"distribute their churches also into classes without any further "delay." From this article it is evident, not only that the Dutch church, at this period, was decidedly anti-episcopal in her principles; but also that she wished and hoped to prevail on the Church of England to come nearer to her views of ecclesiastical government, if not to adopt them. There is peculiar emphasis in the word admonish, which conveys the idea of exhortation and warning, with some fear of delinquency.

In every succeeding national synod down to that of Dort, the same Presbyterian principles were decidedly avowed and maintained, as every public document respecting them unequivocally proves. In fact, with regard to the parity of ministers, and the government of the church by consistorial, classical, and synodical assemblies, there was not only a perfect harmony, and absolute decision, in all the synods antecedent to that of Dort, but each succeeding synod literally copied the language of the preceding; and all, with undeviating consistency, opposed prelacy, and adhered to the Presbyterian model. I challenge Mr. How, or any of his friends, to produce a single authentic testimony which shows that, among all the discussions and transactions of the church of Holland, respecting ecclesiastical policy, there was ever so much as a proposal to make the government of that church episcopal; or a single sentence from the writings of any respectable divine in her communion, which expresses a belief in the divine right of diocesan episcopacy, or even a preference for this form of church order.

With respect to the synod of Dort, every one who is acquainted with its history, and with its published Acts, knows that it was entirely and exclusively Presbyterian. To assert or insinuate the contrary, is to insult the understanding of every well informed man. The ministers who composed that synod, were among the most learned, pious, and dignified divines that ever adorned the christian church. In transacting the business entrusted to them, they bound themselves by the solemnity of an oath, to adhere strictly to the word of God in all their proceedings. And the indisputable fact is, that these men, acting under this awful solemnity, did, among other articles relating to church government, form and adopt the following: "We believe that this true church "must be governed by that spiritual policy which our Lord hath "taught us in his word; namely, that there must be ministers or

35

pastors, to preach the word of God, and to administer the sacra❝ments; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, -As for the ministers of God's

"form the council of the church.

"word, they have equally the same power and authority where"soever they are; as they are all ministers of Christ, the only uni"versal bishop, and the only head of the church."*

But Dr. Bowden and Mr. How, in the face of all this unquestionable testimony, still contend, that the principal members of the synod of Dort gave their suffrage in favour of episcopacy. In support of this assertion, they quote a laconic and equivocal reply of Bogerman, the President of the synod, to Bishop Carleton; and also certain private conversations said to have been held by the bishop with the other members of the synod. But neither of these when examined, will be found to justify the use which is attempted to be made of them.

The nature and circumstances of the polite reply of President Bogerman, on which so much stress has been laid, were as follows. Bishop Carleton, when the article maintaining the parity of ministers came under consideration, rose in his place and opposed its adoption. He declared that diocesan bishops were of divine appointment; that this order had been retained in the church from the time of the apostles; and that he could by no means give his sanction to the article proposed. To this address the bishop himself expressly tells us, no answer was made by any." And Dr. Heylin says, of the same speech, that "though it was admit❝ted, and perhaps recorded, it received no other answer but "neglect, if not scorn withal."

Bishop Hall, however, (though by the way, he was not present when this event occurred, having retired from the synod three months before, on account of indisposition,) gives a different account of the matter. Bishop Carleton himself, tells us that, in his speech, besides declaring his belief in the divine appointment of prelacy, he launched out in praise of this form of ecclesiastical

Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Articles 30 and 31.

See his Protestation, published after his return, and entiled Appello ad. Cæsarem.

Hist. of Presbyter. Book 12. p. 400.

government, and spoke of its benign effects in England, in promoting union, order, and harmony in the church of that kingdom. To all this, Bishop Hall says, the only answer made was by the President, Bogerman, who simply replied, " Domine, nos non sumus adeo fælices." My Lord, we are not so happy.* Now as Bishop Carleton, who made the speech, declares that no answer was given to it by any one; as Heylin asserts that it was treated with neglect, if not with scorn; and as Bishop Hall was not himself present, at this time, in the synod; the probability is, that he has given an erroneous statement. But supposing it to be perfectly correct, to what does it amount? It might have been intended as a delicate sarcasm on the bishop, for his unseasonable introduction of this controversy. It might have been uttered as a mere compliment to a stranger, who was a prelate, and with whom it was not desirable to have any dispute, when the object of the synod was so entirely different. It might have been meant only to convey the idea, that the church of Holland was not so happy as to be in that quiet, united, and orderly state, which had been represented as existing in the church of England. At any rate the answer is perfectly equivocal, and furnishes no warrant whatever for the construction of my opponents.

But these gentlemen lay no small stress on another circumstance. Bishop Carleton, in the same Protestation which was before quoted, informs us, that "in his private discourse with some of the "most learned divines of the synod, he told them that the troubles " of Holland proceeded from their want of bishops ; and that the "Churches of those provinces would never be quiet until they had "bishops to govern the clergy." To these remarks, he tells us, they answered, "that they highly esteemed the good order and "discipline of the Church of England, and heartily wished the "same order was established in their country; but that they could "not hope for it in the present posture of affairs. They added, "that they hoped God would assist them by his grace, and that they would contribute with all their might to the establishment of "that good order." "Such," the bishop adds, 66 was their answer "to me. This I think, justifies them sufficiently. It appears that

Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Right, &c. Part. I. § 4.

they do not love popular confusion, and a government desti"tute of all authority." Mr. How must really be at a loss for testimony, when he can speak with so much exultation of this answer. It is nothing to the purpose. The bishop, according to his own account, had been declaiming on the advantages of Episcopal government, and on its influence as he supposed, in promoting the tranquillity, and happiness of the Church which he represented. To this, the Dutch divines, according to the same account, replied, that they had a very respectful opinion of the good order and discipline of the Church of England, and heartily wished that similar order and discipline were established in their own Church. But what did they mean by the "good order" and "discipline" of the Church of England? Did they mean her prelacy? This is so far from being certain that it is not even probable. There is every reason to believe they only meant to say, that they highly esteemed the regular, settled, and orderly state which the English Church had attained; that they should be glad to see a similar regularity, and quietness established among themselves; but that amidst so much confusion, they could hardly expect so happy a result. The truth is, the peace of the Church of Holland was, at this time, much disturbed by the controversy with the Remonstrants, which deeply agitated both church and state. In these circumstances, nothing was more natural than that the members of the Synod should lament their divisions, and express a desire to establish among themselves the same quietness and peace which the Church of England enjoyed; and all this they might say without having the least wish or preference in favour of her prelacy.

This then is the state of the case. The Reformed Church of Holland was Presbyterian from the beginning. By a succession of national synods the doctrine of ministerial parity was asserted, published and maintained, in the most decisive manner, not merely as dictated by expediency, but also as founded in divine appointment. The Synod of Dort spoke the same language, and maintained the same doctrine. Nay, with a solemnity which had taken place at no preceding synod, the members of that assembly, under the obligation of an oath, declared, that they considered themselves as bound to conform to the apostolic model of church government, and that this model was Presbyterian. And to all this evidence, Mr. How has nothing to oppose, but a few equivocal words of

some individual members of the synod, which probably had no reference to prelacy at all. Who, now, let me ask, has proved himself most liable to the charges of "extreme imprudence," and of having brought forward " puerile" and "disingenuous" allegations? Truly charges of this kind come with a very ill grace from Mr. How.

But we have another method of ascertaining the real sentiments of some of those divines who composed the Synod of Dort, besides their public conduct in that body. I mean by examining their private writings, in which we may take for granted they expressed their genuine convictions. From such of those writings as I have been able to procure, a few short extracts will be presented, and will be found conclusive.

Gomarus, professor of divinity at Groningen, was one of the most eminent of the Dutch delegates to that famous synod. On the subject of Episcopacy, he expresses himself in the following strong and decisive language. "The designation of bishop, as "introduced after the apostles' time, is unknown to the Scriptures, "in which it signifies the same thing with the presbyter and pastor. "Where Paul recites the various kinds of Gospel ministers, as in "Ephes. 4. 11, he acknowledges no such bishops distinct from "Presbyters, and superior to them. To which purpose Jerome's "judgment is memorable, which is extant in his commentary on "the Epistle to Titus 1. 1, where, comparing the 5th and 7th verses, ❝he infers that the bishop and presbyter are one and the same. "Which point he doth, likewise, (in the same manner that we "have done,) demonstrate from Philip. 1. 1. and Acts xx. 28, 29. "and other passages connected therewith, concluding all with this "weighty assertion, that with the ancients, bishops and presbyters

were one and the same; until, by degrees, the care and inspec❝tion were put upon one; and that the bishops were set over the "presbyters, rather by custom than by divine appointment. This 'custom, continues Gomarus, did, at last, bring upon the Church, "the mischievous dominion of bishops, contrary to the apostle's "command."*

Again," There is no bishop to be found set over presbyters in "any place of holy writ. The distinguishing of bishops from

* Explicat. Epist. ad Galatas, Cap. 11. p. 487.