1760

forbid the common people the use of the Bible. Would it, for that reason. unlawful (to read the Bible)? It might forbid the bishops (ministers) of the Ch to marry. Would that make their marriage illegal or dishonorable? It might mand the reverencing of images, or praying to the saints, or considering the Clas Itself infallible. Would that make such things legal and right? Of course, no son of the Reformed faith can hold such views.

And no more can an ordination, which is performed in the Name of Christ. # according to his Word, and in conformity with the real Constitution of the Chart be illegal, even if the Classis had expressly forbidden it. That, however, has yet been done; neither could a command of the Classis make it lawful. Theres the conclusion is that that which is so absurd that it cannot be regarded as a hibition, much less a positive prohibition, and which, (whatever it is), has been repealed, the contrary (promotions) having been permitted to some extent, can b wise serve the purpose of this Third Article (of the Conferentie).

Rumor mentions also another subsequent letter, which, it is said must have bet written not long after the first meeting of the Coetus. This letter, also, I de have in my possession, and so I cannot quote the exact words; but I can see enough that it is of the same import as the previous one, namely, “We de permit", etc. This is sufficiently answered in what has been said before. There is still another letter from the Classis, dated April 5, 1756, which I possess, and to which, in connection with the mentioning of the Synod, refere must be made. For a better understanding I give the entire paragraph relating this matter as it reads:-"With heartfelt urgency and with all sincerity, we ad the restoration of the divided Coetus; inasmuch as the Classis of Amsterdam essiders all the special sessions, resolutions, censures, projects, etc., of the one party as well as of the other, from the time that the unfortunate disruption took pl as null and void; and also that the Classis can do nothing of importance until y Revs. shall have settled matters, and united together again in a Coetus." Thus Classis speak in this letter.

1. Nothing is really said here about "promotions" And in the same way that might want to make it apply to promotions, so it might be made to apply to eve thing which pertains to the ministry. In particular: It might be made to apply "meetings" to seek reunion. These would then also be expressly forbidden, s** "meetings" are named; since they too, are then illegal, they could not be bell Although Classis so strongly urges union, it could never be effected.

2. Licensure and ordination cannot be referred to in this letter, except there be contradiction of terms; for the Classis says that it cannot accomplish anythin while conditions are as they are. Hence it does not positively forbid promotions » they are not excluded by name.

3. Should it be urged, however, that the prohibition sought for is, in fact, included It is not, as one says, expressly stated. And, if it were, the Classis has by imp tion revoked it in its last letter, which caused the renewed efforts for peste, !" saying: "That the Classis is wholly unable to judge about our matters, for it against the one party or the other." Now, how can that be forbidden which 3 incapable of being judged? In the same letter, even they in some degree app of these things, by saying, "even though some good results might be secured." T seems to have ordinations (promotions) specially in view; for they subsequent ask, whether, in other respects, greater harm would not be done? To this I answet No; for things can hardly be worse than they have been heretofore.

4. Those candidates or ministers whom our Brethren think they must reject the strength of this prohibition of Classis, cannot be included therein, for th letter (of Classis) was written long before the Coetus effected the first of those motions. Now, an effect cannot precede its cause. If the prohibition anticip such acts, the transgression of it would be blamable. But the Classis cannot be meant that by it; for subsequently it kent wholly silent about these prometi although the Coetus, and probably s of the Coetus also, gave

formation of them every time, although in what form, I don't know. But this I o know, that the Classis never wrote the least disapproval of them to the Coetus, ecause it well knew that it could not disapprove them, without contradicting its wn Constitution and Acts.

ACTION OF THE SYNOD.

The (Conferentie) Brethren also think that their disapproval is confirmed by the uthority of the Synod. I will give the words of the Synod which are as follows: The Christian Synod advises them to remain in correspondence with, and in subection to the Classis of Amsterdam, and to strive unanimously for the restoration f the Coetus, which had so unhappily become divided; adding, that all the Acts, lopted by either of the dissevered fragments, or such as may hereafter be adopted y them, are declared to be null and void, and will be held to be of no value." This as done July 27, 1756.

Before this can be applied to the Coetus, it must be proved that the Coetus is a
issevered fragment. But I deny this, without just now giving my reasons there-
r. I have already discussed everything relating to these promotions-(licensings
: ordinations). But said Act is not so much an Act of the Synod as of the Classis;
or the Synod, at first, was determined to postpone the business considering that it
ad not yet been fully matured. And no wonder; for they had the documents of
aly one of the parties. But when they were further enlightened, as they express
, by the Classis of Amsterdam, the Synod then took this action. For the Classis
ad undertaken to defend the (opponents of the) Coetus, before the Synod, on the
asis of the documents of one side only. Is this according to the Dutch motto:
Audi et alteram partem"? Nevertheless, thus far, God has prevented that party
om triumphing over the Coetus.

At this point I must make another observation on the singular, the presumptuous,
ot to say incredible declaration, that "the resolutions which may hereafter be
lopted are invalid": whether they be good or evil, just or unjust, profitable or
jurious; yea, a resolution looking to peace must, on that account, be invalid. One
ads, indeed, of papal absolutions and excommunications, which forgive or retain
ns, future as well as past and present; but I have never before come across the
›ing of such a thing by an Assembly of the Reformed Church. However, I cannot
elieve that they intended that their words should reach so far, although the sen-
nce seems to convey that idea. But I believe that their aim was to attain peace,
id, to that end, to employ startling means, as if no others were near at hand.
At any rate, the sentence could not have alluded especally to the subject of pro-
otions, because that was not the subject under discussion, and therefore the sub-
ct of "promotions" was not involved in the declaration. Also, in the following
ear, that subject was left entirely out, although the disapproval of the Classis
as repeated. And in the second year following, the Synod referred the whole
atter back to the Classis of Amsterdam. Upon the receipt of what further infor-
ation this was done, I have not yet learned. Nor can I comprehend, and har-
onize with the constitution, the reference of a matter by a greater body to a less.
ne would say, I think, that an action has thereby become invalid (or weakened?)
The Synod, on being recently asked for permission to make a particular ordination
romotion)—I do not now say by whom, and for whom-feared that by granting
is request, it might lay a bridge for the project of hereafter acting in a Classical
pacity. The Synod speaks softly about granting the right to ordain, as though
willing itself to be at the bottom of it. Neither ought it to be; for I would
serve, that a firm foundation has already been laid, and a highway opened by the
ord Jesus Christ, for this, as well as some other matters. Thereore, in respect to
is matter, no human bridges are needed. If it (the Classis or Synod) is able to,
ad is willing to give us fraternal help by word and deed, I for one, desire and
ay for the same.

1760

1760

FURTHER REMARKS ON THE POSITION OF THE CONFERENTIE AND

THE RIGHT OF ORDINATION.

I do not know of anything else coming from Classis or Synod that I can now adduce. If the (Conferentie) Brethren have anything more to support them in their positions, they will have to communicate it. For in all that has been adduced (from Classis or Synod), no express mention is made of either promotions or prohibitions. In my judgment, there can be no express prohibition without subverting the Reformed Church Constitution. What one may think of draining out of the Constitution by inference, is another matter, and not to the point here. And ever since these things (promotions) have been done, neither Classis nor Synod has made the slightest protest against them; but such protest would certainly have followed, if they had had such prohibition in mind. Is it not, then, rather a bold venture on the part of our (Conferentie) Brethren, and that without the presence of elders, to go beyond Classis and Synod in respect to such disapprovals? And to establish conditions which these bodies have not even hinted at? Are these preliminary Articles looking toward peace really wise and prudent? Had the Coetus taken exception to those who caused unchurchly breaches in the congregations, until such time as they made satisfaction, would not the remark readily have been made, "You are disturbing the peace?" And yet there would justly have been more ground for doing that. May not their act, then, be justly called "a disturbing of the peace?" Especially so, because upon this, their foundation, unstable as it is, they proceed to demand a reordination (of those ordained by the Coetus.) They say, "they cannot recognize those who have been promoted, except upon the order of those, whom they recognize, as having the right and power to transmit the authority thereunto. This power must refer to that of the Classis or the Synod, or to both. Their having the right and power to transmit such authority requires proof from the Word of God, and from the Constitution of the Reformed Church. I believe that such proof will be found lacking. Have they the power and right to ordain? It is well. There their power must end. This I will subsequently establish. If they have not the power and right thereto, then their alleged ground for a re-ordination falls away.

How our Brethren could so easily, not to say thoughtlessly, have come to make a demand for a re-ordination, I, indeed, know not; since the fact is, owing to the variety of questions involved, (in ordinations), and the serious results following. there is even more reason for not going to work lightly in such a matter, than in that of re-baptizing. Synodical enactments disapprove, in cases of baptism performed by papal priests and other irregulars, of re-baptisms, if only the Form has been used as given in God's Word. So, if in examining and promoting, the Coetas has observed, not only the actual requirements of God's Word, but also the important details of the Reformed Church Constitution, so that it has been done correctly. ecclesiastically considered, then the demand (for re-ordination) is unfounded as well as foolish. Yes, I doubt whether in our whole country they will find one gentine Consistory which will fully agree with them in this matter. Nor can I believe that any Reformed Classis or Synod can be brought to accept this idea of theirs, much less to give such order for a re-ordination.

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 ever again. The Coetus itself has offered to prove its right and authority on this patt I shall subject to correction, enlarge a little on this subject. If I can thus serve

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; especially 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 eonsent, 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 themselves, 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 regulatlons, 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, "Whatsoever 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 edification 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

1760

1760

congregations to seek a closer union in a Classis or Synod. The proofs he says, an partly real and partly figurative, (eygendlyk, oneigendlyk.) They are taken either from the nature of the subject itself, or from the statements made. Those takes from the nature of the subject are threefold:

1. Positively divine. 2. Naturally right. 3. Permissively divine. These points be 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 demonstrate 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 "* Cofession 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 Cen 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 grounės. 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 $4, (of the Church Order), serves my purpose: "No church shall lord it over other churches"