USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume VI > Part 65
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
They mention that our letters to the brethren of the Conferentie and Coetus were duly received by their Revs. ; that thereupon the Consistory of New York had invited all the churches to convene there for the purpose of planning for a desirable Union ; that most of them shortly after did convene; that from various reports concerning those absent, it appeared to them that the greater number of them had stayed away on account of domestic inconveniences, so that they cherished the hope that the Plan of Union would be to their satisfaction also.
This Plan, as recorded in the minutes of the Convention held from the 15th to the 18th day of October, they have, as they write, the honor of sending us with due obligation, along with their letter; humbly and earnestly asking us to consider the same as soon as possible, and, in accordance with the general wish of the churches convened, to give it their approbation.
They declare that they flatter themselves with the hope that this beginning of peace, love and concord will be peculiarly agreeable to us; inasmuch as our care for God's Church in that country makes them feel confident that we (the Classis)- especially after the happily-concluded Union, which they (the two parties) have also earnestly desired to see-that we will be pleased with what, in detail, they have, in the interests of their churches, taken the liberty to lay before us for our consideration and advice.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
4227 1771
They add that our very influential approbation is of so great consequence that, without it, nothing at all could be accomplished; and that its influence upon the individual churches will be so strong, that it will, as they hope, move them the sooner and the more readily toward a general and firmly established Union.
They ask for a favorable and early answer; and close their letter with a prayer for the Lord's choicest blessing upon our persons, churches and Assembly.
In a postscript they mention that they had omitted to record in the Minutes of their Convention the fact that Rev. Hermanus Meyer fully and cheerfully agreed with them respecting these Articles of Union.
CHURCH OF NEW YORK.
New York, Oct. 30th, 1771.
Consistory held after calling on God's name,
The President reported the proceedings of the Assembly, held as a result of the circular letter of this body, When the Minutes of the said Assembly were read, and submitted for the judgment of the Consistory, they fully approved them, with thanks to God for his care for his church shown therein.
Resolved, That we send a letter to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, and answer their esteemed favor of June [or Jan?] 8th, so as to advise them of the Union thus happily effected. This letter runs thus : (Not inserted ; but see abstract following. )
Resolved, That we send a copy of the Minutes of the General Meeting to the Consistory of Kingston, with a letter from this Consistory, strongly urging a settlement of matters in that congregation, and offering a helping hand therein.
Signed etc., J. Ritzema, p. t. President.
CONSISTORY OF NEW YORK (PER J. H. LIVINGSTON, S. S. TH. DR., V. D. M., NEW EBOR. H. T. SYNODI PRAESES), TO THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM, OCT. 18, [30?] 1771. VOL. 33, PAGES 344-7. No. 450.
(Abstract.)
They inform us that they have duly received our letter of Jan. 8, 1771, and thank us for the pains taken with their last call; that everything has been carried on as they desired; that they now trust that they will have the Lord's approval, together with the blessings of peace, unity and true edification, which we have so heartily desired in their behalf.
They declare that it affords them great joy to learn from our letter, as from other sources, that the welfare and prosperity of the churches in their country are so closely bound up in our hearts, and that they count themselves happy in obtaining our approval of their efforts to promote peace there.
They report that at the beginning of September, 1771, they sent out Circular Letters to all the brethren of both parties, with the request that they should meet with them in New York on the 15th of October; and that, with the exception of those who were prevented by domestic affairs, etc., all the brethren came thither at the time appointed; and that, after a four days session, to their mutual satis- faction and rejoicing, they united with one another in the way indicated by the Articles of the Convention sent us.
They write, that, as our letters have been the foundation of their Union, and the Plan (of Union) proposed by us has been followed as closely as possible in the Articles of their Union, they have reason to hope also that this Plan will be agreeable to all the churches in that country. Their wish, therefore, is, that the Classis may be pleased to take this whole Plan, as it is. and approve it without making any important changes in it, in order that the confirmation of it, by our consent, may make their peace and Unity, now effected, more readily acceptable to all, and enduring in the days to come.
4228
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1771
They add that the names, Conventus and Coetus, are not mentioned at all in the Plan; but that they had used only those of " Particular " and " General Assemblies "; (Bysondere en Algemeene Vergaderingen, equivalent to Classis and local Synods;) seeing that the old name of Coetus was so disagreeable in that country, that it was to be feared that many, who care more for names than things, solely on account of the name might not unite with them; and that the name of " Conventus ", being equivalent to that of the Assembly of Episcopal ministers, would not be so suitable for them.
They further write, that, because of our distance from them, it was impos- sible that we should have as good a knowledge of the particular domestic circum- stances of their churches, as those who are on the ground; they, therefore, take the liberty to observe, that they who are residing there under an English Govern- ment, (Engelsche Regering) have been, by their beloved (civil) authoritles, (be- minde overigheyt) established in their liberties (voorrechten) and ecclesiastical privileges as a " Netherland Church "; and that they are, also, surrounded by a number of denominations, all of which hold them in high regard for the sake of their name, and because they are one with the famous "Netherland Zlon." (Neederlandsche Zion). This shows how necessary it is for them to show in all things, that they are a " Netherland (Hollandsche) Church " in fact, and that they hold themselves, not only to the Doctrine, but, as far as possible also to the Form of Government established by the Synod of Dordrecht, 1618, 1619. Therefore, not only because of the esteem in which they are held, but also for their (clvil) safety, it would be well for them to have the very names and form of Govern- ment of the churches in Holland; but that, while they have their hearts set on a very close connection (sterke verbintenisse) with their Mother Church, this con- nection cannot so well be maintained if they used the names of "Classes " and " Synods "; for that reason, therefore, they desire to retaln the names of Particular and General Assemblies, (which the Convention adopted.)
They next declare that they feel assured of the fact that the agreeable reports of their so happily effected Peace will cause us joy; and that they cherish the good hope, that the Lord, who has now at the outset, so signally blest them, may continue with them, and establish there (in America) a flourishing Ecclesiastical Body (Kerk-Staat), a true New Netherland, a daughter who shall be an honor to her respected Mother, and, if needs be, a Pella (unto which the oppressed may flee).
Whereupon they close their letter with the wish that, in our persons, our sacred ministry and everything which is preclous to us, we may enjoy the gracious nearness and blessing of the Lord.
To this letter they add a Postscript of the following import:
That, without doubt, the accompanying Plan (of Union) Is best fitted to promote peace and good order among the churches ; and that, for that reason, a full (vol- koomen) approbation of it is desirable; but that nevertheless, since these Articles have been referred to all the churches, it might happen that some observations or some fresh suggestions-things of which they had not thought in drawing up the Articles-might come in. They, therefore, ask us to consider whether our appro- bation of this Plan (of Union) might not be so worded, that it would leave the churches free, yea, even oblige them to make such further additions and domestic regulations (bepaalingen) as the welfare of the churches might require.
REV. DR. THOMAS CLARK, OF THE ASSOCIATE REFORMED CHURCH OF SALEM, N. Y. TO REV. DR. EILARDUS WESTERLO OF ALBANY, N. Y.
New Perth, N. Y. Nov. 12, 1771.
Rev. and dear Brother :--
"Your favor of the first current I received with much joy, because of the glad tidings of peace being restored to your Churches upon so good a plan. I am to call, and invite my praying friends here to come even to the throne of grace with praises and thanksgivings, in behalf of our Elder sister, the Dutch Church, that has these many years by gone been torn and broken with distractions and di- visions. I never expected to see Satan's schemes so subverted; for he is a sower of discord among brethren. We are next week, Deo volente, to have a public
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
4229;
1771
thanksgiving in the congregation for the Lord's goodness in granting so fine a crop, and so pleasant weather, etc .; and among the several grounds of thanksgiving that day, we resolve publicly to mention that of peace being restored to the dear Dutch Churches, who succoured our persecuted Mother Church of Scotland long 28 years, by hospitably entertaining her banished pious ministers and people, and by educating her students in their several Universities, when they dare not open a book or wear a gown in any college of Scotland. Is not this the answer of prayer to some in New Perth?
" But the infant peace is yet young and tender, and has need to be carefully watched and nursed. Satan will cast a flood to destroy it yet, but the God of peace lives, and reigns, and slumbers not, nor sleeps. Now in gratitude to God for this peace, some reformation should be made: family prayers and praises recom- mended from Job's example; Job i: 5; Ps. xcii. 1, 2; more careful and strict obser- vation of the Sabbath, etc.
" One seal of my ministry died here last week. May God raise up another praying person in his place.
" That the Lord may, by your ministry, turn many sinners to be saints, is the weak prayer of your much obliged servant,
1 "Thomas Clark." "New Perth" is now Salem, N. Y.
REV. JOHN RITZEMA, TO THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM, Nov. 27, 1771. VOL. 33, PAGE 362, No. 454.
(Abstract.)
He writes that, as he had received no answer to his "Defense" in his last com- munication to us, he had found it necessary to withdraw from the Convention, called by the Consistory of New York, for several reasons: not the least of which were that he could not agree with the action of the Consistory ; and that he saw that, for them, his opposition would have only disagreeable consequences.
He encloses in his letter two Extracts from the Acts of the Consistory of New York, containing a proposition and resolution of that Consistory to direct matters in a way communicated to us in their letter of Oct. 18, 1771, that all past diffi- culties shall be wiped out, and all the brethren unite with one another in love. In an N. B., he reveals his dissatisfaction therewith, because the letters were also written to the Rev. Meyer, who was under discipline, and to the illegally ordained ministers of the Coetus, who had been introduced against the pleasure of the churches, as well as to those who were legally ordained.
He writes that half of the Conferentie brethren were unable to be present, and that those who were there told him that they were compelled to approve the Acts adopted, under the threat of having a "Woe" pronounced against them.
He then declares that he will await the result, baving no intention to go to any direct trouble in the matter, one way or the other, unless his character were assailed; and concludes with congratulating our Assembly.
THE CONSISTORY OF KINGSTON TO THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM,
Nov. 30, 1771. Vor. 33, PAGE 360. No. 433.
Signed by four elders ; Benjamin Loew, Adrian Wynkoop, Jacobus
Eltinge, Jonathan Elmendorf ; and four deacons ; Cornelis Beek- man, Garret Van Wagenen, Tobias Van Keuren, and Henricus Jansen, Jr.
(Abstract.)
They write that they had received an invitation to meet with the brethren at New York on the 15th of October, (1771); that, thereupon, two of them, Jacobus
-
4230
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1771
Eltinge and Adriaan Wynkoop, went down, but with no other authority than to be lookers on, at that Convention, and they to bring in their report.
They request that we do not, therefore, consider them as consenting; and that, by virtue of the Articles, we do not force Rev. (Hermanus) Meyer upon them, inasmuch as Rev. Meyer has, from the beginning of the censure until now, shown himself persistent in his obstinacy-a fact which we, according to their communica- tion can make out from the copy of a letter written by his Rev., and inclosed in their letter.
They report that Rev. Meyer, while under censure, has until now, preached in a private house and administered the sacraments. They declare him to be a vio- lator of good order, despite the fact, as they write, that he is highly honored by others. They add that they wish him no ill, but every success, and have no objec- tion to his being restored, if only such restoration is not made in relation to their own church.
They further write, that as we had found no person to accept their call made in the year 1766, and as they had been informed of our being in receipt of their revo- cation of the call, Oct. 10, 1770, they bad, owing to the great necessity and pres- sure of the church, considered themselves obliged to send out a call to another; in answer to which they are expecting soon to be provided with a capable pastor and teacher.
Whereupon they conclude with congratulations.
The copy of the letter written by Rev. Meyer, to whom, is not mentioned, dated Kingston, Feb. 4, 1767, is of the following import:
That those to whom the letter is written are aware of the fact, that he, after they had not hesitated to put him under censure, took the trouble to call together the elders of their American Reformed Churches, what elders, are not mentioned, and to lay before them for their decision, the action taken against him; that at their meeting, held at Kingston on May Sth, and some days following, in the year 1766, they judged the censure to be unfair, unjust and unchristian, and accord- ingly justified Meyer; that all the time he has accepted the decision of that meeting, and would continue to do so, and accordingly had nothing to do with any other judgment; but he asked and desired that they trouble him no further about any- thing, as he considered them in no sense his judges, and did not think that they could nullify the judgment of the Higher Assembly, whose help he had invoked.
He continues: "If, however, your Revs., as appears from your letter, want to go on, as for a long time you have done, with oppressing and murdering me; if my Consistory, instead of making peace, want to continue, under your leadership, to persecute me to the utmost, so let it be! Behold, here am I for a sacrifice, etc."
He concludes with a declaration that, with all his interests, he had given him- self over to the Lord; and that he would further consign his controversy to Him, as a God who judges righteously.
P. S. Vol. 33, page 369. No. 460.
They write that our letter of July 12, 1771, came duly to hand, and that, to their great surprise, they had seen from it, that we had returned to them the call, which, however, they had not received; being unable also to find out where it had gone.
They thank us, nevertheless, for our care on their behalf. They mention also, that Rev. Meyer is greatly abusing our refusal to give them a written release (from Meyer) so as to carefully avert a fresh alienation; drawing therefrom the conclu- sion that he is still a legal minister of their church; whereas they could not recog- nize him as such on account of the censure imposed on him and approved by the Classis. On the strength of that conclusion he had ventured to protest against the calling of another minister. Wherefore they wished, indeed, that we had written somewhat more earnestly on that matter, so as to have deprived him of the opportunity to plague then. They close with congratulations.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
4231 1771
NOTES OF AN ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COURT OF CHANCERY ON
BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF JAMAICA CHURCH. (1771 ?)
(On the meaning of the Ministry Act.)
New York Cur. Canc.
Rever'd Joshua Bloomer agt. Hincksman and Edsal.
After briefly stating the Bill & answer we shall observe that the Merits of this Cause have in a great Measure been exhausted upon the Solemn Arguments which arose upon the Demurrer-That for this Reason & to prevent useless Altercation with respect to Subjects on which the Court has received full information it was thought proper to take his Excellency's Directions in the further Prevention of this Controversy. That his Excellency the last Term was pleased to communicate the Points upon which he was in doubt and to desire that the farther arguments might be confined to these only-(to wit) .-
1st. Whether as the Act directs that the money to be raised for the Support of the Ministry shall be drawn out of the hands of the Church Wardens, by Order from the Justices and Vestrymen & not otherwise-the Court has power to compel them to pay the Salary by Decree ?- and-
2ndly. Whether these are proper and sufficient Parties before the Court to justify a Decree?
These two enquiries therefore shall be the Subject of the present Argument.
The Answer, where it might favor the Complaint, is expressed with extreme Caution. And even his Ordination, as an Episcopal Minister; his Induction to the living; and the faithful Discharge of the Duties of his Function are not admitted. But these Facts are clearly established by the Evidence noted in the Margin.1
We proceed to the first Point directed to be argued-Whether the Court can relieve, the Words of the Act being that the Money shall be paid by Order of the Justices and Vestry & not otherwise? And in speaking to this Point we shall lay down and maintain the following Propositions.
1st. That the Acts in Question being expressly made to suppress Vice & Pro- faneness and for the advancement of Religion are to be taken by Equity and liber- ally expounded to obtain as far as possible the Ends which they propose.2
II. That whenever a Case is distinguished from others of the like Nature by unusual Circumstances which create a personal & particular Inconvenience, Equity will relieve.3
III. That Equity will relieve against a Party who strictly speaking has done nothing illegal when a particular Burthen or Hardship lies upon the Complaint4- And here we shall show that this case is attended with such Hardship and Inconvenience.
By the Act the Church Wardens ought to have paid the Complainant his Salary Quarterly.
It is admitted by the Answer that they have not paid him a Farthing for years. He demanded a warrant and Order from the Justices and Vestry assembled, for the Payment of his Salary which they absolutely refused,
Thro' this Act of Injustice although the Church Wardens admit by their answer that they are possessed of this Money yet has he no means to compel the Pay- ment but by a Course of Equity.
1 Exhibits D. E. F. proved by Dr. Auchmuty Mr. Inglis In answer to Complt. 6th Interrog. The 60'. 61st, 62nd, 63rd, & 64th. Instructions to Sir Henry Moore; Sir Henry Moores original Collation Institution & Letters of Induction under the pre- rogative Seal.
Dr. Auchmuty & Mr. Inglis in Answer to Complt. 8th Interrog. All the Complt. Witnesses in Answer to his 11th Interrog.
2 Preamble to the first Act. Str. 253. Piercy's Case No. 6.157.
310 Mod. 1.
4 Ca. Ld Talbot's time 40. Vin. Ch. 288. 1 Harrison 46.
4232
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1771
Must it not then be evidently unconscionable that the Intention of the Legis- lature should be disappointed; the Complainant defrauded; & the Defendants suffered to pocket the Money and convert it to their own Benefit? It is indeed objected that by the Act a Warrant for their Justification is necessary, & that none has been presented-To which it is answered-That the Decree will prove as effectual an Indemnification as the warrant itself; and that if nothing more than their safety was in question there could be no reason for objections.
In our former Argument it was shown that at Law the Complainant has no Relief-That the Process by Mandamus cannot be adequate ; And it was not even asserted that he could maintain an Action at Law. Besides it is one of the great Prerogatives of Equity, and which is daily exercised, to give a special Remedy for the very thing in Question even where the Party has an unquestionable Action at Law for Damages for the Injury.
If then a Mandamus would have been proper for the Complainant, or even an Action against the Justices and Vestry for Damages for withholding the Warrant, still it is conceived that his way must have been open for a special Relief in this Court, especially as a Discovery & account were essential to fix the Sum in the Church Wardens Hand ; for which alone they could be answerable.
Equity suffers not a Right to be without a Remedy.1
IV. The fourth Proposition we shall establish will it is conceived remove every Difficulty (to wit) that Whenever a Case is attended with a Combination to injure the Party, or with Fraud or Collusion Equity will relieve against the express words of a Statute; and that even where the Complainant has a clear Remedy at Law.
The Authorities upon these Points are taken to be conclusive.2
That there was a fraudulent Combination between the Church Wardens and the Justices and Vestryment to alude the Act and prevent the issuing the Warrant, to deprive the Complainant of his Salary & to raise a Purse by Subscription to defend any suit he might prosecute,-And that the Defendant Edsal was very active if not the Author of this Project is clear from the Testimony of the Witnesses.
The Bill charges that there was such a Combination actually formed to circum- vent and defraud the Complainant and in the Interrogatories the Defendants are required to answer .-
Whether they have not endeavored to prevent the Complainants being paid ?- Whether they have not declared he should not be paid?
And what schemes have been contrived and put in execution to prevent his being paid ?
In answer to these Questions-the Defendants deny all Contrivance Combination or Confedracy charged in the Complainants Bill; Declared that they never use any Means Arguments or other Devices to prevent or that by any such Ways and Means Warrants or Orders have been prevented, by and from the Justices & Vestrymen in Behalf of the Complainant.
And they positively deny that such Refusal has been made at their joint or separate request or by their joint or several Means Influence Contrivance Pro- curement etc.
How little these answers consist with Candor or Truth will be seen from the Deposition noted in the margin.3
The Circumvention and Fraud thus fully established we insist that the authorities clearly apply, and that the power of the Court to relieve must whatever may be the Construction of the act-be manifest and unquestionable.
As to the IId Head of Equity-Whether there are sufficient Parties before the Court to justify a Decree? We observe 1st That it seems to be involved in the first Head; for if from the peculiar Nature & Circumstances of this Cause the Complainant is entitled to Relief independent of the mode prescribed by the act there can be no necessity of making the Justices or Vestrymen Parties, who not being possessed of the money, could be called upon only as it was their office to make out the Warrants for the Salary.
1 Noy's Maxims No. 6.
21 Eq. ab. 482 n 21; 2 pr Wms. 154. 156. Vin. Ch. Letter S n 1. 2;
2 Eq. Ab. 482 n 17 n 19 1 pr Wms. 620. Vin. Fraud. 55 n 9.
3 George Rapelje to 12th Interrog: Nathaniel Moore to Same; Richard Betts to 12 & 13th ; John Bartis to 12 Interrog ; Elickim Raymond to Same ; David Roe to Same ; John Aspinwall ; Joseph Bull.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 4233
1771
On this principle it was we presume that the Defendant's Council observed, when his Excellency's Directions were communicated that this last point would be determined by the First,
However if we should think fit from a Change of Sentiment to make it a Subject of further Discussion we shall insist-
1st. That the making the Justices & Vestrymen Parties could not have put the Defendant in a better condition; for they have no interest in the money & can neither be benefited or prejudiced by a Decree which will be equally secure for the Defendants as if they had been called in as Parties.
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.