bined with us; and that Consistory, at the arrival of our pastor had been in office equally long with us, and was considered as a lawful Consistory by him. But we, or our predecessors to whose offices we succeeded, were rejected as unlawful; because on account of the vacancy in our church we had served beyond our terms. But those Consistories of Midwout and Breukelen, herewith mentioned by him (Freeman) are those which were put forward (opgemorpen, cast up) by him. But they were first of all, elected by only ten or twelve persons, of whom, some were not even members of the church, and are not to this day. The Consistory of New Jamaica is similarly situated, which is also brought into play here. The same was taken up by him in like manner, with the deposition of some members of the Consistory who were lawfully chosen and irreproachable in their office and life, and who had not even served out their terms; for in no other way could he effect his object there. Therefore in that church also, there are two Consistories, and the congregation is torn asunder. The story is too long to give a full and circumstantial recital thereof; but we deemed it necessary to give you this further explanation regarding these Consistories. It is with these that he presents himself for the peace-negotiations with us; because to those not informed, this appears to have a fair show. How things went in connection with these peace negotiations on either side, you will be able to gather from the accompanying documents, if you can take any pleasure in considering the same and in comparing them with one another; and how well or how ill, we on our part conducted ourselves, we leave to your wise impartial, and unbiased judgement. We did not answer his last lengthy paper, or Counter-report, as he named it, because it is much rather a libel than a paper for peace. It is full of notorious untruths, contradictions, ugly per versions, and foul slanders. It was composed in anger. In r gard to it, we judged it best to keep silent at present, and 1713 1713 to requite slander with slander, and reproaches, but to suffer them. In order to move him to some concessions, we appealed to the government committee, which was also at his own request and choice appointed for the purpose. By them, all those matters brought forward by him were disposed of; and their decision in justification of our case, was approved and ratified by his Excellency and his Council, as already stated above. At this he was so angry, that he does not hesitate to accuse the Governor and Council of acting illegally. For this it would be difficult for him to answer, if he were called to account for it; for besides he has adorned his account of this with untruths, to give it a show. For as to the chief matter, regarding the lawfulness of his call, and the unlawfulness of the call of our pastor, he found (as he says) two serious tumors which could not be cured except by a Christian agreement: 1. It was demonstrated before the College of the Deputies, (committee of investigation,) that the Consistories transmitted the Call to Holland, after previous consultation, and the consent over their signatures, given by a very large majority of the members of the three combined congregations; and we think that the Call on a minister is lawful, when he has a majority-vote. 2. And Governor Cornbury, under his hand and seal, gave us permission to make a Call in Holland; and upon the refusal of Rev. Freeman to come upon the terms stipulated in the Call, (1703), we sent the Call to Holland; but on account of his Excellency's absence, only after previous communication with one of her Majesty's Council, and upon the strength of his Excellency's permission first given. This was also communicated to his Excellency on his return, and his Lordship was content therewith. Nevertheless, later on, he was incited to anger against us, when Rev. Freeman began to intrude into our churches. This Free man did, because of the fact that the wife, whom he was then about to marry, was not willing to go to Schenectady to live. Freeman then made himself and his (present) congregations subject to his Lordship's authority, by obtaining a license (from Cornbury). 3. As to the confession (or obligation, schult-bekentenis) made in a letter to a certain woman who was acquainted (familiaar) with the Governor, and who was devoted to the cause of the Dutch Church, of which she was a member: This took place by the counsel and advice of that woman, in order to meet the Governor half way. For he claimed to have been belittled in his authority, because his lordship had not been appealed to, a second time, when Rev. Freeman declined to accept the call upon the terms proposed; although this was an idle pretence. And therefore this letter to this woman served only as a complimentary humiliation, so that we might not seem to be too obstinate. This is frequently done to appease the anger of a man in power, when one is in an embarrassing situation. Besides, the whole proposal was conditional, which does not affect the matter itself. 4. And for this same purpose served also the honorarium granted to his Excellency. But to call this simony, and to make out that we took this money out of the poor fund, in the way of church robbery or sacrilege, as he writes, is a foul slander, not worthy of being noticed. Although we might press this upon him, that he is himself not quite free from some such thing as is mentioned here. But why throw this dirt in each other's faces in a peace-negotiation. It is truly small proof of love of peace, to expose each other's faults. As regards now his call, with his newly chosen Consistory: These were nominated by him, and in his own way he proves that this was done in every particular according to church-law, 1713 1713 not to mention everything that is here cited and brought forward 1. We send to you both calls, which were made out to him at such different times; the first, on May 4, 1703; and the second, on September 21, 1705. We leave it to your wise and judicious verdict, if by these his entrance with our congregations, to the exclusion of our own pastor can be adjudged as according to church-law? [See these calls under date of May 4, 1703.] 2. And according to the validity of this call, must be estimated the validity and legality of his newly chosen Consistory. That Consistory must stand or fall with him. Otherwise we and our predecessors were to blame for not having accepted and served him as our lawfully called minister, and are deserving of censure in the exercise of our offices. But all this being so we cannot see how those few persons, not more in number than ten or twelve, and some of these not church members, could have the power, and that without the presence of a minister, as he here openly declares was the case, and without previous notification to the congregation, to effect an election of an entire new Consistory. According to what Church-Order can such an election, or such an elected Consistory be held lawful? On the other hand, it is a general custom in the churches throughout this whole Province, that no election of a Consistory be held during a vacancy, and before the arrival of the newly called pastor. This is done, that those persons whose signatures are attached to the call, may also receive him, and fulfil the terms promised in the call. Thus it has been done by us, and by our predecessors. Does this then make us, (the present Consistory) illegal, before our congregations and without authority in the church? Please judge ye for yourselves. 3. That he actually declined the (first) call, with the reasons why, he explains himself, in a letter written to Mr. Bancker of Amsterdam: He says, that he conscientiously deemed himself obliged to remain at Schenectady, because there he could render God's Church much more service, particularly in the conversion of the heathen, etc. We must finally say, and in conclusion, that if everything is so favorable to him, and his case is so just in all respects, as he so largely claims; so that he imagines he has been greatly wronged by the Collegium of the Committee, and by his Excellency and his Council, in their pronouncing a decision against him, and in confirming it; why then is he so shy, and disinclined to give the case, according to the advice of the Governor, given in all good faith, to the judicature of some Classis or Synod which he himself might freely choose? For thus the disputes would soon have had an end. Therefore his Excellency, with that good zeal which made him so generously offer his services in this matter as was mentioned above, even with assurance and pledges, offered to relieve him from all difficulty which might lurk within. He (Freeman?) even advanced the thought that being under the crown of England, (if) a foreign power should be written to for judgement and advice, it might be in conflict with the laws of the kingdom; therefore in defending and protecting that one of us who was in the right, and in maintaining that right he would be hindered and disappointed. But this is certainly a proof that he wanted to be his judge in his own case; or to keep these sad disputes going on incessantly; or to end them only by having the right himself to judge, in something that was against him. - We also appeal to your letter to him, from which we perceived that you agreed fully with the decision of the committee, mentioned more than once before. This was to the effect that he could claim to have been lawfully called to our churches, inas 1713 |