176 HISTORY OF BROOKLYN.

ides, was accepted by the Governor and Council,1 and Governor Lovelace thereupon promulgated an order to the effect that “His Honor having considered the said report and the matters therein contained, does think fit to order and direct, and does hereby order and direct, that from this time forward Mr. Freeman and Mr. Antonides shall preach at all the said churches in Kings County alternately, and divide all the profits equally, share and share alike; and to avoid all further disputes between the said ministers, Mr. Freeman shall preach next Sunday at Flatbush, and the Sunday following Mr. Antonides shall preach at Flatbush, and so on in the other churches, turn by turn; if either of them refuses to comply with this order, to be dismissed.”2

The doughty Domine Antonides, however, was not so easily satisfied, and firmly but courteously refused to obey the order, saying that “to the end that he may not be wanting in his duty to God, his said Churches, nor give any Just cause to incur his honour's displeasure, he humbly beggs leave to Represent that he cannot comply with the said Order unless he breaks thro’ the Rules &

ods prescribed by the Sinod of Dort for the Governmt: of the Dutch Reformed Churches, they having Continued as Such Some three years, Some four years, whereas by the Constitution of the said Sinod they could haue continued but two years.

“SECONDLY, that the call on which Mr Antonides came over is Expressed to bee made by a Generall towne meeting (which appears to haue been the usuall way in Such Cases) and that spears utterly false by the Examinations, for that the pretended authority for making that call spears not to be given in a publiq meeting, but to be obtained Privatly & Clandestinely by Procuring Subscriptions in Going from house to house & there using false Insinuations concerning Mr Freeman.

“THIRDLY, that the said pretended call mentions the having obtained the Govrs License, & aprobation for making the said call, whereas it appears by the oath of the Lord Cornbury Govr & thire own confession that the Lord Cornbury, did not give any License to make that call,

“FOURTHLY, that on the contrary it spears that Mr Freeman was called by a generall Towne Meeting Publiqly assembled (as has alwaies been Customary) for which the Express License & aprobation of the Lord Cornbury then Governour had bein first obtained.

“FIFTHLY, that the having a License from the Govr was Esteemed necessary even by Mr Antonides himselfe & those that sided with him, Since both he & they frequently aplyed to obtain Such a License; as appears by Seaverall letters to the Late Lady Cornbury, & Mrs Peartree, under the hand of the said Antonides & of the Bad pretended Elders for the truth of which wee the Subscribers refer our Selves to the Examinations & the Respective papers produced at the taking thereof."

1 Council Minutes, N. Y. Doc. Hist., iii. 162, date Oct. 20, 1709.

2 N. Y. Doc. Hist., iii. 165.