USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 83
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87
Our Rev. Assembly's heartfelt desire, still continues to reach out after Union; and its wish is, that this matter of Union may continue to be kept alive, and receive earnest consideration from the Brethren. Or, rather, why should its con- sideration not take place at once, that our salutary aims may be reached in due time?"
This was signed like the former.
[ANSWER OF THE CONFERENTIE.]
To this they gave the following answer:
"Worthy Brethren: As our conversation with the Brethren, after the delivery of their reply yesterday, had in view the further remedying of the matters in dispute: we then requested the Rev. Brethren further to consider our proposition. We both had no other aim than a Union on the letter of the Rev. Classis. We find, never- theless, that the answer contains nothing pertaining to the matter, save a lot of premeditated reasonings, which are a pure concatenation of words, without sense or meaning. To these no reply can be made. Wherefore we must leave the matter in dispute until further notice, in order that we may ultimately unite on a proper basis."
"In the name of all in our Assembly,
J. Ritzema."
New York, May 7th, 1760.
3769
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1760
These are the documents of each side. They show what took place pending the negotiations. And now I must make the remarks I promised to make :-
I observe, therefore, that the reason why, in that last document, a new signature occurs, is, that the one who signed the first communication, (Haaghoort) separated himself from them, protesting, as he says, against their action. He himself was willing to unite simply on the letter of the Classis, but the others were not. And yet, they say in what precedes, (the First Article), that they intended nothing else (than union on the basis of the Classical letter). Do they not clearly contradict themselves? If not, to what purpose are those two additional articles? Why do they not say, "We give them up?" Then the Union would be at once effected. And, if justly considered, how is it possible for one who holds sound views on Church Government, to allow such articles at all?
(CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTRADICTIONS OF THE CONFERENTIE; THE SECOND ARTICLE.)
But aside from that :-
First: Their contradictions, as observed by the Coetus, can be pointed out in three ways:
1. In relation to the letter of Classis, which urges a union on the basis of the old footing of the Coetus, but makes no mention whatever of such Articles; there is not a jot or tittle of it in the letter. Now they say :- First, that they are willing to unite in full, according to the letter of Classis, on the old footing; and yet, they deem it exceedingly necessary that, for a basis, and without which the Coetus can- not exist, the majority vote shall, in certain cases, not have force. By this demand, though not mentioned by the Classis, the letter of Classis is set aside, or at least, in substance, not considered satisfactory. Now that which differs in substance must be contradictory: diversum, if not oppositum.
2. Nor does it agree with the original Rules of Coetus. "Church matters shall be discussed and acted on in accordance with the Word of God and the Formulas of Unity," says the Fourth Article of the Constitution. Therefore, no action can be taken except by a unanimous or a majority vote. That the latter is meant here, namely, a majority vote, appears from Article 6; "Whoso may find himself aggrieved shall have the right to appeal." This would of course, be needless, if action by the majority were excluded. The 5th Article speaks of the removal of differences in doctrine and life. These are removed in two ways: either by amendment and recon- ciliation, or by church discipline. Where the first cannot take effect, there the second must be used. It is this which they particularly want to have excluded, and thus they contradict the Rules of the Coetus.
3. Not less does it come in conflict with the Church Order. This declares an action taken by a majority vote to be firm and conclusive, even on appeal, or although one appeals to a higher Assembly, as seen in Article 31. It would actually make the Coetus less than a consistory, according to Church Order, Article 79. Thus would the Coetus be made altogether an impossible body, useless and unnecessary; for, if a consistory needed the help of a greater Assembly, and the Coetus were less (than a Consistory) of what use would it be? Of no use whatever. One would almost say that they cannot mean this; or that the concealed aim must be the destruction of the Coetus.
Secondly: As their proposition is contrary to all these points, so it is also without any precedent in ecclesiastical or political councils of which I have ever read or heard. That which is without any precedent or example must be a pure novelty, the advantage of which must clearly appear, or which must otherwise not be adopted.
Thirdly: This view of matters might easily make it impossible for the Coetus to carry anything into effect. For besides the fact that it might pave the way for me
3770
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
or for some one else who has his friends and some reputation in the Classis, to open a door for secretly pushing through some artful designs; it might at any rate become possible to force needless spokes into the wheel, and to designate anything as "a matter of difference of opinion." Even the manner of writing to the Classis might be made a cause of "difference of opinion"; and then, by such a rule, the very correspondence would have to be stopped, and the entire business, yea, even the Coetus itself, and everything else would come to an end.
Fourthly: Such an innovation would also wholly exclude our ancient usages, with the privilege of appeal; because appeals could never then be utilized. And since there is a stronger basis in the right of appeal, and greater security and force, to give satisfaction in all matters, than there possibly can be in this new notion; therefore, it would be unreasonable as well as unsafe, to exchange the well-tried plan for plans untried. I also strongly suspect that, when the matter comes to be dispassionately considered, that there will not be a single consistory which will not disapprove of it, just as the Coetus has already done and even in a stronger manner.
To fortify their suggestion, the (Conferentie) Brethren based their plan upon a previous declaration of the Coetus. That body had come to know the difficulties and unprofitableness of itself. But how perverted is the declaration, as now quoted and used by them! This will readily and clearly appear when it is compared with the real action of the Coetus, and the reasons then given. They (the Conferentie) say the difficulty consists in deciding an action by a mere majority vote: (for thus stands the matter in the opinion of the minister and the rural elder; it was they who first conceived this idea, although it was not they who published it); and that in certain cases, the decision or judgment does not rest entirely and solely with the Classis (Coetus?). According to their opinion, it is this which makes the Coetus entirely useless among us. But the Coetus holds that it consists in not having power to utter final decisions or to make candidates and ministers, or, especially, to carry on correspondence with the Classis, etc.
Now, let every one judge whether their quotation (of the language of the Coetus) has been made in good faith; and whether their view of the matter would not make things worse than they were before. Let it be known that their quotation has reference to, or is taken out of a (circular) letter, dated September 19, 1754, addressed by the Coetus, before the separation, to the several congregations. In this circular the Coetus proposed to turn itself into a Classis and to ask the approval of the Synod, etc. To what strange use in more than one respect, this letter has been put, I now pass by. I observe only, that some have wanted to prove therefrom, the illegality of the Coetus ordinations, because the Coetus acknowledges that it has no power to ordain, etc. But whoever is even partially without prejudice, and inclined to give slight attention to the connection, will readily perceive that a power is here spoken of, not such as is inherent and real, like the power of the eldership, but a power capable of being exercised according to circumstances and custom. That is why the word present is used three times (in that Circular Letter) :- the present Coetus, the present organization, and the present method of procedure. Yet, even if the Coetus had at that time said, out and out, that it had the power, and now said something different, giving proof from the Rules of Coetus, from the Reformed Church Constitution, and from God's Word-which view would finally have to stand? Would not the latter, of course, as having a better foundation? Sed hoc est digressum.
These are the objections which I have against the Second Article of the (Confer- entie) Brethren, and against their way of presenting it. Can any one see in that (Article) so much, as to consider it "exceedingly necessary?" I, indeed, cannot see it, but I see rather the contrary. It must therefore be a matter of difference in light and opinion, whatever the cause, and wherever the misconception may lie.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3771 1760
CONSIDERATION OF THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE CONFERENTIE.
THE RIGHT OF ORDINATION.
Having thus considered and, as I think, proved the Second Article to be wholly unfounded, I must now consider whether they are any better off with their Third Article. In order to give this Article weight and authority, at this time, they base it upon a former express prohibition of the Classis (to ordain). This affords them the reason to disapprove of the examinations and ordinations of students in this country; but where or when this prohibition was issued they do not show. In this respect, therefore, they have failed. But to serve them, I will without any con- cealment, so far as I have any knowledge of the matter, quote all that the Classis has uttered on this point.
1. A letter had been written by the Classis, even before the year 1737, which I do not have at hand at present; otherwise I would give the very date and words .* This letter recommends the holding of a Coetus, and also refers to the making of a few Rules; but so far as my memory serves me, (the Rules) were mostly, if not wholly, of a negative character :- the Classis does not allow the Coetus to do this, that and the other thing, and among these, was that of promoting (examining and ordaining) students.
In passing, I might here ask the Classis to inform me, what the Coetus should be allowed to do; or anyone who desires to exercise his intelligence will never be satis- fied with bare negotiations. And, what is more, to hold a Coetus and then to do nothing, is a contradiction. Nevertheless, the Coetus, having met after the receipt of this letter, adopted Rules for conducting its business; (April 27, 1738, p. 2706;) and, also, in particular, for promoting (students, by examination, license, and ordi- nation); and all this was to be done without exception (limitation?) as I shall here- after show. (Sept. 28, 1748, page 3034). And these Rules, which the Coetus adopted, the Classis approved, and thereby changed its previous attitude on these matters. In particular cases, the Classis expressly allowed the Coetus to examine and ordain. That is sufficiently well-known. Thereby, the Classis distinctly recognized the power of the Coetus to promote. Now, if the Coetus has the power in one case, then it has it also in another. That is a mathematical conclusion. That a special order, or rather a consent to that effect on the part of the Classis does not convey the actual power, the Classis knows very well. I will also subsequently prove that such an issue of orders is at best but a needless compliment. The Classis is usually careful in expressing itself, by saying, "We permit it;" or "we do not permit it"; "it is our pleasure", etc., as it is accustomed to express itself in its letters.
A question arises here, whether permitting or not permitting a thing, is, in itself, an express command or prohibition? Balaam was permitted to go to Balak, and yet he transgressed the commandment of the Lord in so doing, and sinned griev- ously ; Numbers, 22. Saul consented to and took pleasure in the death of Stephen, but he did not command it, for he had no power to command it; Acts, 8 and 9. Also according to the common opinion among men, consent or permission differs from commanding. Neither is the absence of a permission an actual prohibition. Eli did not, indeed, consent to the evil deeds of his sons, but he had not properly for- bidden them, and that was his sin, 1 Sam. 2 and 3.
A second question is this: Even though there were, in fact, an express prohibi- tion or command of the Classis, would that make a matter either legal or illegal? I cannot believe that any one will calmly take that position; since that would necessarily ascribe to the Classis a supreme legal power over us. But this would deny the sole power of Christ, reject the authority of Sacred Scripture, and oppose, if not subvert, the Constitution of the Church. The Classis might at some time,
* Allusions were occasionally made to a Coetus, before 1737. See Jan. 11, 1735, (p. 2664), and then pages 2679-2701. Also special letters of Classis, June 9, 1738, etc., pp. 2712-13.
95
3772
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
forbid the common people the use of the Bible. Would it, for that reason, be unlawful (to read the Bible)? It might forbid the bishops (ministers) of the Church to marry. Would that make their marriage illegal or dishonorable? It might com- mand the reverencing of images, or praying to the saints, or considering the Classis itself infallible. Would that make such things legal and right? Of course, no per- son of the Reformed faith can hold such views.
And no more can an ordination, which is performed in the Name of Christ, and according to his Word, and in conformity with the real Constitution of the Church, be illegal, even if the Classis had expressly forbidden it. That, however, has never yet been done; neither could a command of the Classis make it lawful. Therefore the conclusion is that that which is so absurd that it cannot be regarded as a pro- hibition, much less a positive prohibition, and which, (whatever it is), has been also repealed, the contrary (promotions) having been permitted to some extent, can in no wise serve the purpose of this Third Article (of the Conferentie).
Rumor mentions also another subsequent letter, which, it is said must have been written not long after the first meeting of the Coetus. This letter, also, I do not have in my possession, and so I cannot quote the exact words; but I can see well enough that it is of the same import as the previous one, namely, "We do not permit", etc. This is sufficiently answered in what has been said before.
There is still another letter from the Classis, dated April 5, 1756, which I do possess, and to which, in connection with the mentioning of the Synod, reference must be made. For a better understanding I give the entire paragraph relating to this matter as it reads :- "With heartfelt urgency and with all sincerity, we advise the restoration of the divided Coetus; inasmuch as the Classis of Amsterdam con- siders all the special sessions, resolutions, censures, projects, etc., of the one party as well as of the other, from the time that the unfortunate disruption took place, as null and void; and also that the Classis can do nothing of importance until your Revs. shall have settled matters, and united together again in a Coetus." Thus the Classis speak in this letter.
1. Nothing is really said here about "promotions" And in the same way that one might want to make it apply to promotions, so it might be made to apply to every- thing which pertains to the ministry. In particular: It might be made to apply to "meetings" to seek reunion. These would then also be expressly forbidden, since "meetings" are named; since they too, are then illegal, they could not be held. Although Classis so strongly urges union, it could never be effected.
d
2. Licensure and ordination cannot be referred to in this letter, except there be a contradiction of terms; for the Classis says that it cannot accomplish anything, while conditions are as they are. Hence it does not positively forbid promotions, as they are not excluded by name.
3. Should it be urged, however, that the prohibition sought for is, in fact, included, it is not, as one says, expressly stated. And, if it were, the Classis has by implica- tion revoked it in its last letter, which caused the renewed efforts for peace, by saying: "That the Classis is wholly unable to judge about our matters, for or against the one party or the other." Now, how can that be forbidden which is incapable of being judged? In the same letter, even they in some degree approve of these things, by saying, "even though some good results might be secured." This seems to have ordinations (promotions) specially in view; for they subsequently ask, whether, in other respects, greater harm would not be done? To this I answer, No; for things can hardly be worse than they have been heretofore.
4. Those candidates or ministers whom our Brethren think they must reject, upon the strength of this prohibition of Classis, cannot be included therein, for that letter (of Classis) was written long before the Coetus effected the first of those pro- motions. Now, an effect cannot precede its cause. If the prohibition anticipated such acts, the transgression of it would be blamable. But the Classis cannot have meant that by it; for subsequently it kept wholly silent about these promotions, although the Coetus, and probably the opponents of the Coetus also, gave full
a
AAAAAAAO je m m 0
th ca
ob
L thị
an pr
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3773
1760
information of them every time, although in what form, I don't know. But this I do know, that the Classis never wrote the least disapproval of them to the Coetus, because it well knew that it could not disapprove them, without contradicting its own Constitution and Acts.
ACTION OF THE SYNOD.
The (Conferentie) Brethren also think that their disapproval is confirmed by the authority of the Synod. I will give the words of the Synod which are as follows: "The Christian Synod advises them to remain in correspondence with, and in sub- jection to the Classis of Amsterdam, and to strive unanimously for the restoration of the Coetus, which had so unhappily become divided; adding, that all the Acts, adopted by either of the dissevered fragments, or such as may hereafter be adopted by them, are declared to be null and void, and will be held to be of no value." This was done July 27, 1756.
Before this can be applied to the Coetus, it must be proved that the Coetus is a dissevered fragment. But I deny this, without just now giving my reasons there- for. I have already discussed everything relating to these promotions-(licensings or ordinations). But said Act is not so much an Act of the Synod as of the Classis; for the Synod, at first, was determined to postpone the business considering that it had not yet been fully matured. And no wonder; for they had the documents of only one of the parties. But when they were further enlightened, as they express it, by the Classis of Amsterdam, the Synod then took this action. For the Classis had undertaken to defend the (opponents of the) Coetus, before the Synod, on the basis of the documents of one side only. Is this according to the Dutch motto: "Audi et alteram partem"? Nevertheless, thus far, God has prevented that party from triumphing over the Coetus.
At this point I must make another observation on the singular, the presumptuous, not to say incredible declaration, that "the resolutions which may hereafter be adopted are invalid": whether they be good or evil, just or unjust, profitable or injurious; yea, a resolution looking to peace must, on that account, be invalid. One reads, indeed, of papal absolutions and excommunications, which forgive or retain sins, future as well as past and present; but I have never before come across the doing of such a thing by an Assembly of the Reformed Church. However, I cannot believe that they intended that their words should reach so far, although the sen- tence seems to convey that idea. But I believe that their aim was to attain peace, and, to that end, to employ startling means, as if no others were near at hand.
At any rate, the sentence could not have alluded especally to the subject of pro- motions, because that was not the subject under discussion, and therefore the sub- ject of "promotions" was not involved in the declaration. Also, in the following year, that subject was left entirely out, although the disapproval of the Classis was repeated. And in the second year following, the Synod referred the whole matter back to the Classis of Amsterdam. Upon the receipt of what further infor- mation this was done, I have not yet learned. Nor can I comprehend, and har- monize with the constitution, the reference of a matter by a greater body to a less. One would say, I think, that an action has thereby become invalid (or weakened?)
The Synod, on being recently asked for permission to make a particular ordination (promotion)-I do not now say by whom, and for whom-feared that by granting this request, it might lay a bridge for the project of hereafter acting in a Classical capacity. The Synod speaks softly about granting the right to ordain, as though unwilling itself to be at the bottom of it. Neither ought it to be; for I would observe, that a firm foundation has already been laid, and a highway opened by the Lord Jesus Christ, for this, as well as some other matters. Thereore, in respect to this matter, no human bridges are needed. If it (the Classis or Synod) is able to, and is willing to give us fraternal help by word and deed, I for one, desire and pray for the same.
1760
3774
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
FURTHER REMARKS ON THE POSITION OF THE CONFERENTIE AND THE RIGHT OF ORDINATION.
I do not know of anything else coming from Classis or Synod that I can now adduce. If the (Conferentie) Brethren have anything more to support them in their positions, they will have to communicate it. For in all that has been adduced (from Classis or Synod), no express mention is made of either promotions or prohi- bitions. In my judgment, there can be no express prohibition without subverting the Reformed Church Constitution. What one may think of draining out of the Constitution by inference, is another matter, and not to the point here. And ever since these things (promotions) have been done, neither Classis nor Synod has made the slightest protest against them; but such protest would certainly have followed, if they had had such prohibition in mind. Is it not, then, rather a bold venture on the part of our (Conferentie) Brethren, and that without the presence of elders, to go beyond Classis and Synod in respect to such disapprovals? And to establish conditions which these bodies have not even hinted at? Are these preliminary Articles looking toward peace really wise and prudent? Had the Coetus taken exception to those who caused unchurchly breaches in the congregations, until such time as they made satisfaction, would not the remark readily have been made, "You are disturbing the peace?" And yet there would justly have been more ground for doing that. May not their act, then, be justly called "a disturbing of the peace?" Especially so, because upon this, their foundation, unstable as it is, they proceed to demand a reordination (of those ordained by the Coetus.) They say, "they cannot recognize those who have been promoted, except upon the order of those, whom they recognize, as having the right and power to transmit the authority thereunto. This power must refer to that of the Classis or the Synod, or to both. Their having the right and power to transmit such authority requires proof from the Word of God, and from the Constitution of the Reformed Church. I believe that such proof will be found lacking. Have they the power and right to ordain? It is well. There their power must end. This I will subsequently estab- lish. If they have not the power and right thereto, then their alleged ground for a re-ordination falls away.
How our Brethren could so easily, not to say thoughtlessly, have come to make a demand for a re-ordination, I, indeed, know not; since the fact is, owing to the variety of questions involved, (in ordinations), and the serious results following, there is even more reason for not going to work lightly in such a matter, than in that of re-baptizing. Synodical enactments disapprove, in cases of baptism per- formed by papal priests and other irregulars, of re-baptisms, if only the Form has been used as given in God's Word. So, if in examining and promoting, the Coetus has observed, not only the actual requirements of God's Word, but also the impor- tant details of the Reformed Church Constitution, so that it has been done correctly, ecclesiastically considered, then the demand (for re-ordination) is unfounded as well as foolish. Yes, I doubt whether in our whole country they will find one genuine Consistory which will fully agree with them in this matter. Nor can I believe that any Reformed Classis or Synod can be brought to accept this idea of theirs, much less to give such order for a re-ordination.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.