1. Cannot be recognized as a minister, except along the usual ecclesiastical modes, by undergoing a preparatory and final examination. 2. That the Classis cannot allow that this examination be conducted by the Coetus, although we have formerly sometimes permitted this. But we are too strictly bound by resolutions of Synod to permit this in the future propria auctoritate. We are the less able also, because complaints have sometimes come to us about such permissions. It is, therefore, best that Wernich present himself before Classis to be properly examined and qualified, provided he can hand over, for that purpose, a proper call and certificate. 3. That the Committee feel themselves compelled to such preadvice, especially because it is known from the report of two ministers of the Palatinate, that Wernich, (of whose conduct they speak favorably), was, indeed, accepted as a licentiate; but, also, that when he had presented himself for the preparatory examination, he was put back; while the case of P. de Windt compels us to be careful. This Pre-advice also was changed into a Resolution of Classis; and at the same time it was resolved to hold ad notam, how to act subsequently in regard to children who may have been baptized by the aforesaid Wernich. xxiv. 11. 1752 ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Revs. John Frielinghuysen, Ferdinand Frielinghuysen, and 1752, July 3rd. Revs. Jacobus (James) Frielinghuysen, Ferdinand Frielinghuysen and Barend Vroman, S. S. Min. Candid. having been called as ministers, the first to Marbletown, Rochester [Ulster County] and Wawarsing; the second to Kinderhook; and the third to (New) Paltz, Shawangunk and Wallkil all in North America, in the province of New York, request to be examined, finally, and ordained at the next Classis. To this end they handed in Classical certificates of their preparatory examination, and the 1752 original calls from the aforesaid churches. These papers having ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. Kingstown and Paltz. 1752, July 3rd. Art. 4. The Depp. ad res Exteras read certain papers touching the disputes between the above named churches, and therewith the draft of a letter intended to pacify the same. This was approved, and they shall be written to in accordance therewith. The said letter is to be found in the Acta No. 1. No word has yet arrived from the Coetus. No. 2. As to Rev. Wernich: the Rev. Depp. have brought in a pre-advice, which was approved, and shall be sent to the Coetus. No. 4. See Art. 4 above. No. 5. The resolution of the Classis of Nether Veluwe regarding Peter de Wind is expected every day. No. 8. See also Art. 8 above. No. 9. Reply is awaited from the Coetus. No. 10. No reply has yet come from Rev. Bril. No. 11. As to Suriname: the business remains active. xii. 286. Letter from Rev. John Frielinghuysen. 1752 1752, July 3rd. Art. 7. ad Art. 1. An extract therefrom was read and at the same time a reply thereto. This having been approved shall be thus sent off. xii. 289. ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM. The Classis of Amsterdam to Rev. John Frelinghuysen, July 3, 1752. Vol. 30, page 268, No. 145. To Rev. John Frelinghuysen, pastor in Pennsylvania, [New Jersey?]. Worthy Sir and Brother: We were honored on May 19th with some lines from you, written in March, 1752, containing an account of matters which occurred in Coetus, and in the Committee on Long Island affairs, besides some additional documents. We observe therefrom your willingness to consult us on important affairs, for which we thank you. It will be agreeable to us to have you continue in correspondence with us. We were glad that you were willing to trouble yourselves to journey to Long Island to co-operate with the other members of the committee appointed by the Coetus, in seeking to settle the long-standing dispute between Revs. Arondeus and Van Sinderen, and their respective adherents. It grieved us to learn that these well-meant efforts of yourself and colleagues proved fruitless. We earnestly hope to hear of the end of those disputes; that peace has been restored, to the glory of God's great name and the edification of the church, which is in danger, by such discords, of being scattered to the winds. Although we would only too gladly co-operate to the accomplishment of this end, we can only sit still and await the report of the Coetus on this and other matters mentioned by you, before we can give our opinion. Your letter shows that you also expect and approve of this course. Be assured, Brother, that we are taking care not to allow ourselves to be influenced by any prejudice. We will endeavor to consider the reports of the Coetus as well as those of private members with the utmost impartiality, and give all possible attention to promote the welfare of God's Church by a prudent decision, agreeable with the Word of God. We will not fail to give proper heed to your statements in particular, so far as possible. Nevertheless this latter thing becomes very difficult to us, for a large part of your letter, because of the very small and illegible writing, makes us often doubt whether we really catch your exact meaning. We were pleased to learn of your zeal for the welfare of God's Church. May you continue therein. May the thoughtfulness and prudence of the righteous ever guard you. Thus may your zeal tend to this desirable end. All know how necessary prudence is, when dealing with matters of dispute, in order not to spoil a good beginning. To this end, we maintain that looking up unto God with earnest desire, is the best means of success. We observe with satisfaction that such a spirit has often comforted you, and given you cause for subsequent gratitude. And now, worthy Sir and Brother, may he whose name is COUNSELOR ever stand at your right hand, and make you steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord. May you experience, to your joy, that your work is not in vain in the Lord. May he surround you as well as all who are dear to you, with his mercy forever. Amsterdam, Signed as above. July 3, 1752. 1752 THE CLASSIS OF NEDER VELUWE (PER PETER WYNSTOCK) TO THE Portfolio "New York", Vol. ii. Extracts, Vol. xxiii, 249. Very Reverend, Very Learned Sirs, and Much Respected Brethren in Christ, cut- As its Registrar, that Assembly has instructed me to send to your Reverences, a copy of the Article of Classis, touching the matter of P. de Wint. Week before last I informed the Rev. J. de Jonge that I had received that copy from Hattem; but that, being about to go to my son, on the West Meuse, I would sent it over from there, with such remarks on the accompanying said classical testimonial, and on the defence made by P. de Wint, before the Coetus of New York, and in writing before the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, as I might find necessary; inasmuch as, in my person and office, I have been, most of all, inexcusably injured. I hereby acquit myself, therefore, by sending over the said Articles of Classis, which your Revs. will find under Letter A, and which will confirm what I have above stated. To that I refer, as also, to what was written to me more fully, in October of the preceding year, 1751. I shall not, very Reverend Sirs, go into the matter of exposing new facts developed by P. de Wint's action, and which accidentally came to my knowledge a short time ago. It will be enough to confine myself to what is now occupying our minds, namely: whether judging from what was written and sent over by the Rev. Coetus of New York, and what came from the pen of P. de Wint himself, whether P. de Wint made out a good defence; and whether Pieter de Wint could have procured a testimonial, such as he presented, in the way he has been pretending, and still. against all truth and honor, continues to pretend. But, I will not enlarge on this either, but merely make a few brief remarks on that noted classical testimonial, a copy of which was sent us, and on his defence. To that end I shall quote briefly the words of the copy sent, which your Revs, will please to compare with the same. Did I know how to find Pieter de Wint in this country, or should it happen that after my death, my children could find him, he would not be left free to go, without having his statements, which he made before the Rev. Coetus, and his communication to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, abundantly proved in court; or else suffer the penalties which, by the laws of the land. are fixed for such base frauds as P. de Wint has perpetrated, and still continues to perpetrate, while at the same time defaming my character. Let no one suspect me or my children of a feeling of bitter revenge; since we know too well who it is to whom vengence belongs, and who, when the measure of wickedness is full, will rightly execute it in his own time. I shall make a beginning, then, with the so-called Testimonium Classicale. That, as it lies there, as several members of the Rev. ministry of the city of Amsterdam know well enough, is entirely different from the form, and language in use by the Rev. Classis of Neder Veluwe, in giving testimonials of admission. I doubt not but that, when carefully looked into, it will show clearly enough, that no one of us could have composed it, but rather an Uplander, or German; for the form, the language, and the very manner of expression which occur in it, will prove this. I would do nothing more with that testimonial, did not Pieter de Wint, in order to clear Rev. A. V. Medenbach, who is said to have signed it as scribe of the Classisi, intimate that Rev. Wynstok was the author of it, and distinctly declare him to be a deceiver. According to the letter of the pretended testimonial, we find P. de Wint described as a "Vir juvenis praestantissimus et doctissimus "-plainly, a notorious falsehood: for that description is very much at variance with his character as known to Rev. Wynstock for many years; and by him already made known to your Revs. last year. Moreover, when he is further described, as a "Filius hand degener Jan Jensen de Wint," I am well convinced, (though I never knew his late father, either personally or by his first name,) it must be untrue; for it is possible to prove that that testimonial would bear his true signature, if the word, "hand" were taken out of it; and that, the Rev. Wynkoop knew for years, uti supra. It was never the fashion to describe a candidate like that in our classical testimonials, since the father is a private person. Then follows, "post absolutum studium Academicum probationem suy a vobis moderatoribus Classis Harderowicensis petyt. One never wrote, N. B. Harderowi, but Harderovi Censis. But to the point: who were those Moderatores? As these are thus mentioned, was it not necessary for them all to have signed their names? Then there is, of course, no Classis of Harderwyk, but a Neder Veluwe Classis. The date set for the examination, as the 4th of February is also false. According to the pretended testimonial, he preached from 1 Pet. 2:25; and, in his defence before the Coetus, he was examined thereon by Rev. Wynstok; for the text of his defence reads thus: "Hereupon Rev. Wynstok examined him on 1 Pet. 2:25. "Oportet mendacem esse memorem. But to make an end of this; the passage quoted just before, began: "post absolutum studium Academicum etc." Observe, Rev. Sirs, what is to be thought of his Academic studies. Besides, in the pretended testimonial nothing is said of "Testimonia Ecclesiastica et Academica"-which, with other things, might or could not well be omitted; and which P. de Wint never had or could have had. According to his pretension, P. de Wint is examined on the 4th of February, 1749. The pretended testimonial is delivered and signed on the 14th of February, 1749. And the same P. de Wint is, according to the authentic extract from the Album Academicum, accompanying this under letter B, matriculated as theological student in the Album Academicum, not before the 23rd of January, 1749. This, then, a refined lie as it is, will also destroy P. de Wint's pretension in his defence before the Rev. Coetus of New York, which is the text sent us, begins with: "that, intending as soon as possible to leave Harderwyk, where, he says, he has studied for a time, etc." Rev. Wynstok, too, must have been a man wholly inexperienced in church matters and without sense, if, as P. de Wint makes out, he had entered with him into (such a) conversation. Still more sensible it would have been for him to give de Wint, contrary to all Church Order and offical duty, yea, against better knowledge, the promise of procuring for him a certificate from the Classis; and to accomplish that, as de Wint further pretends, against all truth and conscience. But, if that alleged conversation or transaction of Rev. Wynstok with P. de Wint is compared with the way in which the matters were conducted, and with the result, namely, the quasi examination and the giving of the testimonial, it reveals so clearly, that, no one can fail to see, the inconsistencies which can come only from one who, at the expense of truth and the good name and honor of his neighbor, tries to palliate and cover up his own shameful and punishable conduct. Pieter de Wint pretends, "to have been examined by Rev. Wynstok on 1 Pet. 2:25, and on some other theological points;" but he openly confesses, "that he had neither preached nor been examined in the languages, either by Rev. Wynstok or by the Classis." Is it possible to conceive greater ignorance in Church matters, or more contradictions in a matter of that kind? For all those statements remarkably tend to convince every one who looks into them, of P. de Wint's lying spirit. How was that examination on 1 Pet. 2:25 carred on, seeing that the testimonial states, as above alleged, that he preached from that text? How about the theological points the exclusion of the Sacred Languages? What points were they? How was Rev. Wynstok qualified; and how could he examine therein a person whom he knew sius et in lute, had never attended a theological college; or even remained long nough at Harderwyk to learn Hebrew by private instruction of the late Rev. Jac. Kalverslager. This is evident from his slyly trying to escape the examination in nguages? How was it possible for him to pass over the examination in the Sacred anguages? And how could that examination take place without the Classis not aly, but, as the event proved, without any foreknowledge or consent of that Classis, nd contrary to its established order? When then, and in what form, was that -called examination held? No matter for the discrepancy, de Wint says "that e accompanying original testimonial of candidacy, signed by Rev. Medenbach as 'gular scribe of the last meeting of Classis, was delivered to him by Rev. Wynstok." 1752 |