concerns his Rev., Your Revs. will probably learn from his own letters. Nevertheless we cannot forbear to inform Your Revs. that his Rev. blames the conduct of Domine De Ronde; also, that his Rev's. work is getting blessed in our congregation. It has caused a great stir among the dry bones of the valley, (Ezekiel 37.)
Neither can we omit to inform Your Revs. that the members of this congrega- tion who were against the calling of an English-speaking minister do yet, for the greater part, remain obstinate. They are unwilling to follow Your Revs. advice in behalf of peace. They have even had recourse to the Law, and thus, if possible, to annul the Constitution of the Church. A certain obscure expression* in the Charter of the Church has given rise to this proceeding. This Charter was given by king William III, (1696). By it they pretend that every member of the Church has the right annually to vote for the Consistory. This right, although it has in this land and especially in this Church never been the custom, they demanded from the Consistory, in October, 1763. When it was refused, they then went to law with the Consistory, and this case is still pending.t
Since things are thus with us, that every member according to his pleasure, can cite the Consistory before a Civil Court-it goes to show that it is best for this congregation to remain neutral (in reference to the two parties.) We would also request Your Revs. to inform us, whether according to the Constitution of the Church of Amsterdam, the new Consistory must not be chosen by the old Consis- tory? And if it has ever been customary in the said Church, that the Consistory should be chosen by the members of the entire congregation, except when a new congregation is formed? The answer of Your Revs. on this matter might be of great benefit to this congregation, in her present circumstances.
Furthermore, we hope that Your Revs. will receive no communication as authentic from our congregation, except it be by the consent of the Elders and Deacons, who will not be negligent in giving you all needed information.
We, the present Elders and Deacons, of the Reformed Church of Christ in New York, commend ourselves, together with our congregation, to Your Revs. good
*This obscure expression is as follows :-
"That yearly, on the third Thursday of October, at the said Church, the Elders and Deacons of the said Church, by and with the consent and approbation of the members of the said Church for the time being, shall nominate and appoint . Elders and Deacons for the year ensuing." See Volume 2, page 1150 of these Records. But the approbation of the members, by the Constitution of the Church, was to be secured by publication for three Sundays ; not by a vote of the members. +Trinity Church passed through a lawsuit of a similar kind, about 1813, when an effort was made to compel the Vestry to allow all the members of the church, if not all Episcopalians in the City, to vote for Vestrymen and church-wardens, because the language of their Charter reads "that there shall be annually .. on the Tuesday in Easter week, two church-wardens and twenty Vestrymen duly elected by the majority of votes of the inhabitants of the said parish in communion as afore- said." See these Ecc. Records, vol. 2, page 1148.
4018
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
favor. And wishing Your Revs. all temporal blessings here, and all happiness hereafter, we remain with all respect and due reverence,
Right Reverend, Highly-honored Sirs, Fathers and Brethren in our common Savior.
Your Right Reverend's D. W. Servants.
Evert Bancker Abraham P. Lott
Henry Roy
Eiders.
James Roosevelt Joris Brinckerhoff
Deacons.
Jacobus Van Zandt
¿ John Brevoort Wm. De Peyster
Anthony Ten Eyck Duyckinck
Jacob L. Roy Petrus Byvanck Abraham Lott
Jacobus Bogert
Written In our Church-chamber, in New York on the 26th of October, 1765.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
Revs. John Ritzema and Lambertus De Ronde, to the Classis of Amsterdam. October 29, 1765. Vol. 33, page 95. No. 369. To the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam.
Rev. Sirs, Fathers aud Brethren In Christ :-
Inasmuch as we are compelled by an unexpected resolution of our Consistory to trouble your Revs., against our will, we communleate to your Revs, all that passed in the Consistory. It Is, word for word, as follows:
New York, October 7th, 1765.
Consistory held after calling on God's name.
A request was presented by domine Joannes Ritzema to the Consistory, to appoint the three ministers together with three Elders, to meet to-morrow, with the Ministers and Elders [of the Conferentie] in order to read the letters from the Classis of Amsterdam, and attend to such other matters as might arise.
The Consistory answered, after the matter had been discussed over and over. that they belonged neither to the Coetus nor to the Conferentle, and therefore desired to delegate no Elders; but they adhered to their letter to the Classis of Amsterdam, written In 1754 [Oct. 17.] This letter was now read again, and approved by the Colleague Laidlle, who holds blinself with the Consistory, subordl- nate to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam. They resolved to make known their course by letter to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, and gave domine Rtitzema and domine De Ronde their freedom.
Signed, in name of all, J. Ritzema, p. t. President.
After this we read the letter to the Consistory of New York, of the Rev. Classls, of July 21st, 1755, with no other effect, than that they remained by their previons resolution. Now we conclude that the Rev. Consistory will write to the Classis, as we hear they have done already; but (since the contents of thelr letter are unknown to us, we can present nothing definite In our defence; but we can only conclude, In general, from their arguments presented to us, that they will present matters in a way which ought to be presented in another Ilght. Because,
I. They argue concerning us, [ the Conferentie], as if we had gone outside our office and duty, and did these things on our own responsibility [without consulting with the Consistory.]
1. This may be true in respect to the present Conslstory, or at least some of thein; but it is not entirely consistent with the truth; because the Rev. Consistory was from time to time well aware of our differences with the ministers of the
1765
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
4019 1765
Coetus; and they have never been requested not to interfere with it, [the Coetus], but rather the contrary; yet this cannot be said of every member of the Consistory.
2. We [the Conferentie] have usually met, indeed, without Elders, since the Coetus ceased to hold Assemblies which are legal, as before; for we saw no neces- sity for having elders present. We only came together to write a letter to the Classis and to give a general report of the condition of the Church.
3. But when there was anything of importance, we then acted in concurrence with the Rev. Consistory, and asked them to meet with us. Of this we can give the surest proof, for in the last meeting, June 19th, 1764, the Consistory sent three Ministers and Elders. [But see Aug. 12, 1760].
4. And even when any were asked to assist us, we felt it our duty, by virtue of our office, to maintain our Ecclesiastical laws against any who might try to violate them.
II. Some of the Consistory have taken the liberty, to speak against us. They say that we only disputed in order to win; and that when we had gained a victory over the Coetus, we sought to oppress them; and that for this reason they would not join in the dispute with us, lest they should make the dissention in the land still greater.
1. This is a calumny which we wish to deny immediately. We have never sought after anything else than to preserve the purity of the doctrine, and the Constitution of the Netherland Church. This we accepted and subscribed to, with all due formality. We stand against those who pretend to stand with us in the same Church relationship, and yet who are trying to bring in another condition, as has already appeared from all the proceedings.
2. After many delays, and when we had experienced many difficulties, not with- out innumerable slanderings against us, we had the good fortune to have the truth come to light; and we now have reason to thank God, that he has blessed our work. Yet we are far from boasting about this, to the injury of others. We leave the others to themselves, even as the Rev. Classis has done ;- those others, who do not wish to unite again with us; but we do not wish to take up anything against them, much less to injure them.
3. It behooves us with the greatest propriety, to apply this principle to our own Consistory, in their present attitude:
(1) They are oppressing their own Dutch Ministers, who for a long time have been made the butt of ridicule throughout the whole land. This has been caused by the Coetus Ministers; and now by their [Consistorial] action, we have been exposed to greater obloquy.
(2) They are keeping up the dispute, and are making it more intense, which otherwise might now have come to an end. They are keeping those back who might have united with us, and are making it much more difficult for those min- isters who side with us, in their churches. For there is no congregation where the Coetus ministers have not some who adhere to them; and we have ground for believing that this is already the case with some of the members in our [ Con- ferentie] Consistory on Long Island. It is such who have set this opposition on foot, so that their Elders were so slow to take part with us again in our last [Conferentie] Assembly.
(3) They are setting themselves up as rulers; for they desire that all the con- gregations in which there arises any disputes, should bring these before them, and that they be settled by them.
(4) We add to this the following: that we believe the Consistory would never have come to such a conclusion, if it had not been to please domine Laidlie, who expressed his affection somewhat too strongly in favor of the Independents, [the Coetus]; nevertheless, he saw, with them, that if he refused to subordinate himself under the Classis, his call could be annulled. They, therefore, invented a subor- dination by which he could remain, without obeying the resolutions of the Assembly to which he is subordinate.
III. They try to blame us, because we came too unexpectedly upon them with these proposals, [to appoint, formally, ministers and elders to the Conferentie Assembly] only the day previous to the meeting. This is simply an untruth. Nevertheless we admit it in respect to the entire Consistory; because,
4
4020
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1765
1. I, domine Ritzema, after having communicated the contents of those letiers addressed to me, to my Colleague, De Ronde, also communicated them to those members of our consistory who are most intimate with Colleague Laidlie, and who have the most influence with him. This was done in order that they might per- suade his Rev. to unite with us, [in the Conferentie], for the welfare of our own as well as the other churches. But his Rev. has, since that time, kept himself altogether aloof from me, without ever giving me the least opportunity to speak with him on this matter; and then, on account of his absence, and afterward the absence of De Ronde, we were prevented from holding a Consistory meeting con- cerning this business previous to that time.
2. And plenty of reason is given us to complain about this matter. For inas- much as they persuaded us to grant their desires to receive a minister as our Colleague, who was to preach in the English language, and according to the eight well-known Articles; they now tease us continually to vlointe those Articles, and thereby make ourseives odions to the strictly Dutch members, who are seeking their [supposed] rights against the Consistory by a lawsult. If It were necessary, ali this could be substantlated by ns, by the canvassings, h the elections for men- bers of the Conslstory, without our knowledge and according to their own pleasure; and by thelr making resolutions among themselves, before they came to the Con- sistory meeting. These were then unanimously passed before we knew what was going on; and they were resolutions which tend to crush out the Dutch service In our midst, and to make the English service rise up In its place. They even dare to use for this eud, the properties deeded to the Dutch Church as such, for their own support; properties which we hoid by Charter from the King.
IV. Does some one contemptuously ask, Who are these that belong to this "Subordinate Assembly"? Are not most of them Germans?
1. It must be admitted that some of them are of German origin, yet there are only three who preach in the German language. [ Rubei, Cock, Kern. ] But these show that they are men of good order, and of a blameless walk. They were sent over by the Rev. Classis. One comes from the Consistory of Heidelberg. They ought not to be made any more contemptible, on account of their language, than a Scotchman. The German Cimreh has also always stood in very close reiation with the Netherland Church. This the Scotch has never done.
2. From all this it Is plain, that they are either entirely Ignorant of the customs of our Church Assemblies, subject to the Classis, or they intend to make it so, that In the future, the business cannot bear the ilght.
V. Finally: We do not doubt but that the Rev. Consistory will deny what has heen said by domine Ritzema, In reference to the above named Consistory meeting. When, upon the Consistory refusing to unite with us, [the Conferentie] he asked : What must we now do? They answered me: Ministerial Friend, you can go [to that Conferentie Assembly] if you please; you are already so deep in the mud. how will you ever get out of It? To this I only answered: Do you help me out of it! and I will thank you; for I have been a long time tired of this whole business. This I said with no other meaning than that I was constantly sustaining losy thereby in my own pocket-book. For It has generally been my lot to spend much vainabie time in all these disputes, and with very little benefit; and especially now, since now I am obliged to struggle with my own Consistory, whereas formerly I had only to combat with those outside.
This It is, Rev. Gentlemen, which we had to communicate to your Revs. con- cerning the situation of our congregation, In order that your Revs. might be able to judge correctly concerning the letter written hy our Consistory. And to this end, we pray your Revs. to read over again the letters from our Consistory as well as those of the Rev. Classis, to which reference has been made above. This wlil surely give some light on all these matters.
The time is now too short to give the Minutes of our last [ Conferentie] Assembly in full, [Oct. 8-10, 1765] with the accompanying letter, [Oct. 22, 1765]. This we hope to do the next time. However we must here mention the danger in which our Church now is. This has already been mentioned by our Colleague, De Ronde, In his letter to the Rev. John Kalkoen, which is accompanied with an earnest request, to bring, if possible, the proposed plans of his Rev. into effect.
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.