USA > New York > Ecclesiastical records, state of New York, Volume VI > Part 28
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
Worthy Fathers ! the way our affairs were dealt with in Holland led me to make a resolution-I cannot deny it-that I would never again take part in any attempt to promote further relationship (combination) of our churches with those of Holland. Nevertheless, upon second consideration, I concluded again to try to do something to place our affairs upon such a footing as is presented to your Revs. in the letter of our Coetus, (of this same date.) The Third Article, concerning the limitations of the " subordination ", is left somewhat indefinite, for fear of infringing on the rights of the Civil Government. I think I can positively assure your Revs., that if our propositions are listened to, the Rev. Coetus will easily be brought into a closer alliance (with the Church of Holland), so as to allow your Revs. decisions to have the power of conclusive verdicts in every particular, in all such cases as are mentioned in the said letter of the Coetus. Nevertheless, it is true that the laws of our land do not permit us to transfer to your Revs., any supreme authority or jurisdiction over us ; but I do not think those laws would prevent us from mutually allying ourselves together, in order that we might take your Revs. judgments by way of advice ; and that we might permit the same to have the power of a conclusive verdict among us, on the strength of the said alliance between us.
I think that this would at once remove all well-grounded objections concerning the possible introduction of any errors (of doctrine), the exercise of authority, or the separation of our Church from the Church of the Netherlands. And the danger of introducing ignorant persons into the ministry can also be effectually remedied by the establishment of a Seminary here. It cannot be denied that there is likelihood enough of our succeeding in this. For we have already presented a petition for a CHARTER for such a Seminary, to his Excellency, the Governor of this Province, (New Jersey), and we have good reason to hope that we may obtain it, especially if we (the Coetus and Conferentie parties) again unite together. Indeed, it would then be certain. And our ability to raise an endowment is much greater than was that of either the Episcopalians, (1754), or the Presbyterians (1746) when they established their Seminaries (or Colleges.) Why, then, may we not establish a School as well as they ?
Worthy Fathers ! if your Revs. do not avail yourselves of this opportunity to intervene in our behalf, and also to modify your own demands a little, on your side of the case, God only knows where our disputes will finally end. Inasmuch as the High Rev. Synod has declared that the Sovereign of Holland will never consent that the Rev. Coetus should, either partially or fully, be a member of that High Rev. Assembly, because said Coetus exists under another Civil Power, our affairs may have been brought much more to the notice of the Authorities over here than ever before. For they reason thus :- If the Sovereign of Holland will not permit the Coetus to have any voice in their (Netherlands) Church Assemblies for fear of some evil results : is it safe for us, (the English authorities of New York), to permit the highest Church jurisdiction over them, to inhere in a Church Assembly so closely allied to the State (a Foreign State), and which Assembly is entirely under the control of another Sovereign.
Take as an illustration of this, the following; The Rev. Consistory of Esopus (Kingston), where domine Harmanus Meyer has a church, is in favor of the subordination demanded. Domine Meyer at first held back from it (the subordina- tion) a little, but finally yielded to the Consistory. But even before his resolution had been taken, the local government of that place had interfered, and insisted that domine Meyer should take that oath, of which the Rev. Coetus has sent you a copy. The Civil authorities said also to the Consistory that its members might expect to be required to do the same thing, if they should subordinate themselves (to the Church of Holland.) Upon this, the Consistory sought advice from all the more eminent lawyers in the city of New York, asking if it was in the power of the (Civil) government to demand this oath of them. One of the most eminent of those lawyers subsequently told me personally, that it was the unanimous opinion of the
107
-
3962
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1764
lawyers, that any two Justices of the Peace had it in their power to demand an oath from any one they saw fit; and that those who refused to take it would ruin them- selves thereby. The Council (Governor's Council) having received this opinion from this lawyer, then asked him the following question : "If that is the case, and one had taken such an oath, could he not, then, subordinate himself (to the Church of Holland) ?" Ralsing his hand, the lawyer answered : If they believe that there is a God in heaven, they cannot do it.
Last week I heard a Justice of the Peace of that vicinity say, that that Consistory would have to submit to the taking of that oath, or they would ruin them. And we are obliged to expect that this same thing will occur in other localitles. Now if these tumuits reach the ears of the Government in England, then I myself, with many others, fear for bad consequences. Therefore, I beseech your Revs. to modify somewhat your peremptory requests. Do not think, my dear Sirs. that I speak thus from any fear that the Rev. Coetus will lose ground by the new measures you are now pursuing. No, indeed. On the other hand, I am sure that the Coetus has gained more, since the arrival of your last letters than she ever did before. The ministers of Albany, Kingston and the one who has recently come to New York- and these three places are the principal places in the Province-refuse to submit to that Subordination which you have proclaimed and demanded. And in this mat- ter, the Civil Government has the Coetus on its side. It is, therefore, by no means this (civii favor) which I seek, but the real welfare of the Church. And I have no desire to see her separated from the Netherlands Church.
It also seems to me that your Revs. ought not to give too much place to indigna- tion against that pamphlet of Domine Leydt, (see Aug. 12, 1760,) so that, in retaliation therefor, the Church of Christ should be made to suffer. I heard his Rev. declare in our last General Church Assembly, heid in New York, that he was sorry If anything had come from his pen, which had given any just cause of offence to your Revs., or to the High Rev. Synod. I hope and sincerely desire that your Revs. will find it convenient to adopt those proposals of ours, (in letter of Coetus of Oct. 12, 1764).
When I was in Holland, I hinted at the troubles and divisions to Domine Budde, In the Church of Fishkill ; but since that time they have greatly increased. The Rev. Coetus made a short report ou that matter, and, In addition to what I heard, I expect your Revs. will be Informed that nearly the whole congregation has become opposed to the (old and legal) Consistory. I have also requested that Consistory to give me an exact report of their condition-how many are in their favor, and how many are opposed to them. They answered me in a communication under their own signatures, that 75 heads of families had signed in favor of the call to Domine Henricus Frelinghuysen ; and that the Conferentie party had told them that they had SO on their ilst. Nevertheless the Rev Consistory are aware that there are many who had signed for their party, (the Conferentle party) who now expressly declare that they will not pay the salary they had promised, even if that party (the Conferentie) should obtain a minister ; because those who had obtained their signa- tures, had told them that this was done with the consent of the Rev. Consistory ; while, in fact, It was done in direct opposition to them. Please take notice that all this took place before the formation of the anti-Consistory (by Freyenmoet. ) Nearly two-thirds of the members of the church side with the (legal) Consistory ; while ali the members that side with their Consistory, are male members, and only just enough to constitute the anti-Consistory. (The other members of this party were not members of the church). This is given only for Information.
The Rev. Coetus has adherents, more or less, in almost all the congregations which side with the Conferentie. If, then, the members of the latter be endorsed, and the members of the llev. Coetus ( In those congregations) be nagged to agree with them, what shall the end be? Can the mere belonging to the Coetus or the Conferentie party ever be a sufficient reason for deposing an entire Consistory ?
When I was in Amsterdam I was Informed that about the time that Domine Theodore Frelinghuysen was visiting Holland, (1760), a letter was given to the Rev. Classis signed with my name. Up to that time, I had never signed my name to any paper which was sent to the Rev. Classis. My name had undoubtedly been used by some mistake. While In Amsterdam, therefore, I made request to see that letter ; but on account of the multitude of business engagements and the shortness of my stay, I failed to find it. I kindly request that the same may be sent to me. I think
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3963
1764
I have a right to make this request. I think it will be found among the papers dated October, 1759. Let not this be denied me !
In presenting my services to you, and my earnest wish of all happiness and blessings to you, together with friendly and hearty greetings, I have the honor, Right Rev. Sirs, and Much Esteemed Fathers in Christ, to call myself, and to be Your Revs. D. W. D. and loving brother,
Jacob R. Hardenbergh, V. D. M.
Raritan, Oct. 12, 1764.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM AMERICA.
The Coetus of New York to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, October [3 ?] 13, 1764. Vol. 33, page 82, No. 354.
To the Right Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, Right Rev. Sirs and Much Beloved Brethren :-
The letter of your Revs. of January 11, (1764), and of Oct. 3rd 1763, reached us safely. According to the request of the Rev. Conferentie which followed (upon your letters) the Rev. Coetus attended a General Meeting (of the two Bodies) held in New York, June 19, 1764. The result of that Meeting may be seen in Document number One.
In the present condition of affairs we do not feel disposed to answer the above mentioned letters! for we can plainly foresee where the matter in dispute so apparent in them, will end, if it be followed up in debate. We would rather make still another attempt, with all indulgence possible, to settle these disputes by some accommodation.
Rev. Sirs, if we were inclined to introduce complete (ecclesiastical) independence for ourselves, we would long ere this, have given up all correspondence with the Netherlands Church. We could rest assured, in doing this, that we need not fear any loss of Classical or Synodical privileges, because we are the free subjects of the English Crown. It, therefore, remains to our free choice whether we shall keep up Correspondence and Union if such a thing is possible, with the Church of the Netherlands, or not. However desirable these things may appear to us, as well as mutual love and peace, nevertheless, we must say, although we do it with sorrow, that we cannot submit ourselves to all that is demanded of us in your letter, without wounding our consciences.
We therefore make this friendly and brotherly request that the following objec- tions receive your careful deliberation.
1. We cannot at present content ourselves with the reasons given for the subor- dination (to the Classis) demanded of us. We believe that any subordination to a Church, which is destitute of all power, (being under another civil government) is plainly contrary to the Netherlands Church Constitution. Besides the works of others, look at the renowned Professor, John Hoornbeek's "Summa Controver- sium", page 666. That it, (the relation of the American churches to the Church of Holland?) increases and regulates this (American Church?) we admit with all pleasure. The reasons given in support of subordination, and in advocacy of the demand, appear, more or less evidently, to be as follows:
(1) From the right of having planted these churches (in America). But that this does not confer the least right or power, nor deprive those who are planted of all power, is, in our opinion, confirmed by the renowned Professor, Gysbert Voetius, Pol. Eccl., Vol. i, Part 1, pages 104-108.
(2) But to be more direct, let me speak of the membership of our ministers in your Rev. Classis. This is taken for granted; but in all your letters, you do not give one conclusive reason to establish it. Nevertheless, this (the fact of such membership) appears to be the basis upon which all your reasons for the support of said subordination rest. But it seems to us as clear as day light, that we were never such real members of your Rev. Classis, as you claim.
For (a) When and where were the Formulas, which belong to such a membership, complied with on our behalf. Such as the presentation of the proper credentials;
1
- -
3964
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1764
subscribing to the local laws; taking part in the Acts of the Classical Assembly; and being qualified to receive the right of voting.
(h) Why did the Rev. ClassIs refuse a seat in thelr Classical Assembly to domine John Frelinghuysen, (in 1749), who was qualified in Amsterdam as minister over the churches on the Raritan? Or are we ouly members of the Classis that the Classis may deprive us of our rights? Has not one member as much right to a seat in the Classis as another?
(c) And how Is this (right to Classical membership) to be reconciled with the last resolution of the Synod of North Holland, which deciares, that the Sovereign of that land will never allow any member or members of the Rev. Coetus to compose a part of that Holy Rev. (Synodical) Assembly.
If we are really members of your Rev. Classis, and on an equal footing, in this respect, with the twenty-nine mlnlsters of Amsterdam, are we not then also capable of being members of that Rev. Synod? But If, In reality, we are not at all members of your Rov. Classis, as, Indeed, we are not, what force thou, can your Revs.' arguments have, to convince our consciences? for your arguments are based upon this suppositlou, (that we are members of Classis.)
However the dispute over here is not concerning the historical account of an affair that Is past; but concerning the possession or non-possession of the right and the power in regard to our own affairs. The Rev. Coetus does not promote (ordain) in quality as members of the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, but as a company of neighboring ministers, to whom the pastorai office, with all that belongs to it. is entrusted. Now the power to promote (ordin) is un essential part of this office. See John Hoornbeek's Letter Book, i, pages 165, 682, 686. This also fully coln- cides with the Church Order of the Synod of Dort. Compare Art. 4 with Art. 41. (Art. 4. declares that a call to the ministry consists of the free choice of the Con- sistory; an examination into the doctrine and morais of the person chosen; of the approbation of the church-members; and in public ordination, necording to the Form, with imposition of hands by the minister presiding.
Art. 41. declares that a Classis shafi consist of neighboring churches, each of which shall send a minister and elder with proper credentials, etc.)
See also the arrangements for examinntions and promotion, made by all the previous National Synods of the Netherlands. We also believe that the equality of ministers Is clearly set forth in the Word of God, In the Netherlands Articies of Faith, and In the National Decrees. We are, therefore, not at liberty to be led astray by any example of citation of past things. It strengthens us also not a little, that such respectable men, who are approved in the Netherlands, as, for example, Professor Geysbert Voetlus in his "Polit. Eccles.", und Professor John Hoornbeek in his "Miss. Sac.", Frederick Spanheym, In his "Miss. Sac. nntiq.". have all advocated our case In such an energetic way.
Besides, It Is to be borne in mind that your Revs.' arguments will have just us much weight a hundred years hence, as now; and according to a moderate cuicula- tion, the Dutch (in America) will then, (1864) by a proportionate growth, consist of a thousand congregations; and will need, accordingly, ut least five or six hundred ministers. Let such circumstances declare what your arguments would be worth under such conditions. Taking all this into consideration, the Rev. Coctus must conclude with the words of the renowned Prof. G. Voetius :- Non debebat tale quid chivl aut concedi ab una parte contralentinm nec ab aftera parte petl aut accipi: (No such thing ought to be granted or conceded by the one part of those assembled, nor to be demanded or accepted of the other part.) See his reasons, Polit. Eccles. Vol. 1. Part 1, page 224, Question 15.
II. If in this land the opportunity is not given and further developed to provide ministers for the Dutch Church, we cannot fail to foresee that that Church will soon go to ruin. Passing by other weighty reasons, take only in proof the situation of these Colonies and the opportunities. For example: It is much more to the prejudice of our (American) Church, than it is of any of the other Churches of the Netherlands Colonies, (East Indies, Cape of Good Hope, West India Islands), to be obliged to obtain her ministers from Holland. This may be indisputably demon- strated by the following facts:
1. Everybody knows that nearly all the denominations around us prepare their ministers in this land and thus send them forth. They have, then, the opportunity to preach and establish congregations among the scattered people of this land,
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
3965 1764
because they are ever ready to admit a sufficient number to the Holy Office. But the few (Dutch) ministers who are here have their bands more than full to serve the wants of the already established, but vacant congregations. For, on account of the dangers, difficulties and heavy expenses, it is impossible to secure a suffi- cient number of young men for the Holy Office, if they must first go to the Nether- lands (for ordination). Many of the established congregations do not dare to run the risk of sending (their young men) to the Netherlands; while those who are scattered here and there among the English cannot afford to do this. Under such circumstances hundreds are allured away to other denominations, since they can- not be provided with ministers as they should be. But could not this deadly evil be effectually remedied, by admitting ministers to this holy service here in this country, even as do other denominations.
2. What has been said become still more evident if we compare the English Episcopalians and the Presbyterian Churches in this land with each other. The former is the "State Church" of England. Its adherents have the civil government chiefly in their hands. In short, in regard to all political rights, this Church has all the privileges imaginable above other denominations; yet the Presbyterians have established ten congregations in these two Provinces, to the Episcopalians one. Now what can be the reason of this? Only this: that those churches, being gov- erned by Bishops must receive their ministers from Europe; while the Presbyte- rians, through the advice and help of the Church of Scotland, have been provided, from their first settlement, with the privileges of admitting their young men to this Holy Office.
Men and Brethren, do your Revs. not clearly see that if your Revs. had acted in regard to the Dutch Church as the Scotch have done in regard to the Presby- terian Church, the present number of our congregations would have been more than double? And both the Episcopalians (Bischoppelyken) and the Presbyterians have built up their churches on the ruin of ours.
3. In the midst of us and all around us, the Seminaries of the Independents, of the Episcopalians and of the Presbyterians have already become seven or eight in number. And what will be the effect of all this? The Hollanders must either necessarily deny their children a free education, and thus relinquish all these advan- tages to others; or else send them to one of these schools. The inevitable result of this would be the alienation of their hearts from the Netherland doctrine and discipline. Only just imagine that our Church continues to receive, from time to time all her ministers from Holland; but, on the other hand, that the rising youth, who will soon hold the government and influence in both Church and State, receive their education in the Seminaries of these different denominations. By such a course, will not the (Dutch) Church finally go down altogether, unobserved.
4. Every one must understand, that since the political government and the entire business of the land are conducted in the English language, English schools are necessary, and Dutch schools are already passing away. The Dutch language will also certainly fall into disuse, and the English will everywhere take its place. Must then the religion (of the Dutch Church) go down with the language? Or how can this danger be remedied? It is simply impracticable to receive a sufficient number (of ministers) from Holland, especially such as would be able to perform service in the English tongue. To send a sufficient number (of our young men) from America to Holland to attend the Academies of your Revs., is impossible, even as has been said before. Who, then, does not see that the Church must go down, unless we have our own ecclesiastical Assemblies and Schools over here.
III. We send enclosed in this letter, a copy of an oath, (marked number 2), which some of us have taken in due form, and others, when required, are bound to take, under such penalty as is mentioned in the copy. Now who can, in good conscience, take such an oath, and then submit himself to subordination (of, to us, a Church in another nation) as proclaimed and demanded. The High Rev. Synod declares, that she can neither partly nor entirely accept of members of the Coetus . (as a part of her body), because the Coetus is subject to another Sovereign. How, then, can your Revs. deliberately demand of us such a "subordination", when the entire Church jurisdiction over us, (the Synod?) adjudges our Assembly (the Coetus) to be subject to another Sovereign? Is not such subordination diametrically opposed to the said oath and to the fundamental laws of our kingdom? The Eighth Article of the terms of capitulation, (1664), may serve you to deny our request; but
-
3966
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS
1764
this will by no means ward off the dissatisfaction of our Sovereign when we have once aroused it. See the opinion of two of our principal lawyers, on this point, in Document, marked 3.
Thus your Right Revs. will perceive that if we are pressed to submit uncondi- tionally to the said "Subordination", or else to break off all correspondence, we will be compelled to choose the latter. We say "compelled to choose"; because the Coetus has already shown her desire to maintain some sort of relationship with the Church of the Netherlands on the ground of the Constitution of said Church. And she yet inclined that way. But since it is impossible to maintain a relationship which rests on membership (in the Classis and Synod), we will gladly consent to a "relationship" not depending on membership, so far as circumstances and the laws of citizenship of our country, and sound views of Church Government, permit.
The Rev. Coetus has explained to the Rev. Conferentie, as she now does also to your Revs., that on these conditions she is willing, according to the advice of the Synod, to hold herself in a proper subordination to the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam. This proper subordination, or rather "Church Relationship" (Combination) she wants thus explained and understood. It must Include the power to ereet Seminarles, to ordain, and henceforth to do all those things that an Assembly of neighboring Church officers In the Netherlands may do. As her presupposed right, she desires, however, to enjoy the privilege to bring sald "Relationship" under the following regulations:
1. The Coetus shall yearly communicate her Acts to the Rev. Classis by means of correspondence.
2. That when any Important matter arises concerning which the Rev. (Coetns) Assembly needs speclal Ight, she shall lay such matter before the Rev. Classis and abide by her advice.
3. That In case of differences among us concerning doctrine or manner of life, which we cannot settle correctly or bring to a satisfactory termination, after regu- lar process, that we may then present such a case, prepared In an orderly manner by the Rev. (Coetns) Assembly, before the Rev. Classis of Amsterdam, or, If neces- sary, before the High Rev. Synod. That the Rev. (Coetus) Assembly binds Itself, to allow the adrice thus glyen, according to the circumstances of the dispute, to bave the strength of a decisive verdiet among us, so far as the laws of our said (British) kingdom permit.
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.