of the answer contained in Doc. 5, which amounted to this:-That the Coetus having again considered the matter, it abides by its opinion. It believes that the Fundamental Rules of the Coetus have been well framed from the beginning; and, if at any point changes and amendments ought to be made, that could much better be done after all had again united together in love. At the same time it expresses its grief at the suspicions expressed by the brethren. It is anxious to have every article cleared out of the way, and longs to see the brethren willing to come again into a salutary union.

5. To this overture, the Conferentie Assembly replied, in turn: That it must leave the matter in dispute until further informed; inasmuch as the answer of the Coetus appeared to it to be without meaning; that it consisted of shrewdly chosen words which had nothing to do with the case. See Document 6.

6. At this point, the whole matter stuck fast. One of these ministers, however, who was willing to unite with the Coetus according to the letter from the Classis, now separated himself from the Conferentie Assembly, and protested against its action. Here the Coetus further exhibited:

(a) What proof they had given of their willingness to yield; in that they had entered into negotiations with ministers, who were assembled, but without elders; and

(b) The reasons why they could not accept the preliminaries proposed. As regards the first; that would only open the way for accomplishing nothing, for all differences might be called matters of weight. And as regards the second; the promotions already made can as little be undone as a legal baptism (can be undone). Besides, (say they) the welfare and the peace of their churches absolutely require that they should never agree to that article. Therefore they ask the Classis to approve the promotions made and so further peace. They conclude with congratulation.

1760

3798

1760

EXTRACT FROM A LETTER OF THE CONFERENTIE, TO THE CLASSIS
OF AMSTERDAM, DATED MAY 8, 1760; WITH REMARKS OF THE
DEPUTATI THEREON. (IN VOL. 33, PAGE 30. No. 301.)

Extract.

Letter from New York, signed May 8, 1760, by Revs. John Ritzema, Lambertus De Ronde, Mancius, Fryenmoet, Rozecraus, Schuyler, Van Sinderen, Van der Linde. (Also by Rubel.)

Our (Classical) missive of May 7, 1759, with the Acts of Synod, was duly received by them, and they thank us for the same. Upon notice from the Coetus, the above named members (of the Conferentie) were present, with the exception of Rozencraus, Schuyler and Van der Linde; and they unanimously resolved to make the following statement to the Coetus:

1. Although the Classis had not at all replied to their proposition, they were, nevertheless, considering the eranest exhortation to union, and were favorably disposed to it.

2. Not, however, unless the decision in weighty matters which might come into dispute should rest with the Classis.

3. The examinations and promotions performed by the Coetus, they (the Conferentie) were not willing to recognize.

Answer was sent to this, as can be seen from the preceding letter, No. 299.

After conferring with one another about this matter, the persons whose names appear above, renewed the request that the brethren, who called themselves the old Coetus, would once more take the matter into serious consideration. After deliberation. further answer was given as stated in the foregoing letter, besides the counter-answer to the above, also to be found in said letter.

Thus they (the Conferentie) have given an honest account of the entire proceeding. They are of opinion that they have given heed to the admonition and exhortation of the Rev. Classis. And they further assign, as a reason why they cannot unite together, except on the conditions proposed, that the Classis had never recog nized or permitted a Coetus, even though subordinated to the Classis, except on the ground of the distinct exclusion of exam

ining and promoting students, deciding on matters of doctrine, etc. This appears from its letter of Nov. 1739. The reason is there given that that right is reserved by the Synod of Dordrecht, only to the Classis. If that was Church Order then, it must be just as much the same now. Thus they further show in what an irregular way the Coetus has gone to work.

From this the Classis can see what the matter in dispute is; also that the undersigned (the Conferentie) do not deserve to be looked upon as disturbers of the peace, but are men who seek peace with truth. They further ask the Classis to consider well the replies made, and to send them a straightforward answer. They close with salutation.

P. S. They say, also, that Rev. Haaghoort, who has frequently strange plans on hand, had dissuaded two of the ministers, (Schuyler and Van der Linde) from attending the Conferentie Meeting. Nevertheless, he had attended himself; then he scratched out his name at the bottom of the letter, which he had sent together with the other brethren named; and later, in their last answer to the Coetus, he had separated himself entirely from them, (the Conferentie).

REV. SAMUEL SEABURY TO THE SOCIETY FOR PROPAGATING THE

GOSPEL.

Jamaica, October 6, 1760.

Reverend Sir:-
With respect to the state on my own Mission things are considerably mended
especially at Flushing which has ever been the seat of Quakerism and infidelity—
Many young people of both sexes have steadily attended Service the past Summer
whose Parents are either Quakers or Deists, and behaved with great decency-They
are now finishing the Church which before was only enclosed so as to keep out the
weather and I hope in my next letter to acquaint the Society of its being completed.
At Newtown also they are repairing the Church & have rebuilt the Steeple from
the ground at a considerable expence and I had the pleasure the last time I admin-
istered the Communion at the Parish Church to find three added to the number of
the Communicants.

I must beg leave to repeat my request to the honored Society for a number of Common Prayer Books which I am lately encouraged to think may be distributed to advantage.

1760

I am etc., etc.
Samuel Seabury.
-Doc. Hist. N. Y. Vol. 1. p. 196.

1760, Oct. 25. George III begins his reign. His seal:

Doc. Hist. N. Y. iv. 3.

[1760, Oct. 27. Sult of the Brower Family against Trinity Church, for 62 acres of land, after a litigation of 20 years, decided in favor of Trinity Church. Dix's Hist. Trinity Church, i. 294.]

1760

3800 ECCLESIAstical Records of THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

CHURCH OF NEW YORK.

New York, October 30, 1760.

Consistory held after calling on God's name.

Mr. Abram Lefferts presented the accounts for the new house, amounting to £635. 3. 9. Of this £283. had been paid. Resolved, That Mr. Abram Van Wyck should contribute £27. 3. 2, and the Deacons £50.; that the £275. remaining should be taken up on interest, at five per cent from Mr. John T. Lansing. The accounts were examined and found correct. The above sum was immediately obtained from Mr. Lansing, who received an obligation for it, sealed and signed by the President.

In name etc.,

J. Ritzema, p. t. President.

THE DUTCH CHURCH OF ALBANY BORROWS FROM POOR FUND
TO PAY EXPENSES OF MINISTER, NOVEMBER 10, 1760.
Know all men by these presents that we the subscribers, elders of the Reformed
Dutch Church of Albany in consideration of the sum of one hundred and sixty five
pounds current money of New York, received from Messrs. Volkert Douw and Wil-
liam Winne, deacons of the said Church being money collected for the poor, which
sum of money has been borrowed by us to pay the debts which said Church has
made in calling and having brought over our Rev. Minister, Eilardus Westerlo.
Therefore we promise to pay annually to the deacons, who have charge of the
money chest for the poor, (de armen kist) the balance of the income of the church
pasture as soon as there is any.

In consideration whereof we bind ourselves and successors.
Albany this 10th day of November, 1760.

Witness, John Douw.

Witness our hands,

Gerrit Van Den Bergh
Jacob C. Ten Eyck.

-Munsell's Annals of Albany, Vol. vii. p. 229.