USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 84
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
THE INHERENT RIGHT AND AUTHORITY OF THE COETUS TO LICENSE AND ORDAIN.
But possibly they will say that the Coetus has neither right nor power to license and ordain, and, therefore, such promotions are nil, and all must be done over again. The Coetus itself has offered to prove its right and authority on this point. I shall subject to correction, enlarge a little on this subject. If I can thus serve
b
8
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3775
1760
the Coetus or any body; or contribute something towards maintaining the right and the true Christian liberty of our churches, I will consider labor sufficiently rewarded.
Observing the confused and oppressed condition of our churches, I have already directed my thoughts to this matter, and written quite elaborately upon it; espe- cially about the right and power of our eldership in this country, to qualify and send forth ministers of the Word. This document now lies before me, and may, perhaps, hereafter, be published in full. This, however, will never be done by my consent, if preserving the right and the liberty of the Church, we shall secure peace. I shall now simply quote and communicate the chief points of my arguments.
In the first place I prove the liberty, usefulness, right, necessity and duty of all neighboring churches in the country, to hold ecclesiastical meetings among them- selves, by means of their official representatives, and to exercise ecclesiastical government according to the Word of God.
And secondly, I prove that such local Assemblies, in every place, have the right and authority, yea, that they must consider it their duty, to qualify and send forth ministers.
In reference to the first point, I employ the following arguments :-
1. The vicissitudes and changes, in times, circumstances, morals and conditions of the churches. These, as Rev. Pareus well says, require, not only various regula- tions, but sometimes those of quite different character. These things cannot well be attended to at a distance, or outside of such local Assemblies. Therefore such Assemblies must or ought to be held.
2. Many difficulties and questions occur, concerning which the Holy Scriptures give no definite decisions. Now these must be considered and treated according to the justice and equity of each case, and in a manner most conformable to the Faith. To this end Assemblies are necessary and useful.
3. My third and principal proof is taken from Holy Scripture, particularly from the following texts :- 1 Cor. 10:31, "Do all to the glory of God;" Phil. 4:8, "What- soever things are true, just, pure, etc., think on these things;" Is. 32:20, "Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters; but especially, 1 Cor. 14:40, "Let everything be done decently and in order." This, says Pareus, Calvin and other eminent men, is the Chief, the Universal, and the Fundamental Law, comprising a binding rule for the entire (Christian) Household; it represents the government of the Church for all times and places. The doctrine having been established, the mere Rules of Order are left to her own option and authority. Thus Liberty is given in reference to the mode in which ecclesiastical ordinances and laws shall be introduced, as edifi- cation in each locality shall require, etc. This constitutes the very distinction between the pious laws of the congregation and the tyrannical commandments of the Pope.
4. My fourth proof is from the opinion of Professor Voetius in his "Church Polity", Third Part, page 127, seq. after having previously established several points, as
(1) That the authority of "Correspondence",-for thus he calls the association in a Classis or Synod,-resides originally in the congregations, and is not derived from Classis or Synod.
(2) That for certain reasons the "Correspondence" may be broken off, and entered into with others.
(3) That Classes and Synods are formed, not to rob congregations of their rights, but to increase the same.
(4) That congregational government can exist without Correspondence.
(5) That Correspondence ought not to be undertaken, except it may impart a sounder life, a greater safety, and a readier help, and other like things. How and in what way these propositions apply to our condition, every person of intelligence can readily make out. Next comes this great man's proposition :- That it is not only lawful, but useful also, yea, quite necessary, for indvidual churches, or selected
1
CL
D
7
3776
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
congregations to seek a closer union in a Classis or Synod. The proofs he says, are partly real and partly figurative, (eygendlyk, oneigendlyk.) They are taken either from the nature of the subject itself, or from the statements made. Those taken from the nature of the subject are threefold:
1. Positively divine. 2. Naturally right. 3. Permissively divine. These points he enlarges upon, until he adduces the practive of the orthodox Church of all times. He also shows in his course of reasoning, that in this way congregations are more readily supplied with ministers, and the sons of the prophets are more readily advanced. This reasoning, then, contains an argument to the effect that such local Assemblies, consisting of the officials of neighboring churches, have the right and the authority to commission ministers of the Word; and from this right our country may in no wise be excluded. I will add the grounds of my arguments to demon- strate a little further our right and authority in this matter.
1. My first proof is taken from Holy Scripture, as that ought at all times to have the preference; and, indeed, principally, from 1 Tim. 4:14, "With the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," (ouderlingschaps). By Presbytery (or Eldership) we must understand the Collegie or Assembly of Officials, (Opzienders, Overseers), more or less in number, even if there were but two or three, in connection with the Rul- ing Elders, according to Matt. 18:20. And according to the Council of Nice there should be at least three, and these from the Overseers of the neighboring localities. Such must do the examining and ordaining, for "the laying on of hands" comprises everything pertaining to this matter. This is the only place in the New Testament which really indicates the parties to whom pertains the laying on of hands. These must perform this act, or, by them it must be done.
Therefore, by a positively divine right the Eldership (or Presbytery) may and must do the laying on of hands, that is, perform Ordination, (promotie uytvoeten). Our Coetus is a Presbytery (Ouderlingschap). Therefore our Coetus may and must do these things. I do not believe that any one will undertake to say that our Coetus does not constitute a formal Presbytery. My minor premise, then, is a firm and good one. They who deny the major premise contradict the Bible. It remains, then, a firm and sure matter, that our Coetus has the right and authority to promote (or license and ordain).
2. My second proof is taken from the custom and practice of the orthodox Church of all times. She, in the qualifying and commissioning of ministers, has always acted in accordance with the above mentioned theory. This can be proved from ancient and more recent ecclesiastical laws and authors, and that more numerously than we can quote. That then which agrees with the standing custom of the Church, as based upon God's Word, must be just and lawful. And "promotions" performed by our Coetus harmonize therewith. Ergo, they are right and lawful.
3. My third proof has its foundation in our Confession of Faith, Articles 30-32. It is therein declared: "As for the ministers of God's Word, whatever the place in which they are, they have under Jesus Christ, equally the same power and authority; as they are all ministers of Christ, the only Universal Bishop and the only Head of the Church." If, then, the ministers in Holland have the power to promote, the ministers in America must also have it-" the same power." Otherwise this " Con- fession of Faith" is neither right nor true. Now, every one acknowledges that in Holland they have that power. Even so, it must be admitted that we, too, in this country, have that same power; or else they contradict themselves and this Con- fession also. That, then, which has been done upon such authoritative grounds must be right and lawful. Promotions done by our Coetus rest on such grounds: Ergo, they are right and lawful.
4. My fourth proof I must find in the Church Order, for appeals are made to that almost more frequently than to the Bible. Well, then:
(1) In what I said before in reference to "Equal Rights", Article 84, (of the Church Order), serves my purpose: "No church shall lord it over other churches."
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3777
1760
I understand by this, not only particular congregations, but especially "Churches" in different countries. Now, to refuse to one of these "Churches" in some land, an authority which another "Church" enjoys, is "lording over it;" inasmuch as it conflicts with "equal rights", and so introduces a "supremacy" and "authority" of one over the other. To avoid this, therefore, our country must be allowed the power of ordination.
(2) A Classis must consist of neighboring churches, according to Article 41. Our Assembly, although under the name of Coetus, fully complies with this. A Classis must examine and ordain, according to Article 4. Therefore our Coetus may, and must do this, according to Church Order; for it possesses the properties of a Classis. Voetius says that the presence of a Deputatus Synodi is only a circumstantial and transient affair, and does not belong to the essential character of the body. As to the rest, there is nothing against it in the Church Order, and this is plainly in favor of it.
(3) It would not be very difficult to prove that an ordination, performed in this country, is more nearly in accordance with Church Order than an ordination which the Classis of Amsterdam performs for our congregations. For (a) Among us the choice of the minister is made by the Consistory and the Deacons; but this is not so done in the Classis, taking ancient customs into consideration. (b) Among us the name of the person called is duly announced, and the members of the congregation give their consent; but in the Classis this is not at all done. (c) Among us the induction into office, takes place in due form in the midst of the congregation, etc .; but not so in the Classis, notwithstanding the fact that the Church Order clearly demands this and other similar things; Article 4, and the Post Acta, Session 161.
So far the approval by the (Civil?) Authorities is concerned, that can be done by the Classis, for our congregations, as little as, if not less than, by ourselves. There is nothing whatever in our Church Order that can legalize their ordinations for our congregations, unless we except the sending of ministers to the churches under per- secution, (under the Cross); and then, it would first have to be proved that we are such churches, and that there are no other means at hand. That ordinations ought to be performed by neighboring ministers, and in the presence of the congregation which calls, I could, if need be, fortify, by the opinions of several eminent Reformed writers. It may also be remarked, that to transfer authority in such matters to others, is a thing unknown in our Church Order. It therefore appears that ordina- tions performed by the Coetus comply the most fully with Church Order. Now, that which is done according to Church Order, every one acknowledges to be lawful, but ordinations performed by the Coetus are according to Church Order: Ergo, every one ought to acknowledge them as lawful. The minor premise has above been proved; the major premise is universally received. Therefore the conclusion stands firm.
5. The right of the Coetus to ordain, and consequently the lawfulness of their ordinations, may somewhat appear also from their similarity to other acts belong- ing to the ministerial office, such as the administration of the holy mysteries of God, the Sacraments; of these, ordination is considered one, among the Papists, though not among us; the use of the keys, etc., which implies ordination, for Christ did not separate them. Is it not then unwarranted, dangerous and inconsiderate to attempt to separate them?
6. My sixth argument comes again from G. Voetius, in his "Ecclesiastical Polity:" Part first, chapter 6, page 103, etc. But as this is in Latin, it could be of no use to most of our Consistories unless it were translated. I will just touch upon a few of his points. In his 5th Problema, he asks:
"Whether a few Netherland churches, or all of them together, have a perpetual authority to choose and send ministers to the churches which are now organized in the East and West Indies, and have become complete congregations and Classical correspondents; and whether those possessed of authority should be ruled as though
3778
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
they had no authority; and in this respect should be made dependent on the Netherland churches." Answer: "All this is denied."
(1) Because there can be no inferior dependence assumed here which is not in accordance with equal rights; it can only be so far as they hold Synodical corre- spondence with the churches in Netherland; just as the churches of this or that Classis or Synod in the Netherland Provinces are mutually dependent on each other."
(2) Besides they are endowed with their own proper authority, even as any par- ticular congregation or Classis in Netherland." For proof, he quotes Art. 84 as being incontrovertible: No church shall lord it over others," etc.
(3) "And although in the search for, and the choice of, a preacher, they exercise their authority less clearly and less fully than it is exercised for them by others; nevertheless, the proper inherent authority of these churches is by no means preju- diced thereby; nor is their authority, namely-that of acting for themselves-taken away from them; otherwise should there be established a Romish Throne, or (Holy) Mother Church:" (Anders zoude het een Roomschen Stoel of Moederheyt opregten .- Or could Moederheyt be a misprint for Meerderheyt, a Romish Throne or Seat of Supremacy ?)
Again he asserts: "The Netherland churches, having planted the (East and West) Indian churches, and been the means of their conversion, it might seem that the government over those churches, by virtue and right thereof, belongs to them, and that the Indian churches are deprived of the right of self-government." But this inference he denies, and emphatically refutes with fifteen reasons. These, for the sake of brevity, I am unable now to present. I simply remark that he has particu- larly in view the calling and commissioning of ministers; and having pointed out the erroneousness of the matter, he finally declares that it is a novelty and not at all apostolic; that nothing can be advanced in its favor except mere custom, or the good pleasure of the officials (Overseers) for the time being. Thus he reprobates the assumption of powers over others and defends our right to ordain.
These are the grounds of my arguments for the power, the right, and conse- quently, the validity of the ordinations performed by our Coetus. These, as I have unfolded them, are substantiated by sufficient, if not incontrovertible proofs, demon- strating the inherent authority of our Presbytery (Eldership). They who have some degree of intelligence will not deny such real and inherent authority. Why then deny the exercise of it? Because people have formed a strange idea of the very name COETUS as though, being thus called, we had no authority or rights.
THE INHERENT POWER OF THE PRESBYTERY.
Our authority, as a Coetus, therefore, I shall now once for all proceed to prove at length. To that end I shall use without abbreviation what I have heretofore written definitely about this matter. As this was before done in an epistolary form, a new letter begins, which, so far as it pertains to this matter, runs as follows :-
"Rev. and Beloved Brethren :- You have relieved my anxiety about wearying your Revs. by the length of my former letters or at least excused it, by your desire that I should continue then, and give you further information concerning certain things. Yet you state, that for yourselves you have obtained sufficient light from the former letters, not only to acquiesce in the necessity, the right and the legality of carrying on church government, performing ordination, etc., in this country, but also that you are convinced of your duty to help in the furthering that matter."
"You have learned from experience, you say, that certain remarks and objections are still made by some in reference to these topics, which you are not capable of answering or solving. Therefore you present a few of them to me to get my opinion on them."
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3779
1760
"And although I am in duty bound, and also sincerely disposed to impart light and information so far as it can lawfully serve for the attainment of good objects: I must, nevertheless, observe, that there is a difference between answering objec- tions of those who are willing to be satisfied with reasonable and fair remarks, founded upon facts; and answering the calumnies and objections which proceed from wicked and envious prejudices, or capricious and wrong-headed notions, and which deserve no better answer than silence and neglect."
"I must observe also that certain things which you introduce as advanced by certain persons, are simply captious and idle questions, which do not affect the subject for either good or evil, for advantage or disadvantage, so far as the matter at issue is concerned: These are, therefore, according to the Apostle Paul's advice, to be avoided. Foolish and unlearned questions avoid. 2 Tim. 2:23. Perverse dis- putings of men of corrupt minds, 1 Tim. 6:5.
Nor is it my desire to nourish disputes, especially when persons or reputations are concerned. This would be the case in discussing some of the points brought up. These, I, therefore, pass in silence.
In the third place, I observe, that one must distinguish between the real and essential nature of a matter or argument on the one hand, and the qualities or rather circumstances with which it is invested. Otherwise one can never arrive at a decisive conclusion nor separate the evil from the good and keep the real truth in view.
Finally, I remind myself and you, that the pure love of God and of one's neighbor, as exhibited in virtue and piety, and which promotes the upbuilding, the establish- ing and the extension of the Church of God, must be the primum mobile, the princi- pal motive in all that and we do or do not do; and thus should we support and employ that government of the Church, which is given us of God to that end.
Following these observations I shall confine myself to a few points, and endeavor to comply with your request, and clear up certain matters of importance.
The first point which I will consider and answer is: "How the Coetus, in perform- ing ordinations without special authority from the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, could, as a Coetus, do these things, although, in former times the Coetus never did them without such authorization: Also, whether there is not thereby a rejection of proper subordina- tion, and the Coetus thereby destroyed?" Let this then be well considered. I reply as follows:
1. First: The name, "Coetus", as a name assumed by itself, can throw no light, for or against, on this matter. It serves only to designate or indicate an Assembly. In this respect it is synonymous with, or equivalent to, the names of Classis, Synod, Presbytery; or, in Dutch, Eldership, (Ouderlingschap); or Concilium, Consistorium, etc., as we have before shown. Nor has the Coetus ever acted, or been able to act, in what it has done, otherwise than as an "Eldership", according to God's Word, and the Fundamentals of the Reformed Church. It acts in the same manner still. If the Coetus now does anything more than it formerly did-supposing that to be a fact, because of more favorable circumstances-that certainly is a thing to be com- mended, and is worthy of being repeated. However no one can prove that the Coetus does go further, or exercises greater authority than formerly it was accus- tomed to do. At the most, the difference consists only in certain circumstances and modes of acting, which do not affect the inherent nature of the matter, nor can it concern it.
2. Secondly: It will be of more interest to take into consideration the Rules or Regulations of the Coetus. If the Coetus goes contrary to its own Rules or departs from them, then the objection has some weight. However, one ought to keep in mind here, that the enlargement and revision of necessary and useful Rules and Regulations have been deemed lawful and good by all Assemblies and States. But if the Coetus in what it does, or has done, thus far, does not depart from its own laws and rules, but acts in conformity therewith, then there is not the slightest
1
3780
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
ground for an objection. Let this subject, then, be examined and brought to the test, especially in reference to ordinations, about which the greatest clamor is made. In order to give you light, and, as I think, satisfaction, on this subject, I will pre- sent to you certain of the Rules of the Coetus, especially the third chapter, as that bears on the matter of examinations :- [See page 3009, of these Records.]
III. OF THE EXAMINATIONS. 1
Such is the Title. These Rules follow :-
1. "The examinations shall be conducted by the President and the Clerk; that is, by the one whose regular turn it is to act as clerk; and shall be carried on strictly according to the regulation made Sept. 9, 1747.
2. "When the examination is commendably concluded, the President shall ask the person examined:
(1) Whether, in good conscience, he declares before the Lord that he believes, from the heart what he has professed.
(2) Hereupon there shall be read to him the Subscription Formulas for ministers, as found in the Post Acta of the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618, 1619, page 83.
(3) Then he shall be asked, whether he declares that he will always conduct him- self, as nearly as possible, in all things contained therein; especially in accordance with the 37 Articles of the Netherland Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Cate- chism and the Canons of the National Synod of Dordrecht. He shall thus make the required declaration in the presence of the Rev. Assembly, and add: And in case I should hereafter come to have any doubt about the doctrine of the Reformed Church, then I promise-That if I do not submit myself to this Coetus as subordinate to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, but act and teach otherwise than as the Reformed Church enjoins-to acknowledge, as something beyond recall, that I am, ipso facto, completely deprived of my ministerial office, and of all the benefits and emoluments derivable therefrom; to all which I add my own signature confirming it in the presence of you all.
(4) "And Then also, he shall promise, that in all sincerity he will conduct himself according to the Church Order in use in the Netherland Reformed Church; and while in these regions, he will adhere inviolably to this Coetus as subordinated to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam and abide by its rules."
This is the entire chapter. Add to this the second rule of the first chapter, which reads thus:
"When an extraordinary Coetus is asked for, the request shall be complied with by the examiners, who shall call it as soon as possible. The traveling expenses of each member shall be met out of the amount contributed for the examination."
Thus it appears that the extraordinary session relates only to ordinations; although such may be held also for other matters. As regards the latter, look at the first and second rules of the sixth chapter, treating of the revenues of the Coetus, where it is said: "That those who take their preparatory examination shall pay a certain amount upon receiving their Testimonium Examinis. And, that one who takes his final examination shall have the required amount paid to the treasurer by the church which calls him." This the Coetus has so established without anywhere making an exception in reference to examinations.
You can infer from this that, if I should neglect to attend Coetus, or to examine, so far as the occasion serves or any matter requires it, I would by my own signa- ture confess that I had forfeited my office; for this is here clearly stated as well as other matters pertaining to the office. Just so stands the case with every member of the Coetus. When the Coetus adopted these rules, it must, if it understands itself, have so understood this matter. The Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, which approved these as well as other Rules, must also so have understood the matter; for the Classis said in a certain letter, that it seemed as though the Coetus meant to
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.