USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume V > Part 85
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
3781
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
1760
examine and promote from time to time, or something to that effect. Such was the case; thus the Coetus has done; and thus it must do if it wants to conform to its own Rules, which are clear enough, or to the Word of God and the Reformed Church Constitution. In all fairness, this should be deemed sufficient, to prove that the Coetus, in ordaining did not go beyond its power as a Coetus.
Nevertheless, there remain some things in the objections raised, to which some persons might attach much weight. These too, therefore we shall examine.
3. It is objected that, whereas the Coetus formerly did not license nor ordain except by special permission of the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, these things are now done without such permission. It seems to follow that the Coetus is no longer the same Coetus, or at least, does not act as on the former footing.
(1) Our former observations may serve as a reply to this: namely, that the sub- stance of a matter and its accidental circumstances always are and remain distinct; and especially is this so, when the occasion for them, instead of being a good and healthful one, is a defect and an abuse; as I think the issuance of such permissions will, on close examination, be found to be. If this issuing of permissions can be shown to be a defect, even if the Coetus were formerly following its own rules, then these rules ought to have been amended. But this was not necessary, for the Coetus never mentioned, much less established such a thing (asking permissions) in its rules; there is not an allusion nor the shadow of an allusion to this matter in all its regulations.
Now, in anything in which the Coetus has the right to follow its own rules, even though the mode of acting differs from the mode formerly in use, and in doing so the Rule is confirmed. Yea, if those rules are good, the strict practice of them is to be commended. This, I think, must be granted by every sober-minded person. For, where there is no law there is no transgression; but there is transgression where there is a law that is slighted. Now there is no law that permission from Holland to license and ordain, is required; but there is a law to license and ordain. These things, therefore, should be done without seeking such permission. These remarks alone might be deemed a sufficient answer.
(2) But the questions naturally arise, What advantage or force is there in seeking such a permission? What benefit does it bring? Does it make those examined better qualified? Or are they, therefore, more carefully examined? Or does it make the examiners more capable and more faithful in carrying on the examination? Or, do they thereby alone acquire the power and right to do it? The earlier points, I think no one will press; and the latter one is certainly untenable, since such per- mission is but human authorization, while the power to ordain must come from God if it is to be legal.
To say that ordination is divine, through the Classis as an instrument, is about the same as to say that God is to be worshipped through images: but this we know God has never commanded. Nowhere in Scripture is there a basis to be found for one body to grant such a permission to another. That Titus was left behind in Crete, to go from city to city to ordain elders, does in no way prove the right of giving such permission, as we have before shown. For this was either a general rule, for the Church, to do this in places where it was necessary ;- and then, it ought not to be done in Holland for us ;- or it was the consummation of a work already begun, and of which the Apostle had knowledge ;- in which case it is not in agreement with giving permission. Nor is there the least foundation for it in our Church Order, and for that reason it is to be rejected. Nor is there any basis for it in sound reason; for if we do not have the power as a Presbytery, (Eidership), from the very nature of our office, which we hold from God: then such permission cannot impart to us the power; otherwise, that power might be given, by such a permis- sion, to the ordinary members, and even to heathen. If there are no previous qualifications to make a difference, then it is all the same-a matter of indifference- to whom the permission is given; and if the office makes the difference, then it is
3782
1760
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
not the permission that confers the favor, and such permission is, therefore, vain, good for nothing, fruitless, useless and unnecessary. This will further appear when we consider how and in what way such permission would have to be given.
(3) It would have to be in one of these two ways :-
(a) The Rev. Classis would have to issue such a special order in virtue of, and resulting from, some peculiar inherent power of superiority over us, whereby it would have the right to exercise lordship, to command, or to forbid us, ex liberrimo suo, according to its own pleasure; and we, as inferiors, and therefore subject to authority would have to obey, to yield to the command or prohibition of Classis, as the rule of our conduct. In a word, we should have to stand ready as the valets of Classis, doing nothing without orders, and leaving nothing undone on command. I cannot believe that the Rev. Classis would arrogate to itself such an authority, or that any eldership of the Reformed Church would recognize the same. The mere statement is enough to exhibit what an assumption of superiority and dominion this would be. It is not necessary to refute it which could be easily done.
(b) Or such permission would have to be given through a special commission, by which the business could be transacted by the direction of others, as though done by the Classis itself. Now this commission might have a twofold basis of action: Either, as having power and authority from those who have the sovereign power to order others to execute a thing in their name :- thus kings, princes and high authorities issue commissions. But all the Reformed hold that such a state of things cannot exist in the (Reformed) Church, because in the Church there is only one ministry. Or a commission might act when an Assembly entrusts some business to some of its members to execute the same according to its instruction, and after- ward report, the Assembly retaining the power to revoke or to amend what has been done, or to ratify it. Through such a commission then, the Classis might give us permission to license and ordain. But thus one might be ordained, and yet not know it; (for it might not be ratified). Now, if this cannot be, then, the whole matter of "permission" falls to the ground.
That this cannot happen is clear from the fact that, we, in this country, are no part nor are we members of the Classis of Amsterdam, regarded as a Classis, nor can we ever become such; for there is no relation of neighborhood between us and the Classis, nor can there ever be. We cannot meet together in an Assembly, no credentials from the congregations being serviceable to us, etc .; yet these things are essential to the constitution of a Classis, or to being a member thereof. See the Church Order, Articles 33 and 41; not to speak of our differing political relation- ships, from which it follows, inevitably, that we cannot receive from the Classis a commission or any special orders. And, as they are not a part or members of our (Coetus) Assembly, they have neither the power nor the right to issue a commission or a special order to us, or to impose commands on us.
Now, I can think of no other ways in which such a special order can be given; and if there are no others, the whole matter falls to the ground. My own ordina- tion did, indeed, take place by order of the Classis; but, if I could find no other ground for its legality than that order, I should have to consider it illegal and unecclesiastical.
(4) In its special permission for ordinations the Classis is accustomed to say that it shall be done "nomine hujus Classis", in the name of this Classis. Now, doing a thing in any one's name, is doing it upon his authority, by his power and com- mand; all of which applies to their Revs. It indicates that the one in whose name a thing is done, has the chief right in the direction of, and the control over that affair. Thus temporal business is transacted in the name of the High and Mighty lords, kings, etc. Just so, the affairs pertaining to the Church are transacted in the name of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings. Now, as His Name and His Honor are one and the same thing to the Lord, is not "ordaining" in the name of the Classis an infringement upon the honor of God, or a detraction
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3783
1760
therefrom, and is not the guilt of some kind of idolatry thereby incurred? On that account we find that great ambassador of God, Paul, very much exercised about any one's simply saying that he had baptized in his own name, 1 Cor. 1:15. How much less then would he have given others an order to do so? The same principle applies to this matter of licensing and ordaining; for in whosoever's name one bap- tizes in that same name one also proceeds to teach.
Do we not receive the ministry in the name of the Lord? Col. 4:17. See also the Form of Ordination, particularly the benediction, in which the name of God is expressly mentioned. Consequently ordination is performed in the name of God, and not in the name of the Classis. Thus, for lack of careful attention, one may unwittingly be led astray into evil things whether in issuing or in accepting a command. However, I feel sure, that in such an evil sense, there has never been an ordination performed in this country, although done by special permission, and, as the Classis expresses it, in its name; but that it has always been most solemnly performed only "in the name" of the great God, the King of His Church. Never- theless, this expression gives occasion for calling men "masters", contrary to the prohibition of Christ, Matt. 23:10. If it is said that "in its name" signifies nothing more than by its authority and permission, that does not make it any better; for, besides the fact that the above remarks still remain, it implies a self-assumed right to issue such an order, but that right can never be substantiated. If it is said that it only means allowing or consenting to a matter-then it confers no power and has no sense nor meaning, and consequently is not necessary or useful.
(5) This is all the more true in view of the fact, that the issuing of such an order has not the least foundation in the Constitution of the Reformed Church; has never been in use in the orthodox Church of God; and is contrary to the Scriptural Article on equality in office; inasmuch as it necessarily implies the superiority on the part of one who issues such an order, and the inferiority of the one who accepts it; whereas there can be no real superiority or inferiority, even between a Consistory, Classis and Synod. Substantially, they do not differ, although they are not identi- cal, says Prof. Voetius. They differ formally in their mode of being, even as the philosophers speak of genera and species. The difference lies in their relative associations, and not in any superiority or lordly power, which the issue of such orders introduces. Consequently, the issue of such order for licensing and ordaining must be disapproved.
(6) At this point a question is likely to come up. If matters stand thus, why then did the Coetus formerly make such applications and receive such permissions? To this I cannot reply in behalf of the Coetus in general, but I can in behalf of certain members. The members of the Coetus were regarded as a part of, or as members of, the Amsterdam Classis. As such, they received instructions and directions from the Classis in the capacity of a Committee, which was obliged to report its action. So it was taken for granted that the Coetus might and ought to receive permission from the Classis to license and ordain and therefore made application. This appears plausible.
For, I have already shown that such a quality can have no ground or place in Church Order, or in the nature of the case. But to speak more particularly con- cerning myself. I was actuated by two chief considerations. The one was the strong prejudices which generally prevailed, that nothing could be right, truly ecclesiastical and valid, save what had its origin in Holland. These prejudices, which though unfounded, are still entertained by some I did not then strenuously oppose. I considered the matter as one of indifference, and, like the circumcision of Timothy, I complied. My other reason is the often blind and careless adoption of a custom which has been introduced without diligent and careful investigation; so that I did not perceive the erroneousness of the matter and the injurious conse- quences; and afterward, when I was enlightened, I was restrained by a certain fearfulness of contravening a deep rooted custom. If an effort in that direction had
3784
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1760
then been made, it would probably have failed. But now, perhaps, it will not fail, since Divine Providence has opened the eyes of so many, both among the people in general, and also among the ministers (opzienders). And this has been brought about by several circumstances, but especially by the conduct of the Rev. Classis itself.
(7) For the Classis was the first to make a change in these matters, by refusals to give special permissions. For, although the Classis had previously expressed its wish, that no more applications (to ordain in America) should be made, neverthe- less, the Coetus did make another application in 1755, and urged it again in 1756, because it wanted to test the matter to the utmost. It was for two young men, whose abilities were openly recognized; the conditions of the congregations which had called them, and their several needs, were, at the same time clearly made known; especially their refusal to let the young men go to Holland (for ordination); this was so decided, that, in case the refusal occurred they would withdraw their calls; and there were still other reasons. Whereupon the Classis did again, per- emptorily refuse to give its consent. Now, if in this case, there was any trans- gression, it must lie at the door of the Classis; for the Classis was as much in duty bound to grant permission, upon being asked, as we were in duty bound to seek it.
(8) Now, just here, another question arises. The Rev. Classis having refused, and that finally, to give special permission (to ordain), what was to be done? What was one's duty, before God and men, in order to keep a conscience void of offense? The young men desired to be examined and qualified, if found fit, by the Coetus. The congregations (finally) insisted that this should be done without permission from Holland; that otherwise they would find for themselves some other way, etc. Does any one imagine that it was our duty to refuse them and let them go else- where (for ordination)? I cannot think so; because our very office gives us that right and power and that in full accord with the rules of the Coetus; whereas the Classis has neither the power nor the right to issue such permissions, as has before been proved. The Coetus, then, has its confirmation in the fact that it acted in accord- ance with its own funadmental Rules, or according to its original establishment.
4. In the grievances referred to, is also included and charged a rejection of the so-called subordination, to the Classis of Amsterdam. This, being expressly men- tioned in the rules of the Coetus, must have its place and its proper weight in this discussion. Its importance shall be recognized, and proper notice shall be taken of it. To that end it must be carefully examined.
(1) The word "Subordination" is a Latin word, composed of the preposition, sub, meaning under, concerning, to, or in, and was used by the Latinists in the sense of rest and motion; and of the word "ordinatus", which signifies, arranged, set in order or established. Therefore, the most proper and natural meaning of the word "Subor- dination" is to be inferior to, to be subject to some one, as one being ordered and ruled by him; implying an actual superiority on the one hand, and an inferiority on the other. Thus the Coetus is described in a certain letter by the Classis as being "inferior, subordinate to it"; yet with the addition, "in certain respects". Had the Classis explained those words, "in certain respects", this work would have been already done for me; but, at present, I am under the necessity of investigating it. Now, the real question just here is, Where is such subordination to be found in the Church of Christ? The answer is at hand. It is to be found where Popes, priests, cardinals and monks are found; or where archbishops, bishops, curates and teach- ing deacons (lerende Diaconen) are to be found; and nowhere else. For all such subordination has been abolished in the Reformed Church by its very constitution; although a subordination of communicating or giving place is customary, and may very properly have place. (schoen een onderschikking van communicatie, of plaats- geving gebruykelyk is, en welwoegende plaats nemen kan.)
(2) There is a courteous stepping aside or giving place, which may be employed in ceremonies, or in certain circumstances, or in allowing some one to preach on
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3785 1760
an occasion: a privilege, however, which may not be used when true Christian liberty, or the purity of doctrine and discipline, would thereby be violated or impaired, according to Gal. 2:4, 5. But I repeat: in things which relate to the essentials of doctrine or discipline, such indulgence ought not to be practiced. For the perpetual and wholly Scriptural rule of the Reformed Church, with regard to equality in office, destroys all subordination of that sort which involves an actual superiority or inferiority of one over another.
All the subordination which occurs in our Church Order is contained in the 36th Article, which reads as follows: "The Classis has the same jurisdiction over the Consistory which the particular Synod has over the Classis, and the General Synod over the Particular Synod." In this Article the word "subordination" is not used at all; for the Synod was certainly aware that "subordination" is not a proper term to use in ecclesiastical matters. It is to be observed also that no mention is ever made of any control to be exercised by a Classis over a Coetus; and, what is more, the term never once occurs in the Church Order; yet the four kinds of Assem- blies provided for in the 29th Article, correspond with those above mentioned: namely, Consistory, Classis, particular Synod and General Synod. To find our Asso- ciation (Vergadering) in these Articles, it must be regarded either as a Classis, composed of the ministers of neighboring churches convening together; or as a Synod, composed of the delegates of the several Rings (or Circuits) convening together, although under the name of "Coetus". This manner of convening and delegation also has its origin in our Coetus Rules, Articles 1 and 7. Consequently the Coetus is, as such, not included in any subordination to a Classis. Therefore still something else must be sought for in this case.
(3) This very subordination of a Consistory to a Classis, and of a Classis to a Synod, does not consist in any "superiority" and "inferiority", or in a relation of "magistrate" and "subject", viewed substantially as a matter of "power" and "rule", because the power of the Church of God is only an administrative power of governmnt, and not one of lordship. Christ has entrusted the entire government of the Church, the power of both the keys, to a consistory composed of a minister or ministers and elders, representing a congregation. To them He delivered the keys, and gave the command "Tell it to the congregation", (gemeente), that is, to those who represent the congregation. It follows then, that nothing can be done in the Church (kerk) that has not been entrusted to it. Yea, the power has been given her to choose other officers, to appoint even ministers, if need be. Such a necessity there would evidently be, if but one Consistory existed in a region, and all commu- nication with other Christian Churches were cut off. We have before shown that in the early periods of the Reformation, according to Synodical directions, ordina- tions were effected by the Consistory and a single minister of the Word, even though more could have been got together. It thus appears that the entire govern- ment is, without exception, entrusted to a Consistory. How then can a Classis be really superior to or above a Consistory?
Nevertheless, a Classis has jurisdiction over a Consistory, namely, when the Con- sistory is united with the Classis, and has become a member of it. In that case such a (Classical) Assembly has, according to the rule of Christ, power to dispose of its members. Or when counsel and advice are sought, or matters are referred to the judgment of the Classis, either by appeal or otherwise. In such cases a Classis has the right and power to deal with such matters. Such is the jurisdiction of a Classis over a consistory, and this is the kind of subordination to it. The reason of this does not really lie in any superior power, but in the greater number of coun- selors, with whom one always expects to find wisdom. This sufficiently indicates how the jurisdiction of a Synod, and the subordination of a Classis is to be under- stood. It consists in the communications, the consultations, and the exchange of opinions. Now all of these can be expressed just as well by correspondence, as by
3
3786
1760
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
subordination, if not better; correspondence being a deliberate presentation of views and counter-views.
(4) Now, no other subordination of our Coetus to the Classis of Amsterdam can be established or demanded, (even if so much as the above), after the Classis wrote in a certain letter, using the language, "taking counsel with her", and elsewhere makes mention of her "giving advice"; and such subordination we do not reject. This is also altogether in accord with the Rules of the Coetus. These several times make mention of a kind of subordination. The first mention is in the fourth Funda- mental Article which reads thus: "In the Coetus, only ecclesiastical matters shall be discussed and acted on, and that in an ecclesiastical manner, according to God's Word and the Formulas of Unity, subject to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, accord- ing to Articles 30 and 31 of the Church Order." Herein the real foundation is estab- lished in advance-God's Word and the Formulas of Unity. By these, are we to explain the subordination; for the Articles quoted say nothing at all about a subor- dination, save what is to be inferred from the relation of the inferior to the supe- rior Assemblies. But this superiority or inferiority does not really lie in the posses- sion of "Power", but in the relation of a part to the whole. Thus the subordination, so called, is founded in the mutual association and not in the greater or less power or right to exercise discipline. It is based on the nature of an appeal, or in the seeking of advice.
The Sixth Article of the Coetus thus speaks: "Whoever may consider himself aggrieved by an act of the Coetus, shall have the right to appeal to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam. Also in matters of importance the advice of the Classis shall be obtained, according to Articles 76 and 79." These Articles, which relate to these matters, declare that the previous advice of the Classis is necessary only for the final excommunication of an offending member ; and that the deposition of an offend- ing minister can take place only by the judgment of the Classis. But his suspen- sion from his office, with all that pertains thereto, is accorded to the consistory, these things standing in relation to the Consistories and to the Classis to which they belong. This goes to confirm what has been said before, that the difference between a Consistory and a Classis does not lie so much in the greater authority, as in the greater safety and in the more probable impartiality. For the body to which the suspension from the ministry is accorded, must certainly, if need be, have also the power to excommunicate; the one thing demands as much power as the other.
Therefore Prof. Voetius calls such matters, among others, "communications", (mededelingen), and considers them as special, incidental, circumstantial and cir- cuitous affairs, different from the general, real and unalterable things pertaining to Church Government, namely, of the Netherland Church, (Part 3, page 137.) If now the Coetus, which every one must acknowledge to be in some respects greater than a Consistory, avails itself of the advice and judgment of the Classis, according to the Reformed Constitution, then a proper subordination is not rejected thereby, but is confirmed, according to the rules of the Coetus. But, since the Coetus is a differ- ent sort of Assembly from a Consistory, it should be admitted that the subordina- tion ought to be of a different kind also. Hence the Coetus explains that subordi- nation in the 10th Article as "A maintaining of fraternal correspondence with the Rev. Classis, conformably to the Constitution of the Netherland Reformed Church Order"; so that the subordination is, according to the Rules of the Coetus, brought down to a simple correspondence.
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.