1753 we have seen your extreme pains and faithful watchfulness for our New Netherlands Zion-a good pattern for us to follow in your laudable footsteps. Meanwhile, we thank you in the most. earnest manner for your pains in the matter, and humbly seek the continuance of the same. How we have been governed in the management of our affairs by the wise counsel given us in your letters, will appear from the accompanying minutes and other documents. We announce, with great sorrow, that the Messrs. Frelinghuysen have, while at sea, been removed from this life by the small-pox, to the great regret of their surviving brethren, and of the congregations for whom they had been ordained to the ministry by the laying on of the hands of your Rev. Body. In the meantime, the other two gentlemen, Vrooman and Schunemen, have been installed in their congregations, in the hope that they will be faithful instruments, in the hand of Jesus, for the extension of his gracious kingdom. We thank your Rev. Body for the Acta Synodi; and, in conclusion, desire that the all-sufficient Jehovah, out of his overflowing grace, would pour out upon you all imaginable temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings. We remain, Rev. Fathers and Brethren in Christ, Your obedient servants and associates, The Christian Coetus in New York, In the name of all, Sam. Verbryck, p. t. Pres. New York, Sept. 19, 1755. CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA. Rex. Theodore Frelinghuysen of Albany, to the Classis of Amster dam, Sept. 20, 1753. Portfolio "New York", Vol. ii. Extracts, Vol. xxiii, 390. Ref. Addressed:-To the Very Reverend Classis of Amsterdam, by the hand of Mr. W Very Reverend Fathers: Both of your highly esteemed letters were duly received by me. I hereby humbly thank you for them; and especially for the congratulations on the induction inte office of my two brothers, as also of my former pupil, Mr. Barent Vrooman. The latter, together with Mr. John Schuneman, I have had the privilege of congratulat- Pursuant to your Revs.' order that I should continue to urge the Rev. Consistory Such independence and tyranny at Albany, in its desire to shut the minister up within its gates, in utter disregard of the general welfare of the Church, not even permitting him to go to the capital of the Province to attend to his own necessary affairs-this goes against the grain, and is hard to bear. And this is especially so, because there is an article in my call by which they can do violence to my conscience; namely, that even during the week, I shall not be allowed to hold services anywhere without their consent. Already I have had occasion to understand only too well the unreasonableness of such a condition, as well as its impropriety, with its unfortunate consequences. I understood that your Revs. have written, either to Rev. Hoevenberg, or to the Consistory of Claverack, to the same purport, no doubt, as that which I received from your Revs. concerning their affairs, and which is calculated to get that church out of their snarl. Great divisions still continue among them, however, and Mr. Hoevenberg threatens everybody who calls the legality of his ministry in question. This letter is sent by the hand of a young man named William Jackson. He has been called by the churches of Bergen and on Staten Island. He purposes to study for a year in one of the Universities of Netherland. It is to be expected that, at the end of that time, he will present himself to your Revs. for examination, with a view to being ordained to the Sacred Ministry. I do not at all doubt, but that, being a young man of promise, fearing the Lord, and given to study from his youth, his Hon. will give satisfaction. For the sake of his churches, and for the sake of his parents, as he is a Benjamin, yea, indeed, an only son, whose absence the aged people, and people of means and respectability residing at New York, will feel very sorely, I humbly make request that it may please your Revs. to help his Honor most speedily to return. The same thing, I hope has been, or will be done for Mr. Thomas Romeyn. Meanwhile wishing the very Rev. Assembly the blessing and peace of the Lord, I sign myself, Very Rev. Fathers, Your Very Revs. most obedient servant and son in the sacred ministry, Albany, Sept. 20, 1753. No. 202. Received Jan. 8, 1754. 1753 CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA. The Answer of the Coetus to the Protest of Arondeus, of Sept. 18, The answer of the Rev. Coetus of New York to the Rev. 1753 adjudication, together with an exposure of the protest made by these parties against the decision of the Coetus, dated Sept. 18, 1753. First we confess that the plan you devise, Rev. Fathers, with so much pains and care, to preserve at once the congregation and Arondeus, was a matter greatly desired by us, and was therefore a subject of long and anxious deliberation in our Assembly; yet the longer we deliberated, the greater became the difficulties, and we were compelled to make some exceptions to those things which related to the preservation of the congregation. 1. Because we could not in conscience adopt the articles prescribed by the Rev. Classis for the peace of Long Island. (1) Since Dom. Van Sinderen had already made a confessionsermon which Arondeus persistently refused, it seemed hard to require from him a new confession along with Arondeus, before our table. (2) Nor could we force a man whom we had already silenced on Long Island—a sentence confirmed by the hand and seal of the Classis upon Van Sinderen's congregation, and lay them under censure if they refused him. 2. Necessity compelled us to leave Arondeus altogether aside. (1) Because his person was altogether odious to the most of those who adhered to Van Sinderen, since he had faithlessly deserted them, then returned back, in spite of them, into the congregation, and committed many unchristian and improper acts, (as from time to time has been made known to the Classis), without even manifesting the least sorrow or repentence, or indeed affording any probability that he would do anything to atone for his aversion from godliness. (2) His deportment is such as to make him a scandal, not only to Van Sinderen's followers, but also to a multitude of his oWL. This arises especially from his behavior to his servant-maid, which has caused many family disputes, and induced his best friends to tell him to turn her out of his house; instead of which, on the contrary, when he was sick, not long since, he made his will, as one of his friends assures us, in her favor, to the exclusion of his own brother in Rotterdam. Hence it comes, that he is often overcome by strong drink, and on different occasions has acted like a drunken man or a madman, in the presence of many wit nesses. For these and many other reasons, the Assembly was led to the conclusion expressed in their previous minutes (p. lxxx.) Now as to the Reasons of that Conclusion. 1. The restoration of the congregation could not be effected without a lawful Consistory, chosen from both parties; and this would be no detriment, but rather an advantage to Arondeus's followers, since they would thus become one body with the others. 2. Nor was it to their detriment that they were somewhat limited in their freedom, (of choice of a minister,) since they had often desired this very thing, and thus their wishes were gratified; and since, on the other hand, such a person, being without any appearance of partisanship, could be useful to both parties. 3. It was in accordance with the usage of the fatherland, and also to their advantage, not at once to put them entirely under the ministry of Van Sinderen, but to give them the ministrations of others when Arondeus ceased to serve. If they had objections to any of our members, these would have yielded for the sake of peace. 4. It was also manifestly for their advantage, in that thus the balance in the Consistory was preserved, and no one party got the ascendency. Hence Rev. Fathers, we think that all was done impartially by us for the attainment of the desired end, without wounding our consciences, and in our view, no occasion was given for any such protest; still we submit it entirely and readily to your wise and considerate judgement. Now as to the protest, it may be reduced to two chief points: I. It declares that the decision made on the 16th of April, 1752, was unjust: 1. Because they were not heard; and 2. Because their protest was refused by Dom. Haeghoort as President. 1753 1753 To this the Assembly reply, that the decision complained of was not then made for the first time, but was simply a new declaration of a former decision, adopted on good grounds by the Coetus, and confirmed by the Rev. Classis. It is true, we were requested, if it were possible and expedient, to restore the deposed person, which with great forbearance we tried to do, although a large portion of the congregation protested against it. Yet it seemed inexpedient to us to restore a man who had misconducted himself as Arondeus had been proved to have done, without some appearance of repentance; wherefore, while acting toward him with great patience and indulgence, we still required some acknowledgements from him. These he engaged to make, but never did, nay, rather aggravated his faults, and showed himself to be just such a man as we had declared him to be in our sentence. His persistent misbehavior, too, so alienated the hearts of the people from him, that we could see nothing but mischief in his restoration. It would moreover close the door to the healing of the schism throughout the Island, so long as he remained to keep the flame of discord blazing in Queens County, whereby the congregation would remain vacant and exposed, and the village of Gravesend, which he had cut off, would continue separated from the others and unable to call another pastor. And as it was impossible for us in any way to induce Van Sinderen's party to call Arondeus, it seemed desirable, both for him and the congregation, that he should leave them: for him, because, as he still retained his office, he could not go to another congregation where this judgement would have no force, just as was the case with Dom. Goetschius; and for the congregation of Long Isand, because they would be settled by uniting, as we advised them, in the call of a man not connected with either party. Our decision therefore was not unjust, because, 1. Our sentence, and the declaration of it, made April 16, 1752, were not without a hearing of them. The charge, indeed, is rather against the Classis than us; yet it is untrue, for they were heard by the Classis, and the grounds on which that body acted are now seen to be well taken, since he himself undertook to make acknowledgments for them as misdeeds. |