A MODEST ADVERTISEMENT CONCERNING The present controversy about Church-Government; Wherein the main Grounds of that book, entitled, The unlawfulness and Danger of Limited prelacy. Are calmly examined.  
LONDON, Printed for Robert Bostock, Anno 1641.   

A MODEST ADVERTISEMENT CONCERNING The present controversy about Church-Government.  
THe blessed Apostle Saint Paul writing to Timothy, Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, (as is confessed by all Writers, though in this last age of the world it is at length disputed, what the meaning of that word Bishop is) among many instructions that he gives him concerning the direction of the Presbyters, and People committed to his care, begins first with this Exhortation, that Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for Kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. Teaching us thereby, both that all Government is the Ordinance of God, and that it is an effect of his great love to his children, to be placed in such a State, where temporal peace and true Religion are so joined together, that they are not put upon the fiery trial, to lose the contentment of this life, to attain the happiness of that which is to come. Neither is this only a great blessing of Almighty God, but a duty also that belongs both to our care and wisdom, and even to our Piety and Devotion itself, to endeavour, as much as in us lies, to preserve a quiet and a peaceable life, together with all godliness and honesty.  
This therefore seems to me to be the end that all religious Prudence ought to aim at, that men be not in their consultations so misled, either by some appearances of godliness, and fair colours of extraordinary zeal, as thereby to hazard the disturbance of the public quiet; nor, on the other side▪ so wedded to the enjoying of their temporal good, as to neglect the attaining of that which is eternal.  
This foundation being laid, let us apply it to the controversy now in hand, and so eagerly pursued by those, who are swayed by different Interests and Opinions, concerning the retaining, or amending, or total changing of ecclesiastical Government.  
And first, let me have leave to propose a few Questions to those, who so earnestly desire a total change, and to bring a new face of things into the Church of England. Of which I humbly desire them, that they will (as in the presence of the Lord) consider with all godly wisdom, Passion and Prejudice being laid aside, and then make answer with truth and sobriety.  
First therefore, Is the Discipline already established so ill, that they who live under it are not capable of salvation? May they not enjoy the virtues of Faith, and Hope, and Charity, and Humility▪ and repentance from dead works? May they not be justified and sanctified in this Church of ours? Are they enforced by it to any Action which is in itself a sin? or to omit any work in itself very good? If so, certainly those great Lights of our Reformation have been in a great darkness; and those our episcopal Martyrs who have laid down their lives for the love of Truth, have been exceeding miserable.  
Secondly, the Discipline they so much desire in stead of it, are they all agreed of it what it shall be? Or if they be, is it of Divine or human institution? If of Divine, can this be plainly proved out of the holy Scriptures? And shall the sense of the places thence alleged, be made evident and necessary by true logical inference (not to perverse gainsayers, but) to such as seek for truth with indifferency and sincerity? Or if the sense be probable only, is it such a sense as is countenanced by all holy and learned Writers, through all ages of the Church? Or is it a late sense acknowledged by all Protestant Churches? Or by some only, and by others accounted to have little probability? Or is there any place of Scripture that will not admit of a sense which to some men will appear probable, especially if they be engaged by Faction or interest?  
Lastly, is their Discipline commanded plainly by God, upon pain of Damnation, or the contrary plainly forbidden? For so it must be, if it be unlawful (as is pretended;) for nothing is unlawful in Divinity, but what is against some Divine Law.  
And the episcopal Discipline being already in possession, is it not just and equal, that the arguments brought against it be much more convincing, than those that are brought for it; seeing Possession itself is one reason why it should continue? For though those Principles which are laid for proving the unlawfulness of limited Episcopacy, were granted, namely, that All Officers in God's House must be of God's institution: That man can no more make the Office, than give the Grace: but That the Institution of the Office must proceed from Him that gives the blessing to the work. (For these are the main grounds of that book, concerning the unlawfulness of limited Prelacy, which is written with much Art & Eloquence to insinuate into unwary Readers.) I say, if these Propositions were granted, the sense of them will be but this; That none may administer the Sacraments, impose hands, preach the Word, nor use the keys, but such as Christ himself hath appointed to do so. And that it is otherwise practised in the Church of England, is not yet proved; and when it is proved, may easily be amended without noise or scandal.  
But that among these, who are by Christ enabled to execute Duties, some may not be higher, and some lower, during life; is the thing that is required to be proved out of plain Texts of Scripture, or sound grounds of uncontroverted Divinity: when this is done, this controversy will be ended.  
But it will be required also, that the same proofs be brought for the whole Discipline, and every part of it which shall be established.  
In the mean time many places of Scripture are alleged by those who maintain episcopacy, and these places are interpreted, not by a few late Writers in a little spot of the World here in the West, but by all Christian Writers since the time of the Apostles, for fifteen hundred years; and by the agreeable concurrent practice of all Churches in Europe, Asia, and Africa; though flowing from different fountains, and having been founded by several Apostles, which alone shows the Order to be apostolical: and that as the Creed for Doctrine, so this for Practice, was delivered from the beginning. So that the proofs of it are all Ages of the Church, divers Empires, very many kingdoms (in which there are many Provinces, whereof some one is bigger than Scotland, and the Netherlands, and those parts of France in which the presbyterial Discipline is accepted) and above a thousand bishoprics, many of which were the chairs of the Apostles, Disciples, and other Saints in Scripture, among different Sects of Christians, that are of several Communions, and received this Order from several beginnings, not all from one, and whereof many as much detest the Bishop of Rome, as any Protestant in England.  
Among all these I say there are some Elders, which being separated to holy things by the laying on of hands, are ruled, and these are called Priests, or Presbyters: and some which during their life do rule, and these are called Bishops. And no reason can be given why all Churches should agree in this, unless they received it together with their Christianity. So that Episcopacy is supported by these three Props, Time, Place, Persons. All Histories confirm it, the very Maps of the world bear witness to it, and the Scriptures themselves are not delivered to us with a more universal, unquestioned Tradition, than the Order of Bishops is.  
As for the presbyterial Discipline, we can name the Time, the Place, and the Person that began it. The Time, for aught we can find, was within this last Age; the Place, Geneva; the Person, John Calvin, of whom I will only say thus much, That he was a wise man, and knowing what was fit and necessary for that city, stood not upon Names, so he had the things. But for my own part, I should be sorry to see any Bishop in this Land have such authority over other Ministers, as he had at Geneva, or John Knox in Scotland.  
And therefore for any man or Church to say, that Episcopacy is A Plant that God had not planted, but that it is Antichristian, is to condemn all Christians as Antichristian; and to say that Christ has not been rightly worshipped upon the earth, till this last age; which, whether it be a sober and charitable opinion, I submit to consideration.  
In the mean time, we account these proofs which follow, insufficient either against Episcopacy, or for the presbytery.  
1 That the Office of a Bishop, is not found in Scripture, because not in the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians; for it may be, and is found somewhere else; namely, in those to Timothy and Titus. Secondly, though it were not, it being a matter of practice, discipline, and government, the universal Tradition of the whole Catholic Church, is sufficient to prove it.  
2 That all Officers of the New Testament are designed, and distinguished by Names (but by the way, then where are Lay-Elders) therefore there are no Bishops: for we think Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, are so distinguished, and that those who are not properly Bishops, are no more called Bishops in Scripture, than those are called Apostles, who are not properly Apostles; Nay this Author says so himself. For he says in one place, that a Pastor, and a Bishop are one thing, pag. 4. line 11. and in another, that an Apostle is in degree before a Pastor, and a Pastor before a Presbyter, and Deacon, pag. 4. line 20. therefore if a Pastor and a Bishop be but one thing (as indeed the words were anciently used) and a Pastor be in degree before a Presbyter, (as is confessed;) a Bishop also is indeed before a Presbyter: which was the thing required to be proved. This we take to be as good a Demonstration as any in Euclids Elements.  
That power ecclesiastical is not given to one, but to many. If he mean any Power ecclesiastical, we deny it, for a Presbyter may preach, and administer the Sacraments alone: If he mean of some only, the sense will be, only that a Bishop in the laying on of hands, and use of the keys, aught to be assisted by Presbyters; in the former he is already: The other we shall not much stand upon. In God's name let it be so, and then those places of Scripture which seem to give Presbyters a share in imposing of hands, and use of the keys, will be no objection.  
As for that place of Kings of Nations, the sense will be but this, that those who are greater, i. e. higher in degree than others, aught to do all things, nor for their own glory and greatness, but for the good and utility of those whom they govern, rather serving them, than ruling them; according to our saviour's example, who though he were greater than his Disciples, yet was among them as one that ministered.  
That all incentives, causes, provocations, and beginnings of evil are forbidden; we acknowledge, if they be in themselves so; and not by the craft and malice of the devil; for if so, the Sacraments and Scriptures themselves, the Law and the grace of God, must be removed: For these by his malice have been made so.  
That the rules of reformation, must be taken from the prime times; if the pattern be a thing framed by God, we grant: but presbyterial government is not proved such: but that all the Fathers, and all Christians in all ages throughout the world, have agreed to bring forth Antichrist, we cannot believe.  
Nor that Prelacy, and Popery, are unsepaable; for the former is in many Churches that detest the later: Yea, according to this author's sense of Prelacy, even in many Churches of Protestants.  
And whereas he says, that episcopacy is a step to Popery, those who have read Histories with judgement, may remember that the abasing of episcopacy, has been a great and constant design of the papacy; and that it was so in the Trent council: no one thing having more exalted that Mother of abominations, the See of Rome, than the exempting of Presbyters, as Jesuits and others, from the power and government of Bishops. And I pray God that as vilifying of Bishops on the one side, by setting up the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome above them, has begot an Antichristian monarchy, and tyranny; so the casting them off on the other, and setting up Presbyters without Bishops over them, do not produce the greatest confusion, Anarchy, and schism, that ever was yet in the Church of Christ. Which lest it may be thought, I speak more out of interest than reason, I shall desire this Author to look over his own principles once again, which are these: That whatsoever God has not established in his Church, is unlawful; but God has not established, that some Pastors should be over others; therefore this is unlawful. Now (to say nothing of the weakness of either proposition) I desire him to consider, whether the Divines of New England, do not hence rationally conclude, that since no Pastors by God's Word have authority over others, therefore no Classes, nor no Synods, have authority over others; for that every Minister has his power, both of Order and jurisdiction, immediately from Christ Jesus; and therefore to him only, he is responsible for the doctrine that he teaches, the discipline that he exercises, and the censures that he inflicts: and therefore though it may sometimes be useful for Ministers to meet in Synods to consult; yet, the Decrees they make, being but of human authority, do bind none but those who assent to them, and those also no longer than till they alter their opinions, and that therefore for any number of Ministers in a Synod, to take to themselves authority over others, who are equal to them in dignity, have their commission from Christ, as well as they, and partake of the Spirit as much or perhaps more than they, (for the Spirit is not tied to any number) is to set up a human authority that Christ never instituted, and to exercise a tyranny, and popery of the presbytery, as bad, nay worse than that of the Bishops. For the Apostles indeed (whose successors the Bishops pretend to be) did meet in a Synod, and make Decrees to bind the Church: but that the Disciples only or Presbyters ever did so, cannot be proved out of Scripture. Thus this Author may see what is concluded out of his principles, by those who have very logically driven them home to the conclusion, they naturally produce, that is (not from one tyranny to an other) but to an absolute liberty. But as for us, I pray him to remember, that the state of the question between him and us, is not (as he pretends) whether in the prime times, a Bishop were without a presbytery under him, but whether down from the Apostles, a presbytery was ever heard of, without a Bishop over it. This is the thing we desire to see solidly proved.  
That no limitations are sufficient, because those of the Assemblies in Scotland, were not so, is a weak argument.  
Where Assemblies will not tie, Parliaments may.  
Whether Prelacy be a cause, or a cure of schisms; look but into New England, and the divisions that are there among Ministers, and their Churches.  
That it is easier to root up the tree, than to land off the branches; is perhaps true: So it is easier to pull down a House, than to repair it: but we consider not what is easiest, but what is best to do.  
That that government of the Church is most useful for Kings, and kingdoms, which is warranted by God's Word, which is most for preservation of piety, righteousness, and sobriety, which makes the face of the Church and Religion glorious, not with outward pomp like Kings of Nations, but with sound Faith, pure worship, holy life, which conduceth most for truth, and peace, against schism and heresy; we heartily confess; and together with all the Christians upon the face of the earth (except a few in the West of Europe) we esteem the government by Bishops, to be that government.  
That it is no good government, which a wise man would not endure in his own house; we acknowledge: and we know who applied that saying, first against a democracy, and think it very fit to be retorted upon those, who desire a parity of Ministers; for no wise man would endure a parity in his Family.  
As for other arguments, that if we admit not the presbytery, there will be jealousies between us and Scotland, that there will be changes and Periods of States, of Families, and kingdoms; (for these are insinuated in this Book; and some are reported to have said that the Bishops must down, or much blood will be shed) these we think not proofs, but threatenings; and fitter for the mouth of a Turkish Dervise, who plants Religion by the sword, than for a Minister of the Gospel of Christ; the sum whereof is Love: and therefore cannot be forced, but persuaded. In the mean time, we desire men seriously to consider, whether it be not true and proper Popery to persecute Christians, not for publishing but for holding Opinions only, and in what degree the presbyterial government, uses to be guilty of this pressure and tyranny upon the souls and consciences of men.  
As for that Objection, that otherwise there will be a schism between us and the reformed Churches (though we are heartily grieved at the name only of such a thing) we answer, that there may be mutual charity in those that have a different Discipline; and therefore this argument has no good consequence. Secondly, that the Church of England, has hitherto had that prudent Moderation, to desire the esteem and affection, not only of the reformed, but of all the Protestant Churches, who are more in number, and equal in learning and piety to the Reformed. Thirdly, that it is better for us (if it be God's will that the reformed do continue as they are) to be divided from them in this particular only, than from all other Christians of the first three hundred years, under persecution of the Heathen Emperors, to which ancient Church, we desire to be excused, if we account the late reformation of Scotland, to be much inferior in learning, in Piety, in Patience, in Humility, in Charity, and many other Christian virtues.  
That though the Parliament be for Bishops, yet all the godly and religious will be against it; we cannot believe till it be made plain to us, that to resist lawful authority is a matter of godliness, or that there is any humility in those that think no Christians are godly and religious, but those who are for the Presbytery.  
That the reforming abuses in episcopal government will take long time, that we are apt to believe; but we think this to be no objection. But that it being a great and a weighty work, and likely to have great influence upon the civil estate, it ought to be a business of much debate and long deliberation: and that it imports not so much to be quickly done as well done.  
Lastly, we think the time of persuasion to be, not when men by fraud or force shall effect their ends, but when all parties having been first heard, and their Reasons maturely weighed, things are settled according to Justice and Piety; and this only will produce a settled and well grounded peace, not only for the present, but for future times. And is a consideration well worthy the wisdom, and greatness of the English Parliaments.  
Thus much be said to those who pretend the necessity, the profitableness, and the divine institution of the presbyterial government which they pretend to introduce; and of the unlawfulness of episcopal government which they so eagerly oppose.  
Now to those who desire a change, and yet confess their discipline to be a human institution.  
I shall humbly desire them briefly to consider of this, whether they can demonstrate the advantage of that they would introduce, to be so exceeding great above this already received (the abuses being reformed) that it will make abundant amends, not only in the present, but in all times to come, for the danger the Change will produce.  
This that we have, is rooted in the laws, the people are enured to it. It has so long agreed with the constitutions of this Monarchy. Nay, it is agreeable even to that in other states, as in Venice to a republic. It is the same that almost all Christians are governed by. It has produced men of as great learning and piety, and as able oppugnors of the Roman Church as any the Christian world affords, and has made our Church so reverenced by the Churches abroad, that in the last Archbishop's time, even as far as from Alexandria, the Patriarch sent a Greek to be educated in our Church, to be thereby better fitted for the government and defence of their own. So ready are all Christians (but the Roman) to desire our Communion, which certainly when we cease to have Bishops, they will cease to do.  
Secondly, will the conveniences of the new discipline prove so great in effect, as they are in promise? or (as it happens in all human affairs) will not the inconveniences be much greater in the practice, than they are in the speculation? or though for the present they do not, yet will they not fall out, and multiply daily hereafter?  
Nay, is it not a part of prudence to stay some few years at the least, and in the mean time (mending our old discipline as well as we can) to consider, and look on upon the effects which that new one will produce in our Neighbour Nation.  
For that the effects of it will not be so great for the temporal happiness, we have some reason to fear, remembering the great unquietness they suffered, even in the height of it.  
And for the eternal happiness (which is infinitely more to be weighed) we have some reason also to doubt that this discipline will not produce such marvellous effects as are propounded, since many of us can remember heretofore, that those persons who had been bred from their youth under a presbyterial government, though they have been indeed Persons of great honour and merit, yet have not so very far exceeded either in Truth or holiness or Sobriety, or Chastity, or Charity, or Humility or sweetness of a religious conversation, those of the same rank in our Nation, who had their breeding under this so much detested episcopal government; neither do we find more piety abroad under a Presbytery, than under a perpetual presidency of protestant Episcopacy or superintendency; and therefore I say, it is well worthy a weighty consideration, whether there be so great an excellency in that above this, as is pretended.  
As for the objection, that unless we receive this new discipline there will be heartburnings between us and the Scotish Nation. I answer, that I am confident that the Commissioners whom they employ, are persons of so great honour and justice, that they will account it as unreasonable for their discipline to be pressed upon us, as they have done for our Liturgy to be pressed upon them. And that there is no more cause why it should be necessary for us to receive their ecclesiastical, than it is to receive their temporal laws: they being as much interested to procure with us the change of the one, as of the other.  
And we doubt not the wisdom of the English Parliament to be so great, that they can find a better expedient to secure that Nation in their liberty and laws ecclesiastical and civil, than by a change of ours here at home, and by taking away from this Church an apostolical Institution which it has retained since its first Christianity. Otherwise the Scotish Church being by their absolute independent power at liberty to frame new orders daily, we also shall consequently be obliged ever to conform to them or (by this reason) no peace will be between us.  
Thus have I briefly and in a plain manner unfolded my thoughts for the peace of this Church; and such, as I hope will rather bring water than oil to the flame that is kindled.  
If the Author of the Book which is here considered, shall think that it is Ambition, and desire of Preeminence that causes this short Treatise, as he has insinuated to be in all who oppose his design, I shall desire him to remember one thing, & to know another.  
To remember, that there may be as much ambition in Corah, as in Aaron, and as much pride in refusing to be governed, as in desiring to govern; and to consider whether these two speeches are very unlike (is there none in the Assembly fit to be precedent but one?) page. 15. line 4. and this, the Congregation is all holy, wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the Congregation of the Lord? Numb. 16. 3.  
The thing that I desire him to know is this, that the Person who writes this, is one of them who is to be governed, and not to govern, and therefore would not have written it, had he not been persuaded that it was most agreeable not only to justice, and equity, but to the holy Scriptures, and all antiquity.  
And for the light which he says, pag. 7. has discovered to the reformers, that at the beginning there was no difference of a Bishop from a presbyter, we desire him not to be too confident of any light which will not abide the discussion of sober Reason; and does so suspiciously balk all the ancient writers to be Judges of that, (namely whether a Bishop were above a presbyter) which they might not only discern with their minds as well as we, but even see with their eyes, and as it were, experimentally feel with their hands, which we cannot; but rather that he will remember that of the Apostle, that Satan sometimes changes himself into an Angel of light; and causes that to be reverenced as an illumination, which many times is but an illusion.  
Lastly to those who are obstinate, to retain whatsoever is established, I shall only say this, that falsehood cannot subsist without some truth to uphold it, that something certainly is amiss that causes this general and constant clamour, in which the voice of the whole people, being perhaps in some few particulars, the voice of God, 
† As that the Lord's day be entirely kept holy by public prayers, hearing the word, and other exercises of Devotion, That piety and godliness (the substance of Religion) be more attended than rites and ceremonies, the shadow of it only, That residence on benefices with Cure and the instruction of souls be mainly attended; That the clergy wait diligently on the spiritual function without hunting after secular employments; That the censures of the Church be not issued by laymen, and that in them reformation of life be more aimed at: Especially that all Church government be by Rule and Canon, and none left arbitrary.  it would be a sin in us not to harken to it, and I fear it is one cause of our chastisements, that we have been deaf to it so long.  
And here I cannot but commend in this one particular, though in some things I must crave leave to diffent from him, the prudent Moderation of the Author of the ANTIREMONSTRANCE, namely, that he fetches his pattern of reformation, not from the times of persecution, nor from the Eastern Empire, being times and circumstances unfit for our Case; but from the times of Charles the Great, a Prince of great valour, and piety, and wisdom, and learning; and governing a people in customs, and Constitutions not unlike to this of ours.  
To conclude, that abuses may be taken away and good uses continue, and be restored, is the desire and prayer of all good and wise men; and there being but three things to be considered in the Bishops, their Order, their jurisdiction, their Persons; the first is ancient and universal almost to all Christians: the second where it is extravagant, may be limited by good and prudent Laws, and their Persons are not so great but the offender may be corrected by a higher Authority.  
I have done, humbly submitting whatsoever I have written to the judgement of the holy Catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, to my dear Mother the miserably distracted Church of England, beseeching God to amend, and forgive the Authors, and causes of it, and to the wisdom and Justice of the High and most Honourable Court of Parliament.  
FINIS.