USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume VI > Part 11
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
2. They further relate, how, that after peace had been restored and a new consistory chosen and installed at Jamaica, the consistories of the four united churches found themselves, by virtue of their office, in duty bound to look about for
3846
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1763
a pastor and teacher, one who might minister to all the four churches : and that, after having held meetings several times, in order to reach a proper conclusion, and thus to obey the exhortations given by the Classis, in a letter of Jan. 7, 1747, which was they should look about, at the earllest opportunity, for another pastor and teacher, the best, most godiy and most peace-loving they could find : they had found such a one in the person of Rev. Abraham Keteitas, whom they called on a salary of one hundred and thirty pounds, a parsonage and lands : and they now hope and pray that the Classis will approve this vote, and in love receive his Rev., as they (on Long Island) had received him.
(1) They give a description of this person and his qualifications, which agrees with what is mentioned of him in the two previous letters.
(2) They mention that he has accepted thelr call on the following condition : that he promises over his own signature that he would place himself under the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, so as to stand and remain subordinate to the Rev. Classis, and to be bound by the Church Order and all the laws and regulations of our Dutch Church, agreeably to the action of the National Synod, held at Dordrecht in the years 1618-19.
(3) They pray and humbly beg that the Rev. Classls will accept his Rev. as a brother, and recognize him as a member of the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam.
(4) They deciare, that hls Rev. did not visit them, but that they sought him out, and that, in consultation with neighboring ministers ; and that they called him after he had first preached all around In the four congregations. Of necessity they had allowed hls Rev. to administer fioly Baptism ; but In reference to the Lord's Supper, they would walt until they had received answer from the Rev. Classis. They are In hopes that the Classis will recognize him as a lawful minister, and ratify all that he has done.
THE CLASSIS OF AMSTERDAM TO THE CONFERENTIE, JAN. 11, 1762. Vor. 31, PAGE 169. No. 119.
To the Ministers In New York who call themselves the Conferentie, namely, G. W. Mancius, J. Rltzema, Lambertus De Ronde, J. Schuyler, John C. Fryenmoet, B. Van der Linde, U. Van Sinderen, A. Rosenkrantz and J. C. Rubel. Rev. Gentlemen and Beloved Brethren :-
Your communication of Oct. 15, 1761, with a postscript of Feb. 25, 1762, signed by John Ritzema and Lambertus De Ronde, In which you thank us for the Acts of the Synod and the accompanying letter of Jan. 13, 1761, we duly received. In addition we have since received a little book of Rev. (John) Leydt,* which did not reach us very early, and two coples of the little bookt which you (Rev. J. Ritzema) have published in answer thereto, for which we return our thanks. From these writings we learn to our grief that not only was the Unlon not accomplished between you, who call yourselves the Conferentie and those who call themselves the Coetus; but the bitterness has become stronger and the division worse.
It Is extremely sad to us to see that all our efforts and anxletles, and even our indulgences toward you, have been of no avall. We have also read with great displeasure, In the book of Rev. (John) Leydt, his reproaches and slanders, not only against the Classis of Amsterdam, but even against the Synod of North Hol- land, for thelr resolutions on these (American) matters. We, therefore, cannot be sllent on this subject. On the other hand we have read with satisfaction your book, (that of J. Rltzema), for you not only recognize the proper subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam, which the churches of your country owe to the same; but you also defend the rights of the Classis, In opposition to those who deny them.
Yet we have also learned with grief from your letter that you were not satisfied with the answer of the Classis respecting the points of difference between your- selves and those who call themselves the Coetns. You understood that answer as condemning you and favoring them. You ask us, therefore, kindly to give a cate- gorical answer on those points, asserting that else you will be obliged to carry all the points of difference, from the beginning, before the Christian Synod (of North
"Dated Aug. 12, 1760.
t Dated Oct. 15, 1761.
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3847 1763
Holland.) We have informed the Classis of your position; and that Rev. Assembly, after careful consideration of the matter, has commanded us to express her deci- sion on the two points of difference, through which the desired union then failed, and indeed, has not yet been accomplished.
1. The first point was: That decisions in matters of importance, in which there might be differences of opinion in your Assembly, should not be made by a majority of votes, but that the Classis or the Synod should decide,-the whole matter being brought up by consent of both parties; but the gentlemen who call themselves the Coetus, desired that conditions should remain as before, viz., decisions to be made by a majority of votes. But the Classis then decided that a majority of votes must decide all matters, since the very nature of any Assembly, and therefore, also of an Ecclesiastical Assembly, required such a rule; but with the understanding that protesting members might appeal to the Classis or Synod.
The opinion of this Assembly is necessarily the same yet, and it cannot be changed, because it is founded on Article 31* of our Church-Rules. To these we are all subordinate. It belongs to the very nature of any Assembly that conclu- sions must be reached by a majority of votes, including the right of appeal by those who may object. It might be advisable, however, if it would tend to peace, and to avoid division and strife, that these present matters, the cause of so much trouble, should be brought by common consent before the Classis, without your taking any decision, so as to obtain the opinion of this body.
2. The second point of dispute was the promotion of candidates into the ministry, including the right of examination .- On this matter we may speak largely and more fully, because of its great importance; and because the rightfulness of this privi- lege is violently contended for by Rev. (John) Leydt in his little book.
The opinion of the Classis has always been and is yet the same, that the churches of New Netherland have no right to hold the preparatory or final examinations, for these things distinctly belong to the Classis, as such. This opinion is founded on the 4th Article ** of the Synod of Dort (Church Government) in which this right is given to the Classis. To these Church Rules all ministers of New Netherland have bound themselves by their signatures, and this right the Classis cannot permit to the Coetus; because all churches and Consistories are subordinate to the Classis. Such submission has existed among you from the earliest times, even when you belonged to the West India Company. The same subordination was continued after the English conquered your colony, and the Classis has always maintained this opinion, and often given expression to it. As a proof of this her letter of December, 1726, is sufficient.
But that this subordination was acknowledged by the Church of New Netherland may be seen in extracts of letters sent to us from your country:
Extract from a letter written to our Classis from New York, De- cember 15 1698, and signed by Henricus Selyns and four elders.
"Although our Church now exists under his majesty of Great Britain, we are not separated from your Church and your ecclesiastical correspondence. Our parties here, as may be seen in No. 18, appeal to the opinion of your Classis, which we recognize as a competent tribunai, and with whose judgments we are satisfied."t
Extract from another letter from New York, April 24, 1700.
"We, the undersigned, in the service of the Church of God, and who have never experienced any discord in our churches or consistories, request you to devote a few hours in our behalf, and give us, after proper deliberation, your decision, etc., etc. Signed by Henricus Selyns and the Elders.
*Art. 31. "If any person consider himself aggrieved by the decision of a lesser Assembly, be shall have the liberty and right of appealing to a higher; and that which is determined by a majority of voices in such Assembly, shall be held decisive and binding, unless it can be demonstrated to be contrary to the Word of God and these Articles." Rules of Ch. Gov. as finally revised at the Synod of Dort, 1619.
** Art. 4 ........ 2nd. "In an examination or inquiry into the doctrine and morals of the person so elected " (to some church) " which shall be performed by the Classis in the presence of the Deputies of the Synod, or of some of them "
+See Vol. 2, page 1279 of these " Records "; also page 1210 for No. 18.
.
3848
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1763
Extract from a letter from the Consistory of Schenectady, Sept. +, 1700. Signed by Henricus Selyns and Gualterus Du Bois.
"Inasmuch as we are ministers sent over by the Consistory and Classis of Amsterdam, and are also members of that Classis, and on that account, are obliged to recognize your Rev. Assembly as our competent judge, and to whose decisions we refer our ecclesiastical cases; and are not permitted to recognize any other body, especially because we belong to an incorporation which the Classis of Amsterdam acknowledges, and by which our ecclesiastical affairs are reviewed," etc., etc., etc. [ See vol. 2, page 1385, of these "Records."]
That this has ever been recognized is also evident In many other letters to the Classis from Consistorles, congregations, as well as private Individuals In New Netherland. These we have preserved. In them they request the Classis, with the permission of the English Government, to send them a proper supply of min- isters. They have not only consulted us about many different matters, but have referred affairs which they could not decide themselves to our decision, and prom- Ised to subject themselves to the same. The same fact is also plainly evident In the many requests sent to the Classis at different times to allow authority to exam- Ine certain Individuals, preparatorily and finally; for example, John Schuyler, J. C. Fryenmoet, B. Van der Linde, Jobn Leydt; and to ordain them as ministers. By such Acts, the superiority of the Classis is evident. In those cases the Classis granted their requests and allowed them authority so to do, but upon the under- standing that the right, according to the Ecclesiastical Rules, belonged strictly to the Classis; but that for special reasons, she allowed, upon condition that such examinations should be conducted in nomine Classis, or In their right. Reasons were also given why the absolute power to do these things could not be granted. These may be seen in letters written to your country at the time by our Classis: namely, to the Consistory of Schoharie, In New York, on Oct. 1st, 1736; and to the Revs. Henry Boel and George W. Mancius, pastors In New York, May, 1744; and to Garret Haaghoort, R. Erlekzon, Oct. 3rd, 1746; and to G. Du Bois and John Ritzema, April 11, 1747. [ See under dates.]
Now this subordluation of the Churches of New York (to the Classis) was by no means destroyed by the establishment of the Coetus In that country; for the design of that organization was not to take away that subordination, but to unite your congregations, collectively, more closely to ours, In order to put an end to many troubles which had already begun to spring up; to simplify the matter of the cor- respondence for the Classis; and to arrange that the reports, about any differences, In which our opinion was desired, might come to us through the recognized Coetus, and not through particular Individuals. Thus would we be enabled to judge of the matter more Impartially. The Coetus also remaining subordinate to our Classis, better opportunity would be given to objectors to make their appeals to Classis. Now it is for such salutary reasons that the Classis advises the re-establishment of the Coetus.
Whatever may have been the Intention of certain ones, in your country, who, in the first place requested, with powerful arguments, the establishment of a Coctus, It is perfectly evident from many letters and documents then written to us, that it was then thought advisable that the Coetus should remain subordinate to the Classis of Amsterdam. In order to prove this it may be sufficient to quote from the letter of Sept. 12, 1737, written by Rev. Gnalterus Du Bois, In the name of the ministers assembled at New York, Sept. 7-12, and addressed to the several churches of that region, with the design of persuading them to consent to the for- mation of a Coetus. In this letter he says: "Since it must be obvious to all Impartial and observing Christians of the Reformed Church that we have the privilege of entering upon the work of making a useful Coetus here, for the reasons stated, and also that It does not, In the least, Injure our subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam", etc., etc., etc. Also In a letter of April 12, 1738, signed by Gualterus Du Bols, President, and Gerard Haaghoort, Scriba, they say that they agree with the opinion of the Classis, namely: "That It is necessary that there should be held, annually, at New York, an Assembly, or Coetus, or Convention of ministers, In order to prevent disturbances and discords and for the general welfare
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3849 1763
of the churches. Therefore they have determined to establish a yearly Assembly of ministers with a certain number of elders. They have notified the Classis of this, inasmuch as nothing should be determined on without the knowledge of Classis". "They furthermore notify the Classis that it was determined in an Assembly at New York, April 24, 25, 1738, that the effort for a Coetus should be continued. And the Coetus, say they, which is in accordance with Church Rules, is a body subordinate to the Rev. Classis, that is, to such an extent that we will ask advice, correspond and make appeals, according to Church Rules, in agreement, as churches in our country (Holland) do, with the Synod of Dort. We respect- fully ask the Classis to confirm this Coetus by their authority."
"In addition to this letter we received a series of "FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES" on which the Coetus was to be founded. We mention here, only those which refer to subordination to Classis."
Article 4: " None but ecclesiastical matters, and those in an ecclesiastical way, shall be taken up and decided in a Coetus; and always in subjection to the Classis of Amsterdam, according to Articles 30, 31, of the Church Rules."
Article 6: "Whoever feels himself aggrieved by the proceedings of the Coetus, may appeal to the Classis of Amsterdam. In cases of importance we must take the advice of the Classis, according to Articles 76 and 79, and always follow their counsel. And they who appeal to the Rev. Classis, or those for whom the Coetus asks the advice and judgment of the Rev. Classis, shall, in like manner with the Coetus itself, submit itself to that advice and judgment, according to the Church Rules."
In a letter from New York, Oct. 20th, 1738, by Gualterus Du Bois, he says, in seeking to justify the formation of the Coetus: "Fearing disturbances in our flourishing congregations, the Coetus has resolved to remain subordinate to the Rev. Classis. We intend to assist one another and to promote love toward one another, as examples," etc., etc. And a little further on, he says: "We are ready to subordinate ourselves to the High Assembly, and desire a clear division carried out in good order;" and in conclusion: "I hope that these my reasons, together with the necessity of a Coetus in this country, subordinate to the Classis of Amsterdam, may be regarded as satisfactory as well as the other letters and documents of importance; and that the Classis may be of the same opinion as myself, and all in this country, in reference to the establishment of a Coetus."
Now this shows clearly what was proposed to the Classis, and that a subordi- nated Coetus was desired. The Classis, therefore, finally, gave permission for the establishment of a Coetus on the basis of the Articles proposed. She expressed herself clearly on the matter in a letter dated August 20, 1739, addressed to Revs. G. Du Bois, B. Freeman, J. T. Frelinghuysen, R. Erickzon, A. Curtenius, G. Haag- hoort and John Schuyler-"On the condition that care was to be taken not to have a word uttered against the doctrine, and to hold neither preparatory or final exami- nations-this being matters which by the Synod of Dort were restricted to the respective Classis, and which principles were applied a few years ago in estab- lishing a Coetus in Surinam."
This declaration the Classis repeated in a letter dated, Nov. 1739, and which is alluded to in your (Ritzema's) book, page 15. The Rev. Assembly trusted your declarations in favor of establishing a Coetus subordinate to the Classis of Amster- dam; and has also written many letters to ministers who oppose it, advising them to sustain the plan. Finally, the Coetus came into existence, but subordination to our Classis remained. For in the First Coetus, held in 1747, it was resolved "that no minister or ministers shall request permission from the Classis to conduct examinations, but this shall be done only by the Coetus, to which body the student, with the proper testimonials, shall present himself. In this case, at least, the fact is clear, that only the Classis had the right to grant such privileges; and that in some circumstances at least, the examination must be asked from the Classis.
Letters were subsequently written from time to time to the Classis; the Acts of the Coetus were sent over to us, and, in matters of difference, our opinion and decision were requested. There were also requests sent up after the establishment of the Coetus, to obtain from Classis the right to qualify certain ones after exami- nation. This proves, that only the Classis had power to do such things. It is indeed true, that the Classis occasionally gave consent to the Coetus, to examine,
100
3850
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1763
as was the case of S. Verbryck, but subsequently such consent was refused. The Coetus then sent over certain gentlemen to be examined by us for llcensure and ordination, or sometimes only for ordination, As examples of these were the can- didates P. De Windt, the young gentlemen Jacobus and Ferdinand Frellnghuysen, B. Vrooman, Theodore Romeln, and William Jakson. By such Incidents you recognized the authority of Classis,
Subsequently a plan was proposed In your reglons to change the Coetus Into a Classis, and even to form a University. The Classis expressed her opinion very clearly on this matter in a letter to the Coetus of New York, Dec. 9th, 1755, which was signed by W. Peiffers as President and R. Schutte, Scribe. But there Is no allusion made to this letter in the book of Rev. Leydt. He Ignores it as If It did not exist. Yet the Classis therein gave decisions on each proposition, showing the impracticability of elther; and the bad results which would flow from elther propo- sition if successful. Furthermore the Classis wrote to the Coetus, April 5, 1756, (the letter being signed by R. Schutte, president, and J. Boskoop, scribe.) From this J. Leydt quotes and mentions In his book only one section, (page 27), and that without alluding to the expresslons, In which the change of the Coetus Into a Cinssis, In order to examine and advance candidates and ministers, and the establishment of a University, are disapproved.
In order, if possible, to carry out the plan, the matter was brought up before the Synod of North Holland in 1756, but that Assembly adopted the following answer to be sent to the churches of New York :-
1. That tire Synod conid not In any way approve of the establishment of a Classis, for the same reasons already given by the Classis of Amsterdam,
2. That the project of establishing a University or Seminary was utterly Impracticable. It was to be regarded as a chimera, as there are neither Pro- fessors of abliity In that country; or even If these could be found, there were 110 funds by which they could be supported.
3. The Synod, therefore, advises you to remain in correspondence with, as well Ra in subordination to, the Classis of Amsterdam, and unitedly to re-establish the now destroyed Coetus. The Synod further decinres that all resolutions made by the seceding parties are null and vold.
The next year, 1757, the same matter was agaln brought up by letter from your regions, before the Synod of North Holland. That Assembly held Itself to the action taken in the preceding year, giving no authority to the Classis In the matter. Concerning a particular request then made to be allowed to examine and advance a certain Adrian Van der Swan, the Synod, (fearing that more requests of a simliar nature might, from time to time, be made, to the Rev. Assembly, and that this one might be only a pretext to help you carry out your designs for separation from the Classis,) resolved to leave tils matter to the judgment of the Classis of Amsterdam, belleving that that Cinssis would act for the best Interests of the congregations.
Hence It appears that the Classis hins always been, and is yet, authorized, under the approbation of this Synod, to conduct the preparatory and final examl- nations in behalf of the churches of New Netherland. And such nuthority was not given to the Coetus, because the Synod of Dort gave it to the Classis and not to the Coctus, which is a body subordinate to a Classis.
Now such subordination Is fliegally resisted In your church; yet It Is equitable, and in accordance with the Word of God, The exhortation of Paul also justifies It-"Let all things be done decently and In order." 1 Cor. 14:40. If this Is done, then lower Assemblies must be subordinate to higher ones. This Is an essential In all societies. For such reasons there were formed, as the growth of the Church and the multipilelty of congregations demanded, Consistorles, Classes and Synods- Particular Synods and a Generai or National Synod. This was In order to pre- serve fellowship, unity of doctrine, and also to reconcile opposing parties. To the higher Assemblles were given more privlieges and powers than to the lower ones, in order that he who had any objectlons against the Acts of a lower body might appeal to a higher. This Is necessary-else why should a higher Assembly exist? How could the diverse opinions of Consistorles be reconclied, If no Classis or Synod could declde upon them? If they had no more power than a Consistory, the lower not being subordinate to the higher? Why should any one appeal, If the higher courts had no power to confirm or reject the decisions of the lower?
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3851 1763
It is obvious that there must be a graduated subordination in order to avoid a perfect Babel of confusion. Indeed, we might ask, why should there be a Coetus in your Country if it possessed no more power than any particular Consistory ? and if such Consistories were not subordinated thereto, and obliged to submit themselves, or appeal to a higher Assembly.
Such Subordinations exist also here in our country (Holland). Consistories are subordinate to Classes, and Classes to Synods. Hence the Consistory of Amster- dam, although consisting of twenty-nine ministers and so many elders, has no power to conduct preparatory or final examinations, but this power belongs only to the Classis; but the Classis consists not only of ministers and elders (of the city of) Amsterdam, but also of those of other churches, and all these together make the Classis.
[This letter, so far, is duplicated in next letter, to the Coetus.]
Inasmuch then as the Coetus is subordinate to the Classis of Amsterdam, that Classis declared, in a letter dated Jan. 7 (or 13?) 1761, that she cannot approve the promotions already made, as having been performed according to the custom of the Netherlands churches. This the Classis now reiterates. The Classis adds: But we will not be too strict, and will not altogether repudiate the things done, but will look upon them as facts accomplished. [That is, the promotions by the Coetus.] The Classis has acted thus in a few other matters, when things have . been done not exactly according to Church Order; not, indeed, because she approves of such things, but for the sake of love and peace, and to avoid the absolute revoking of accomplished facts. For there is a difference between giving permis- sion to commit a wrong act, and providing as good a remedy for the same, as possible, when the evil is done. The Classis, therefore, holds herself to her former statement, and is ready to recognize the examinations performed. This is done in the interests of love and peace, and such a course seems the best means of accomplishing these things.
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.