Dear Peter and Listers, Yours below, Peter, was an eye-opener. I had another eye-opener when my otherwise culturally Dutch Reformed predisposed 2nd cousin, whose branch of our shared Van family "went" Methodist, averred that my branch of the same family, who went from RDC to Congregationalist, then Presbyterian, had gone astray over the issue of Predestination. To him, this was an issue of christening versus baptism and "changing God's mind." Evidently, he felt more comfortable with the concept that various life-long ceremonies would necessarily move a person from the inevitable to the possible. Perhaps this was a basic confusion in his thinking between unstated upbringing and community expectations. Still, I cannot get away from the notion that Martin Luther's concepts played a large part in defining these differences. Frankly, the subtleties of these doctrines are beyond my comprehension, learning and cosmology. But, it was very real to my 2nd cousin and excited a basic disdain for my "mistaken" upbringing. This was perhaps an echo of the past controversies --all of which were very immediate to our forebears. Meanwhile, I have always been uneasy about the default terminology in genealogy that one was baptized rather than christened. I wonder whether this terminology might be hiding family acculturation and the basic matrilineal nature of our New Netherland/New York forebears? Richard PS to David Roberts...Your insights about these differences in doctrine would be grately received. Peter Christoph <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> wrote: Two of my own children were baptized in a Reformed church, so I know that the Reformed understanding of the nature of baptism is different from Lutheran and Catholic doctrine. For instance, in the Reformed church the godparents are simply called witnesses, and are not really a necessary part of the ceremony. While in the liturgical churches they are sponsors, affirming that they will see that the child is brought up with an understanding of what it means to be a Christian. It does seem odd that the churches where it is an important sacrament believe that anyone can perform a valid baptism while the churches that consider it simply a ceremony should insist on the presence of an ordained minister. One of the more intriguing stories I have heard over the years is of a local obstestrician who was Jewish but who made a point of learning what constituted a valid baptism so that if an infant were in mortal peril at birth he could baptize the child and put the parents' mind to rest as to the fate of the infant's soul. The point here is that in some churches it REALLY doesn't matter who performs the baptism as long as it includes all the proper forms. Off the subject, but I have always found this intriguing: a necessary part of a sacramental baptism is an exorcism. No, not like in the movies. A simple statement by the candidate at an adult baptism or by the sponsors at an infant baptism that "I renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways." So depending upon the traditions of your church, you may have been exorcised and not even known it. Peter --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

The main difference between the two sects seems to me to be in the leadership roles and church government because theologically they are virtually one. What I found interesting is that many in the Congregationalist churches (Puritan) came over to the Presbyterian churches in many places and soon America grew to be a "Presbyterian" place for quite some time but now Presbyterianism in America seems to be on the wan. Edward Otte -----Original Message----- From: dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of NYHuguenot@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:43 AM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Dutch Reformed & Presbyterian For those unaware of what the Reformed church is: It includes the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Germany and Hungary. The Reformed churches of the British Isles are called Presbyterian since they preferred to call themselves after the polity which has Teaching and Ruling Elders all of whom have parity with all Reformed Elders. There is also a large Reformed presence in the Ukraine which is undergoing a growth mode. It's central church in Kiev is being restored after much hard use by the Communists. A number of Reformed denominations are setting up seminaries for the training of pastors. There is also a small movement working in Poland to build up the Reformed church there after it's decimation during the Counter-reformation. Bob <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For those unaware of what the Reformed church is: It includes the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Germany and Hungary. The Reformed churches of the British Isles are called Presbyterian since they preferred to call themselves after the polity which has Teaching and Ruling Elders all of whom have parity with all Reformed Elders. There is also a large Reformed presence in the Ukraine which is undergoing a growth mode. It's central church in Kiev is being restored after much hard use by the Communists. A number of Reformed denominations are setting up seminaries for the training of pastors. There is also a small movement working in Poland to build up the Reformed church there after it's decimation during the Counter-reformation. Bob <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

The church where many of the Low Dutch attended had such a hard time getting a pastor. They kept going to the DRC and someone would come for a short visit, but never to stay. So, the church in Henry Co. became Hardshell Baptist, but followed some of the DRC rules. They were very disheartened that they could not get a DRC pastor. Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: <Jacassidy22@aol.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Dutch Reformed & Presbyterian > For what ever reason I was in the small Presbyterian church library in our > town and discovered that there was a series of books, one volume of which > contained records of the Low Dutch Church in Kentucky, which fell into the > Presbyterian Church. I believe that the Old Mudd and some of the other Low > Dutch > Churches in Kentucky were claimed by the Presbyterian Church. Peter Van > Arsdale, son of Major Simon, published his Journal, in William Sweets, > Religion on > the American Frontier, The Presbyterians, 1783-1840. My understanding is > that > after the "abandonment" by the DRC in New Jersey, that the DRC in > Kentucky, > joined with the Presbyterian Church. > > Judy > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >

For what ever reason I was in the small Presbyterian church library in our town and discovered that there was a series of books, one volume of which contained records of the Low Dutch Church in Kentucky, which fell into the Presbyterian Church. I believe that the Old Mudd and some of the other Low Dutch Churches in Kentucky were claimed by the Presbyterian Church. Peter Van Arsdale, son of Major Simon, published his Journal, in William Sweets, Religion on the American Frontier, The Presbyterians, 1783-1840. My understanding is that after the "abandonment" by the DRC in New Jersey, that the DRC in Kentucky, joined with the Presbyterian Church. Judy <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

A follow-up to my original post on Jannettie de Kleuse. I rec'd several off line email's with varied opinions. I have the sender's permission to post the following email to the DuCol list. I was also sent an interesting website to check out _http://www.ristenbatt.com/genealogy/dutch_bi.htm_ (http://www.ristenbatt.com/genealogy/dutch_bi.htm) On the Trail of our Ancestors, which mentions Jannettie de Kleuse. Regards, Ethel ====================== >From an anonymous lister. I read this several times. "When the father was from the home" at first sounded as if the father was AWAY from home, but why would that have been such a scandalous thing? Maybe this infant was the result of incest..."the father was from the home" meaning "from her home", related to her, and this child baptised as if it had been the child of two married Reformed people. That I could understand as something that could never be tolerated, and as a scandal of the proportions described, which might have ended the poor mother in this kind of hot water. Presenting the result of an incestuous relationship for Holy Baptism would be totally unacceptable, where they would baptise a child of unmarried parents, while generally identifying it as such. Maybe I'm entirely off base here, but anyway that idea came to me. ================================ <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

To add to what David said, I have an example in my study of the Thomas^4 Conklin family of Huntington, Suffolk County, L. I., of a clergyman who married into the family of serving BOTH Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed congregations; mostly depending on the area. If Long Island, the churches were Presbyterian. If Hudson Valley and/or New Jersey, Dutch Reformed. Obviously, the theology had to be pretty close for the pastor to be going from one to the other. David David Roberts Hollywood, MD ----- Original Message ----- From: "W. David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Dutch Names in these Church Records. > Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed are very closely theologically wise, > this is why you will find the Dutch and English in vice versa in many areas. > > David Samuelsen > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello All, It appears that i was wrong when I stated that Abraham Ver Plank and his wife Maria Vigne lived in Albany. When I saw the message dated 6 Mar 2007 from ETHELKK@aol.com that Notary Dirck van Schelluyne, Proved and allowed of in Court. [RNA Vol.6:339], I had assumed that the notary was from Albany. What Howard has stated in his March 8 email should answer all of the questions. Richard

Two of my own children were baptized in a Reformed church, so I know that the Reformed understanding of the nature of baptism is different from Lutheran and Catholic doctrine. For instance, in the Reformed church the godparents are simply called witnesses, and are not really a necessary part of the ceremony. While in the liturgical churches they are sponsors, affirming that they will see that the child is brought up with an understanding of what it means to be a Christian. It does seem odd that the churches where it is an important sacrament believe that anyone can perform a valid baptism while the churches that consider it simply a ceremony should insist on the presence of an ordained minister. One of the more intriguing stories I have heard over the years is of a local obstestrician who was Jewish but who made a point of learning what constituted a valid baptism so that if an infant were in mortal peril at birth he could baptize the child and put the parents' mind to rest as to the fate of the infant's soul. The point here is that in some churches it REALLY doesn't matter who performs the baptism as long as it includes all the proper forms. Off the subject, but I have always found this intriguing: a necessary part of a sacramental baptism is an exorcism. No, not like in the movies. A simple statement by the candidate at an adult baptism or by the sponsors at an infant baptism that "I renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways." So depending upon the traditions of your church, you may have been exorcised and not even known it. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Regina Haring" <rmharing@att.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > It's hard to imagine that Jannetie de Kleuse could plead ignorance of the > customs of the DRC, living where she did. Who was she - was she Dutch? > Could she possibly have been a Roman Catholic? How did Schout DeMill > find > out about the unauthorized baptism? The Reformed churches do not > consider > that baptism is for the purpose of removing original sin, as the Catholic > church at least used to, but is a sign of covenant as Bob (NYHuguenot) > stated. Therefore even if the child were ill, there wouldn't be the same > sense of urgency about baptizing it as there used to be in the Catholic > church - I'm not sure what meaning the Catholic church attaches to baptism > today. I do know that my Catholic mother wouldn't take an infant out in > public before it was baptized, for fear it would 'catch' something and > become ill. > > But with the different meaning given to the sacrament in the Reformed > church, it makes sense to me that the sacrament should be administered by > the proper church official - and I still feel that the father being > present > was an acknowledgement of his acceptance of the responsibility for the > care > of the child. > > Regina Haring > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pat" <pgewers@webband.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > > >> Perhaps the child was near death or in danger of dying immenently. >> Pat >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> >> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> You know, I had the same thought: It almost sounds as if >>> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister. >>> I looked for this bap. in churches in NY, Brooklyn, and Bergen >>> and did not find it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Howard >>> hswain@ix.netcom.com >>> >>> >>> From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:32 AM >>> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >>> >>> >>>> Who is Jannettie to be baptizing a child anyway? In the absence of the >>>> minister, the baptism should be performed by the church elders. Not >>>> that >>>> her >>>> baptism is necessarily invalid as longs as she included all the proper >>>> parts >>>> of the rite, but this is certainly peculiar and people liked things to >>>> be >>>> done properly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: <ETHELKK@aol.com> >>>> To: <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM >>>> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jannettie de Kleuse baptized a child!! >>>> >>>> >>>>> Would someone please explain this to me. Child was baptized "when >>>>> the >>>>> father was from home, which is a thing which can never be tolerated by >>>>> those of >>>>> the Reformed religion . . " >>>>> >>>>> At a Court of Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, holden in the City >>>>> Hall >>>>> of >>>>> the City N:Orange on the first of May 1674. Schout De Mill, pltf >>>>> vs >>>>> Jannettie de Kleuse, deft. Pltf says, that the deft baptized a child >>>>> of >>>>> Reformed >>>>> parents on the 18th of April last, when the father was from home, >>>>> which >>>>> is a >>>>> thing which can never be tolerated by those of the Reformed >>>>> religion; -- >>>>> he >>>>> concludes therefore, that the deft shall be imprisoned and moreover >>>>> be >>>>> condemned in a fine of one hundred guilders zewant, with costs. Deft >>>>> admits she >>>>> baptized the child thro' ignorance; and requests forgiveness, if she >>>>> did >>>>> wrong. >>>>> The W:Court having considered the matter and likewise weighed the >>>>> evil >>>>> consequences and other inconveniences, which might result and arise >>>>> therefrom, >>>>> condemn the deft for her profanation and disrespect of the Holy >>>>> Sacrament >>>>> of >>>>> Baptism, that she shall be imprisoned and remain there until further >>>>> order. [RNA >>>>> Vol.7:82] >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ethel > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

One of the problems on the Delaware was a lack of peoiople who knew how to make bricks. One of the Albany brickmakers moved down there to get things started. I believe this can be found in one of the volumes of Delaware Papers translated and edited by Charles Gehring. ----- Original Message ----- From: "E Johnson" <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Augustine HERMAN and his farmer Harmen Teunissen > How interesting! Augustine Herman was involved in so many activities. > > Wonder who was making bricks for whom, and where this operation was > taking place. I remember seeing letters of one or the other Directors > of the Delaware settlements, complaining of the lack of brick for > building. Don't remember right offhand who that had been, maybe > Alrichs in a letter to NY. > > Thank you very much for finding this, Regina! > > Best regards, > Liz J > > On 3/8/07, Regina Haring <rmharing@att.net> wrote: >> Liz and all - >> >> Found the reference to Harman Teunissen working for Augustine Hermann in >> Fernow, Volume III, page 43: >> >> "Tuesday, the 9th Sept 1659. In the City Hall. Present the Heeren Olof >> Stevenszen Cortlandt, Marten Kregier, Pieter Wolfersen van Couwenhoven, >> Joannes Pieterzen van Brugh, Hendrick Janzen Vander Vin, Jacob Kip. >> >> On the petition of Augustyn Heermans, wherein he requests revision of the >> judgment dated 19. August between him and the brick makers, and that >> adverse >> party be ordered to use the wood for brickmaking on petitioner's land or >> by >> removal of what is cut and no more, that his farmer HARMEN TEUNISSEN may >> draw it and they enter security for the brick already agreed on and pay >> immediately before carting the wood and in addition for the said wood, >> because it then by removal comes within the nature of a sale and not a >> leasing, and the petitioner is not disposed at present to sell to them, >> but >> in time he intends to erect a brick kiln himself and to pay what >> arbitrators >> shall value which he considers fair. Marginal order: - The Court persist >> by >> their previous judgment." >> >> This was 1659 - Harmen Teunissen had died before the spring of 1662 when >> his >> widow, Grietje Cosyns, married Jan Pieterse Haring. >> >> Regina Haring > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

The Catholic church still regards Baptism in the same way. If there was a doubt abt a baby's chances of survival, then a baptism could be done by anyone. Jenny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Regina Haring" <rmharing@att.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > It's hard to imagine that Jannetie de Kleuse could plead ignorance of the > customs of the DRC, living where she did. Who was she - was she Dutch? > Could she possibly have been a Roman Catholic? How did Schout DeMill > find > out about the unauthorized baptism? The Reformed churches do not > consider > that baptism is for the purpose of removing original sin, as the Catholic > church at least used to, but is a sign of covenant as Bob (NYHuguenot) > stated. Therefore even if the child were ill, there wouldn't be the same > sense of urgency about baptizing it as there used to be in the Catholic > church - I'm not sure what meaning the Catholic church attaches to baptism > today. I do know that my Catholic mother wouldn't take an infant out in > public before it was baptized, for fear it would 'catch' something and > become ill. > > But with the different meaning given to the sacrament in the Reformed > church, it makes sense to me that the sacrament should be administered by > the proper church official - and I still feel that the father being > present > was an acknowledgement of his acceptance of the responsibility for the > care > of the child. > > Regina Haring > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pat" <pgewers@webband.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > > >> Perhaps the child was near death or in danger of dying immenently. >> Pat >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> >> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> You know, I had the same thought: It almost sounds as if >>> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister. >>> I looked for this bap. in churches in NY, Brooklyn, and Bergen >>> and did not find it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Howard >>> hswain@ix.netcom.com >>> >>> >>> From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:32 AM >>> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >>> >>> >>>> Who is Jannettie to be baptizing a child anyway? In the absence of the >>>> minister, the baptism should be performed by the church elders. Not >>>> that >>>> her >>>> baptism is necessarily invalid as longs as she included all the proper >>>> parts >>>> of the rite, but this is certainly peculiar and people liked things to >>>> be >>>> done properly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: <ETHELKK@aol.com> >>>> To: <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM >>>> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jannettie de Kleuse baptized a child!! >>>> >>>> >>>>> Would someone please explain this to me. Child was baptized "when >>>>> the >>>>> father was from home, which is a thing which can never be tolerated by >>>>> those of >>>>> the Reformed religion . . " >>>>> >>>>> At a Court of Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, holden in the City >>>>> Hall >>>>> of >>>>> the City N:Orange on the first of May 1674. Schout De Mill, pltf >>>>> vs >>>>> Jannettie de Kleuse, deft. Pltf says, that the deft baptized a child >>>>> of >>>>> Reformed >>>>> parents on the 18th of April last, when the father was from home, >>>>> which >>>>> is a >>>>> thing which can never be tolerated by those of the Reformed >>>>> religion; -- >>>>> he >>>>> concludes therefore, that the deft shall be imprisoned and moreover >>>>> be >>>>> condemned in a fine of one hundred guilders zewant, with costs. Deft >>>>> admits she >>>>> baptized the child thro' ignorance; and requests forgiveness, if she >>>>> did >>>>> wrong. >>>>> The W:Court having considered the matter and likewise weighed the >>>>> evil >>>>> consequences and other inconveniences, which might result and arise >>>>> therefrom, >>>>> condemn the deft for her profanation and disrespect of the Holy >>>>> Sacrament >>>>> of >>>>> Baptism, that she shall be imprisoned and remain there until further >>>>> order. [RNA >>>>> Vol.7:82] >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ethel > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It's hard to imagine that Jannetie de Kleuse could plead ignorance of the customs of the DRC, living where she did. Who was she - was she Dutch? Could she possibly have been a Roman Catholic? How did Schout DeMill find out about the unauthorized baptism? The Reformed churches do not consider that baptism is for the purpose of removing original sin, as the Catholic church at least used to, but is a sign of covenant as Bob (NYHuguenot) stated. Therefore even if the child were ill, there wouldn't be the same sense of urgency about baptizing it as there used to be in the Catholic church - I'm not sure what meaning the Catholic church attaches to baptism today. I do know that my Catholic mother wouldn't take an infant out in public before it was baptized, for fear it would 'catch' something and become ill. But with the different meaning given to the sacrament in the Reformed church, it makes sense to me that the sacrament should be administered by the proper church official - and I still feel that the father being present was an acknowledgement of his acceptance of the responsibility for the care of the child. Regina Haring ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat" <pgewers@webband.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > Perhaps the child was near death or in danger of dying immenently. Pat > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > > >> Hi all, >> >> You know, I had the same thought: It almost sounds as if >> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister. >> I looked for this bap. in churches in NY, Brooklyn, and Bergen >> and did not find it. >> >> Regards, >> Howard >> hswain@ix.netcom.com >> >> >> From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:32 AM >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >> >> >>> Who is Jannettie to be baptizing a child anyway? In the absence of the >>> minister, the baptism should be performed by the church elders. Not that >>> her >>> baptism is necessarily invalid as longs as she included all the proper >>> parts >>> of the rite, but this is certainly peculiar and people liked things to >>> be >>> done properly. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <ETHELKK@aol.com> >>> To: <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM >>> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jannettie de Kleuse baptized a child!! >>> >>> >>>> Would someone please explain this to me. Child was baptized "when >>>> the >>>> father was from home, which is a thing which can never be tolerated by >>>> those of >>>> the Reformed religion . . " >>>> >>>> At a Court of Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, holden in the City >>>> Hall >>>> of >>>> the City N:Orange on the first of May 1674. Schout De Mill, pltf vs >>>> Jannettie de Kleuse, deft. Pltf says, that the deft baptized a child >>>> of >>>> Reformed >>>> parents on the 18th of April last, when the father was from home, >>>> which >>>> is a >>>> thing which can never be tolerated by those of the Reformed >>>> religion; -- >>>> he >>>> concludes therefore, that the deft shall be imprisoned and moreover be >>>> condemned in a fine of one hundred guilders zewant, with costs. Deft >>>> admits she >>>> baptized the child thro' ignorance; and requests forgiveness, if she >>>> did >>>> wrong. >>>> The W:Court having considered the matter and likewise weighed the evil >>>> consequences and other inconveniences, which might result and arise >>>> therefrom, >>>> condemn the deft for her profanation and disrespect of the Holy >>>> Sacrament >>>> of >>>> Baptism, that she shall be imprisoned and remain there until further >>>> order. [RNA >>>> Vol.7:82] >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ethel

How interesting! Augustine Herman was involved in so many activities. Wonder who was making bricks for whom, and where this operation was taking place. I remember seeing letters of one or the other Directors of the Delaware settlements, complaining of the lack of brick for building. Don't remember right offhand who that had been, maybe Alrichs in a letter to NY. Thank you very much for finding this, Regina! Best regards, Liz J On 3/8/07, Regina Haring <rmharing@att.net> wrote: > Liz and all - > > Found the reference to Harman Teunissen working for Augustine Hermann in > Fernow, Volume III, page 43: > > "Tuesday, the 9th Sept 1659. In the City Hall. Present the Heeren Olof > Stevenszen Cortlandt, Marten Kregier, Pieter Wolfersen van Couwenhoven, > Joannes Pieterzen van Brugh, Hendrick Janzen Vander Vin, Jacob Kip. > > On the petition of Augustyn Heermans, wherein he requests revision of the > judgment dated 19. August between him and the brick makers, and that adverse > party be ordered to use the wood for brickmaking on petitioner's land or by > removal of what is cut and no more, that his farmer HARMEN TEUNISSEN may > draw it and they enter security for the brick already agreed on and pay > immediately before carting the wood and in addition for the said wood, > because it then by removal comes within the nature of a sale and not a > leasing, and the petitioner is not disposed at present to sell to them, but > in time he intends to erect a brick kiln himself and to pay what arbitrators > shall value which he considers fair. Marginal order: - The Court persist by > their previous judgment." > > This was 1659 - Harmen Teunissen had died before the spring of 1662 when his > widow, Grietje Cosyns, married Jan Pieterse Haring. > > Regina Haring

Well, First off, in the Reformed churches baptism is merely a sign of a covenantal relationship that God holds with families through individuals. It confers no spiritual salvation and only a licensed minister of Word and Sacrament is permitted to apply the sign. So there would be no immediate need to baptize a child. At the time the Dutch Reformed Church was the official state church and could apply civil penalties to those who violated church law. Oldenbarnevelt is a good example. For an understanding of this try looking up Covenantal Theology or Federal Theology. Bob <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Perhaps the child was near death or in danger of dying immenently. Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > Hi all, > > You know, I had the same thought: It almost sounds as if > Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister. > I looked for this bap. in churches in NY, Brooklyn, and Bergen > and did not find it. > > Regards, > Howard > hswain@ix.netcom.com > > > From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:32 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > > >> Who is Jannettie to be baptizing a child anyway? In the absence of the >> minister, the baptism should be performed by the church elders. Not that >> her >> baptism is necessarily invalid as longs as she included all the proper >> parts >> of the rite, but this is certainly peculiar and people liked things to >> be >> done properly. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <ETHELKK@aol.com> >> To: <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM >> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jannettie de Kleuse baptized a child!! >> >> >>> Would someone please explain this to me. Child was baptized "when the >>> father was from home, which is a thing which can never be tolerated by >>> those of >>> the Reformed religion . . " >>> >>> At a Court of Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, holden in the City Hall >>> of >>> the City N:Orange on the first of May 1674. Schout De Mill, pltf vs >>> Jannettie de Kleuse, deft. Pltf says, that the deft baptized a child >>> of >>> Reformed >>> parents on the 18th of April last, when the father was from home, which >>> is a >>> thing which can never be tolerated by those of the Reformed >>> religion; -- >>> he >>> concludes therefore, that the deft shall be imprisoned and moreover be >>> condemned in a fine of one hundred guilders zewant, with costs. Deft >>> admits she >>> baptized the child thro' ignorance; and requests forgiveness, if she >>> did >>> wrong. >>> The W:Court having considered the matter and likewise weighed the evil >>> consequences and other inconveniences, which might result and arise >>> therefrom, >>> condemn the deft for her profanation and disrespect of the Holy >>> Sacrament >>> of >>> Baptism, that she shall be imprisoned and remain there until further >>> order. [RNA >>> Vol.7:82] >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ethel >>> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers >>> free >>> email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at >>> http://www.aol.com. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Liz and all - Found the reference to Harman Teunissen working for Augustine Hermann in Fernow, Volume III, page 43: "Tuesday, the 9th Sept 1659. In the City Hall. Present the Heeren Olof Stevenszen Cortlandt, Marten Kregier, Pieter Wolfersen van Couwenhoven, Joannes Pieterzen van Brugh, Hendrick Janzen Vander Vin, Jacob Kip. On the petition of Augustyn Heermans, wherein he requests revision of the judgment dated 19. August between him and the brick makers, and that adverse party be ordered to use the wood for brickmaking on petitioner's land or by removal of what is cut and no more, that his farmer HARMEN TEUNISSEN may draw it and they enter security for the brick already agreed on and pay immediately before carting the wood and in addition for the said wood, because it then by removal comes within the nature of a sale and not a leasing, and the petitioner is not disposed at present to sell to them, but in time he intends to erect a brick kiln himself and to pay what arbitrators shall value which he considers fair. Marginal order: - The Court persist by their previous judgment." This was 1659 - Harmen Teunissen had died before the spring of 1662 when his widow, Grietje Cosyns, married Jan Pieterse Haring. Regina Haring

Thanks, Peter. I'm surprised Jannette didn't know that. It sounds very harsh, from 300-and some years away. Edie in Maine

Thank you. I was looking for the joint will of Abraham Isaacsz Verplanck and Maria Ghislain Vigne dated 9 August 1670 and proved 24 July 1672. A big thank you to all who tried to find the will. If all you smart people on this list did not find the will, it is not extant. I can stop looking. We now know that Maria died before 24 October 1671 when she is referred to as Abraham's late wife and Abraham died before 11 August 1691, when petition was filed for LofA on his estate. Best Regards, Ethel ======================================= Original query: Subject: Abraham Isaacsz Verplanck - Joint will dated 9 Aug 1670 Need joint will of Abraham Isaacsz Verplanck and Maria Vigne. Abraham Isaacsz Verplanck married Maria Ghislain Vigne, d/o Ghislain Vigne and Adrienne Cuvilje. They had nine known children. Abigael, Galeyn, Catalyn, Isaac, Susanna, Jacomyntie, Ariaentje, Hillegond and Isaac. Abraham and Maria made a joint will dated 9 August 1670 and proved 24 July 1672. Where can I find a copy of this will? 24 July 1672. On this day was the Will & Testament made betwixt Abram Verplanck and his late Wife Maria Vinge bearing date the 9th of August 1670 and made by Notary Dirck van Schelluyne, Proved and allowed of in Court. [RNA Vol.6:339] Regards, Ethel <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Does the fact that of father being there (the mother certainly wasn't always present - see Cosyn Gerritsen and Vroutje's kids' baptisms) indicate that he is ready to assume responsibility for the support of the child? The civil authorities wanted to be sure that they weren't going to have to provide for the child. Also, weren't the baptism records almost a kind of "census" of the population, and so important from that standpoint too? Still, to imprison the poor woman is terrible. Regina Haring http://www.dutchdoorgenealogy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought >I think not, Edie. The Dutch understood the concept of acting in dire > emergencies, and there is nothing to indicate that that was the case here. > There was an office in the Dutch church, layreader, and that person could > perform many of the functions of the minister. But for people to start > going > around on their own hook performing church rites, that was quickly quashed > whenever possible whenever it occurred. There was no shortage of religious > quackery (from the standpoint of the organized churches) in the colonies, > it > tended to incite disorder, and the civil authorities were not happy. > > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edith Bailes" <edieb@suscom-maine.net> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:23 PM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought > > >> Quoth Howard:...It almost sounds as if >> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister... >> - - - - >> >> That's what I thought. But is it not acceptable for a layperson to >> perform >> a >> baptism if the infant's life is in imminent danger and there's no >> minister >> present to do it? I know it is in some churches. >> >> And if not, is this really grounds for imprisonment? May I be forgiven >> for >> asking if a lay MAN who did the same thing would have gotten the same >> treatment? It looks as if they really had it in for poor Jannette, maybe >> for >> some other reason. I gather she was not the baby's mother; was she >> perhaps >> the midwife? >> >> Just curious. >> >> Edie in Maine

Leslie asked for a legal scholar. Sorry to disappoint, but we'll see if a layman can help here. My questions are: 1. Once a patent had been granted for land in Albany County in 1684 and a portion of that land hand been occupied by the Patentees, Why would that patent need to be reconfirmed and apparently reissued to the same Patentees in 1708? ----- I think the owners must have perceived some defect in the prior patent that they hoped to resolve. The other possibility, given the year, was that it may have been a Dutch patent that needed re-confirmation from the British colonial government. >From what little I have seen it seems safe to say that many patents had poorly defined borders. For instance, suppose two patents that describe boundaries as measured inland for ten miles from the Hudson River, further supppose that those two patents are separated only by a much smaller patent and that the shoreline curves slightly, it's not hard to see that those two perpendicular boundaries might intersect further inland. 2. In 1743, why did the proprietors of the Saratoga Patent (descendants of the original patentees) have to petition the legislature for permission to subdivide the undeveloped lands within the Saratoga Patent, which the aforementioned proprietors held as tenants in common. ---- Pure speculation on my part here. Did they HAVE to petition or did they want to petition? Did the owners seek to gain a more easily transferable title? Or did the colony have an interest in seeing that is wasn't called in later to adjudicate issues, that is, that it was providing equal protection to all involved parties? I looked into the division of the Kinderhook Patent and it seems to have been prompted by conflicting land claims. Apparently all the parties agreed to accept a commission appointed pursuant to an Act of the legislature. I guess that was preferred to a court battle. Jim