has successfully formulated a plan for the organization of a Classis. This must be that certain annexed document, without title or heading, signed by the President and Secretary, Sept. 19, 1754. It is stated that after this had been read twice in the Coetus, it was at last approved on the 18th of September; and again unanimously, on the 19th of September. Furthermore, we read in the letter of September 30, 1755, as follows: "That Rev. Frelinghuysen and certain of his followers, have resolved to act in an entirely different way, that they frustrate your plans; that he makes visits without consent of his Consistory, and that there are many other irregularities too tedious now to repeat; and that all this is done not only to establish a Classis, but a University for the Dutch Reformed; also that he, according to your letter, has organized a separate Coetus!" How large an undertaking! What wonderful plans! We are, gentlemen, not only overwhelmed with amazement, but also deeply grieved at all this discord, which, notwithstanding all our efforts to establish peace, still abounds among the foreign churches, and especially in the Church of New York. Moreover, the communications we receive, and the phraseology of the Acta Coetus, are so defective, often, that we must sometimes only guess at the leaning of them. After the closest scrutiny we are not able to know what the opinions of the churches are, to which the Circular was sent, about this matter. We cannot ascertain how large the number is of those who declare themselves on your side, (Ritzema's), nor the number of those who side with Rev. Frelinghuysen and the Coetus. We learn from a letter of the Consistory of New York, dated Oct. 17, 1754, that they are not at all in favor of changing the Coetus into a Classis, and for reasons which cannot be ignored. The idea of Rev. (Theodore) Frelinghuysen is indeed grand, and f it is as important as it is thought, the best. But the Classis, vith all the acuteness it possesses, is not able to imagine in what lace, or by what authority, or by what means, or out of what reasury, that University is to be established; neither where the Professor will be found who is to teach in that University. 1755 1755 Indeed, the Classis, not having been at all consulted in the matter, is not obliged to weary its brains in seeking to interpret this enigma; especially since the opportunity is given to exercise our patience, and to wait for the time when this new phenomenon shall appear in the American Ecclesiastical Heavens. In that country there seems to be the right, if indeed it be true, and some seem to have the boldness and even take the liberty, without consent of their Consistory, to travel about for ten or twelve weeks. Further, we cannot hide our fear, that the disturbances and divisions, with which this airy castle begins to be built, can be destroyed any sooner than the (airy) building itself. It is not only these things which displease us, brethren, (but also the very act of attempting to establish a Classis); for we cannot see sufficient reasons why the Coetus should be changed inte a Classis at all. All changes, especially in church-matters, are important and should be very carefully considered, before they are made, in order to avoid worse conditions than existed before. Indeed, you can already see, at the very beginning of these changes, that it would have been better not to have entered upon them at all. And we pray you, brethren, (to consider): Are not the reasons of the New York Consistory important, when they say: 1. That the power, in that country, of a Classis would be less than that of a Coetus: (1) Because it is only the ambition of some that has given occasion for it. (2) Because the power of a Classis without the power of government* is just as little as that of the Coetus. (3) Because greater power, (if possessed) would give an oppor tunity of diminishing their power, by a limitation of their liberty. 2. They disapprove the making of candidates and ministers in that country: (1) Because there is no opportunity to pursue a proper course of study. This, no doubt, refers to the fact that they could not enforce anything, because the civil government was English. The idea of entire separation of church and state was yet quite incomprehensi (2) Because they would become too much alienated from the hurches of the Mother-country, especially because there are some who do not much regard the formulas of subscriptions when they ave entered upon the ministerial office. 3. It is feared that the party-spirit which has heretofore preailed in the Coetus, according to them, (Ritzema and his friends) would not cease if a Classis were formed. Such are the reasons why they (Ritzema and his friends,) have not been able to consent to the formation of a Classis. To these reasons of theirs, we have not seen any reply from you. You, however, give two reasons for such a change: (1) Because the Coetus cannot give sufficient reasons from the Church Order, for its existence; for it is neither a Consistory, nor a Classis, nor a Synod. But a reply can easily be made to this. Your Assembly is indeed neither a Consistory, nor a Classis, nor a Synod; but it is a Coetus: that is, an Assembly which gives counsel in certain matters, being itself subordinate to the Classis of Amsterdam. That the name COETUS is not unknown in the Church Order you may discover in the Register of Ministers. Similar Assemblies, although not with the same name, exist in Cape Colony, in Batavia and in Surinam. In a word we consider that we have nothing to do with the mere name, or the simple matter of consistency, but with the authority and extension of power. (2) The second reason is obvious enough in your communication, viz., (a) That the Coetus has no power either to make final decisions, or to ordain candidates. But this, Gentlemen, is the very reason why we fear such an Assembly (as you propose,) why we, not only, do not give the name, much less the character of a Synod (Classis?) to your Assembly. For, Sirs, would such a course be safe? Would it not be as good as cutting you entirely loose from our Church? Can the examinations of candidates and ministers be as properly done in your country, as here under our Synodical authority in the large Classes which here exist? Considering your conduct as well as the style of your composition, (excuse us for 1755 1755 so speaking), have we good grounds for believing that the Coetus, if it became an independent Classis, could sustain itself in such a character? (b) On the subject of the difficulties involved, and the tediousness of proceedings under the present arrangement in that matters have to be referred to the Classis of Amsterdam and then returned again, we answer: The same difficulties not only exist in the churches of the East Indies, but those churches are more ready to accept the resolutions of these our Synods than even our own Classes here in our country. Now from all this you can easily learn what our opinion is, namely, to preserve the Coetus, (for a Coetus was indeed the original desire of the majority of you), and to purify it from its evils. Finally, there is your argument against the enterprise of Rev. (Theodore) Frelinghuysen before the Synod of North Holland. We received a letter for that Synod on this subject. The Classis is of the opinion, (always giving attention to the Church in general, and especially to the church of New York,) that your argument cannot be presented more advantageously than by the living voice of their committee, next year, in the Synod. The Classis promises to prevent all such extraordinary plans in the future, (as have appeared in the past,) and to support you with all energy as the Coetus of New York. We do so especially, because you say in a postscript to your letter "that in order to avoid a duplicate writing to the Synod, a sufficient report is given by Domines Curtenius and Ritzema, with which you are satisfied." Finally, we recognize you as a United Coetus. It will be agree able to us to keep up a brotherly correspondence with you, in order to promote the welfare of your churches. This we show by sending you the Acts of the Synod of North Holland for the present year. (1755.) Concerning the action of Rev. Mancius in the affair of Queens County, we have already expressed our opinion in a letter which we hope may bear fruit. We also pray God to bless you in your attempts to adjust the troubles with Rev. Meinema at Fishkill, as well as the considerations in the matter of Jacob Outwater. We commend you to God and the word of his grace, while we wish you all wisdom, light and assistance. We consider ourselves, Rev. Sirs, and much-beloved brethren, Your obedient and humble servants and brethren, In the Name of the Classis of Amsterdam. W. Peiffers, Depp. Cl. h. t. Praeses. R. Schutte, Depp. Cl. h. t. Scriba. Amsterdam, in our Classical Assembly, Dec. 9, 1755. This letter with the Acts of the Synod of North Holland are sent on January 10th, 1756, with Capt. John Woldrong. CHURCH OF NEW YORK. Schoolmaster Welp. The Church of New York to Messrs. Jan Dreves, T. Schoute and Mr. Cornelius Clopper, one of our members, has already informed you, by an unexpected opportunity of writing, of the safe arrival here of Mr. Johan Nicolas Welp, with his wife and children, all in good health. We, however, feel ourselves further bound in the highest degree to express our obligations to you, and thankfully acknowledge your trouble and care for us; and we are quite ready to reciprocate, if there is anything which can be done on our part. As to the small costs mentioned by Mr. Bording, we send herewith by Capt. Anthony Rutgers, four Spanish pieces of Eight, with the direction to pay, in our name, whatever else may be due. You justly expect to learn from us whether Mr. Welp meets our expectation. We can say, although the matter is new as yet, that there is nothing to give us fear that we shall regret the heavy and unusual cost of obtaining a man from Holland for such a service. His testimonials are laudatory, and the experience of his work, 1755 |