صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

chosen and installed by me as the Commissioner, of the Coetus, to be a legal Con-
sistory; for it was chosen solely for that part of the Church which stood aloof; it
was chosen to serve its own set of people and keep them from going over to the
Presbyterians, on account of their opposition to Arondeus and his followers. In my
opinion, it can be readily understood from all this, how matters stand in reference
to the calling of Romeyn at Jamaica; and whether in this way, sufficient reason is
not given to the party for unfavorable opinions in regard to those who have acted
thus.

For the rest, I sign myself, Very Rev. Assembly, with all respect and reverence,
Your Revs.' obedient servant and brother,
Johannes Ritzema, V. D. M., New York.

New York, August 20, 1755.
No. 238.

ACTS OF THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM.

Rev. John Arondeus.

1755, Sept. 1st. Art. 6. Rev. Arondeus, formerly minister on Long Island in North America, shows two Acta or certificates from the consistories of the five combined churches there. He requests that the Classis would testify by its signature that these certificates are genuine, in order that he might serve himself there with the better in advancement to the preachers office (i. e. to get a call in Holland). Thereupon it was resolved, that the Depp. ad res Exteras shall temporarily keep in hand these certificates. The Revs. Demmink (Temmink?) and Tyken are requested to bring in a pre-advice at the next Classis together with the Rev. Deputati ad res Exteras. xiii. 70. [See Sept. 3rd and Oct. 6th].

Letter from Rev. Antonius Curtenius.

Art. 7. A letter was brought in from Rev. Antonius Curtenius, who has been called as minister to Long Island. This letter, dated at Flatbush, June 2, 1755, was placed in the hands of the Rev. Depp. ad res Exteras. xiii. 71.

83

1755

1755

ADMINISTRATION OF SIR CHARLES HARDY, KNT,
SEPTEMBER 3, 1755-JUNE 3, 1757.

THE DOCUMENTS OF ARONDEUS.

Acts of the Deputies. Sept. 3, 1755.

Arondeus requests the Classis to endorse certain Testimonials. Rev. Arondeus, formerly minister in Kings County, appeared at this meeting and requested that two papers which he handed over to the Classis, might be endorsed, (geratificeert.)

Later, stood within Rev. John Arondeus, formerly minister in Kings County. He handed in two documents, purporting to be a sort of dismissal and testimonial. They were signed by three persons, who declare that they do so, in the name and by order of the Consistories of the five combined churches. One of these. dated May 6, 1754, reads thus:

We, the undersigned, as a committee of the entire consistory, acknowledge, that by a sad occurrence, it so happened that Rev. Arondeus, who was sent to us by the High Rev. Classis of Amster dam with a call, went away, but came back again to us here whik yet in this country.

But with this last call, the High Rev. Classis and Coetus de clared him to be an illegal minister. Then, in spite of the streng urging of friends to the contrary, he requested that he might be allowed to depart, until at last they consented to it. Written in Kings County, in North America, May 6, 1754.

Beneath stood-John Lott, Daniel Duryee, Jeremiah Van der Bilt.

The second document, somewhat more neatly and intelligently composed, and dated May 20, 1754, was of this purport:

Inasmuch as Rev. John Arondeus, on account of the constar difficulties which he has encountered here, and, in particular, the disrespect and trouble which has repeatedly been experienced him, through Rev. Ulpianus van Sinderen and his pretende! Consistory; and which, in many respects, make his labors in this land fruitless, and render his life bitter; therefore he has come ?» the conclusion to return to the Fatherland. To this end he b

desired his dismissal from us, which in the present condition of affairs has finally been accorded him.

We, therefore, as a committee of the Rev. Consistory of the five combined churches in Kings county on Long Island in the Province of New York, testify, that this, our pastor and teacher, Rev. John Arondeus, during his first and second call and settlement among us, has taught, in all faithfulness, the pure doctrine of the Gospel of the Reformed Church, and pressed the same with power upon the hearts of all available hearers. So far as he could he also maintained the discipline of our church in the matter of the elections (of officers), and otherwise in accordance with Church Order. Also, in his conduct and walk, notwithstanding all those heavy trials of suffering, disrespect, and slander, which brought to him sicknesses and light headedness, (ligthoof digheid) he behaved himself, so far as we know, in an edifying manner, and with Christian forbearance.

Therefore, the Rev. Classis, as well as all other ministers and brethren of our Reformed Church, where this, our testimonial, may be shown, are in a friendly manner requested to receive him, our former teacher, as a capable, orthodox, and edifying minister, and to advance him according to their ability.

Thus done, in the name and by order of the Consistories of the five combined churches already mentioned, at Midwoud, May 20,

1754.

Beneath stood: For the village of Midwoud,

For the village of Breukelen,

For the village of New Utreche, John Lott.

For the village of Amersfoort,

For the village of Bushwick, Daniel Duryee.

Jeremiah Van der Bilt.

Beneath this there was a third document, which follows here verbatim: '

We, who have thus testified, as above, by our own signatures, do further testify, most strongly and clearly, that Rev. Van Sinderen once and again refused to sign this certificate, unless the arrears (of his salary) were first paid him. This is a matter not

1755

1755

only outside of Rev. Arondeus, but is also even at variance witż the decisions of the highest court and the King's laws. Of this a brief paper has also been sent to his house, by advice of the King's lawyers.

We, the committee, testify that this fact concerning Rev. Van Sinderen has been certified before us by witnesses. Signed, Mar 29, 1754.

Beneath stood:

John Lott.
Daniel Duryee.

Rev. Arondeus asked that these two papers relating to him might be approved and endorsed by the Rev. Classis.

A Committee was ordered on this matter.

Whereupon there was appointed by the Rev. Assembly as a Committee, Messrs. I. Temminck and J. Tyken, together with the two Deputati ad res exteras, P. V. Peiffers and R. Schutte, miristers at Amsterdam. They are to examine the back Acts bearing on this affair, and to serve Classis with a pre-advice in the mont of October.

See Report, Oct. 6, 1755.

CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.

Revs. Curtenius, Ritzema, etc., (afterward known as the Corferentie), to the Classis of Amsterdam, Sept. 3rd, 1755. (See Oct. 7, 1756.)

Portfolio "New York", Vol. ii. Extracts, xxiii, 428.

The Very Rev. Classis of Amsterdam:

Very Rev. Sirs, Fathers and Brethren in Christ:

The establishment of an Academy in this Province is giving rise to much discer and dissensions In both State and Church. One wants to do it in one way, an another in another way. At the bottom of all the difficulty is Rev. Theodore Frie linghuysen's endeavor to carry out his own plan for obtaining an Academy for th Dutch here, solely by contributions from rich and liberal Holland. This is partic larly agreeable to the general public. The large gifts which have been contribute for the Pennsylvania churches are referred to as principal proof of such expect liberality. Wherefore many churches were persuaded, without much difficulty. “ sign his Rev's. proposition. Some which signed, having received further inform tion, to the effect that Rev. Frielinghuysen's undertaking cannot succeed, refuse t do anything more to help it on; nevertheless, because they have signed [for Academy], they are now disinclined to give their signatures in opposition to " Among these are the churches at New Haarlem and the Manor of Fordham. Othe like those of New York, are satisfied with what they have already done, in show?

the expediency of having a Classis here. These deem it unnecessary to do anything against Rev. Frielinghuysen's undertaking. There are still others, which are disinclined to do either the one thing or the other, such as the church at Bergen, etc. There are possibly others of the same sort, with which we have had no conversation on the subject.

We, the undersigned, therefore, feel ourselves in duty bound to give your Revs. further information. We know that the churches of Second River and Paramus are going to protest. According to a private letter in the hands of Rev. Ritzema, those of Schoharie are of the same mind with New York and Kingston, as to the inexpediency of a Classis here. We hereby supplement what has been done by those of Kingston, who was so kind as to communicate to us their letter to your Revs. We declare it to be our opinion that Rev. Frielinghuysen ought to be arrested In his undertaking, and get no aid for it from your Revs., or from any Synod in the Netherlands, even if we had no one there who agreed with us.

I. Because we are sure that his Rev. has not acted in good faith, as, before God, we feel obliged to show:

1. Because his Rev. and the Church at Albany, as well as the other churches in September last, had received the request of the Coetus to make known their views whether they were favorably inclined toward the establishment of a Classis here. The answer was to be given, to the Committee of the Coetus, by April, 1755. Besides, from public papers if in no other way, it was known that the Church of New York had petitioned for a Professor of Theology in the College or Academy [Kings College] to be established there. This seemed to shut his Rev. [Theodore Frielinghuysen] out from any control in that Academy. Immediately after New Years, therefore, his Rev. asked his church for leave of absence for about three or four weeks, for the purpose of reading some French among the Walloons at the Paltz, [New Paltz.] This request was granted. Instead of doing that, however, he visited his [former] pupil, domine Schuneman. While with him he drew up his Petition, and together they thus headed it: "We Theodorus Frielinghuysen and Johannes Schuneman, for the churches of Albany, Catskill and Coxsackie, etc."; whereas, according to his Rev's. open confession in the consistory-room at New York, neither of them had at that time, consulted the churches in whose name that Heading was written.

2. Being at Tappan with another [former] pupil of his, Rev. Verbryck, he wrote a letter to Rev. Haaghoort, inviting him to come and see him at Hackensack, etc.; for all the churches from Albany down had agreed to his proposition, etc. Was that consistent with truth, Rev. Sirs? inasmuch as neither Albany nor Catskill had consented thereto, and Kingston only in part. And who were they who gave their consent to his plans? At the most, only his two [former] pupils, and two pastorless churches. These were dazzled by his proposition of getting an Academy and a Classis without using any of their own money, but out of the purses of the Hollanders. For they would surely have had to pay some money, however small an amount, in case they agreed to the establishment of a College by the Province of New York.

3. Not to speak of other things for the present, which we know only by report, we have yet this to add: That Rev. Frielinghuysen knew that I, Rev. Ritzema as well as Rev. de Ronde, were ministers [also] of Haarlem, and that Rev. Ritzema was also sole minister at the Manor of Fordham, Philipsburg and the Manor of Courtland; yet he went among those churches without our knowledge, and that after he had talked with us three, four and even five days in succession. When asked, why the ministers of New York had not signed, he told them that they expected to do so in May, when he went back to New York. Whereupon the first two churches signed. The other two, however, being more prudent, said that they were unwilling to sign without the knowledge of their minister. This was afterwards frankly acknowledged to me, Rev. Ritzema. And the other two churches have, by their signatures, confirmed that statement. One elder, Pieter Bussing, of the Manor of Fordham, declared that his name had been put down by his son without authority or order.

4. Once again: When at the house of Rev. Curtenius, at Hackensack, his Rev. [Frielinghuysen] was asked as to the Synod through which he thought he might accomplish his object. Without, however, naming any Synod, or saying what Synod he had in mind, he answered that he had considered all that; "for one must use some cunning; and if I cannot get it from one Synod, I must seek it from another,

1755

« السابقةمتابعة »