<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2008-08-05</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Mona Logarbo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B080726.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B04373">
<STC T="W">M2329A</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">52614793</BIBNO>
<VID>175978</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<PB REF="1" MS="y"><!-- PDF PAGE 29 -->
<HEAD>THE MODERATE PRESBYTERIAN.</HEAD>
<OPENER><DATELINE>London, <DATE>the third of April, 1662.</DATE></DATELINE><LB>
<SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P><HI>_THe time is now quiet for the matter of News from this place, only that you may know that I am not unmindfull of my duty to you, I have &s;ent to you the Copy of an emi|nent Presbyterian's An&s;wer, made to a Queree, propo&s;ed to him by another more rigid Presbyterian; whether or not the re-ordaining of &s;uch Presbyterian Di|vines here, as were afterwards to be con&s;ecrated Bi&s;hops, be not &s;candalous to the Presbyterian reformed Churches abroad, and a direct di&s;claiming of communion with them? You will find the An&s;wer milde enough; which take as followeth,</HI></P>
<LETTER>
<OPENER><SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_IT is well known to all tho&s;e, e&s;pecially Divines of the Reformed Church, with whom I have had the happine&s;s to conver&s;e, both at home and abroad, that in my private opinion I was never too rigid in matter of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Government, either for Epi&s;copacy or Presbyteriani&s;me: For as having &s;pent the greate&s;t part of my years in Forraign Countries under the latter, it &s;eemed &s;moother to me; &s;o the continual practice of the former in the Chri&s;tian Church, from the very foundation of it in the Apo&s;tles time, made it alwayes &s;eem venerable to me, and to draw &s;omewhat nearer even to the word of God. Yet dur&s;t I never pre&s;ume in my own minde, that either the one or the other was ab&s;o|lutely <HI>Jure Divino,</HI> but I ever thought that with a good con&s;cience I might live under either of them. One thing I know well, that the word of God forbid doth all confu&s;ion in the Church, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="damage" EXTENT="1 letter">nd commende<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="damage" EXTENT="1 letter">h Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Government in general: But to determine this or that kind of Government in particular, I think there is a latitude left to the Supream Magi&s;trate; &s;o that admitting neither Epi&s;copacy nor Pre&s;|byteriani&s;me, in them&s;elves &s;imply con&s;idered to be <HI>Jure Divino;</HI> Yet, either of them being e&s;tabli&s;hed <HI>Jure Humano,</HI> or by the Authority of the Civil Magi&s;trate, mu&s;t be recived by me and &s;ubmitted unto, as be|ing, in that ca&s;e, <HI>Jure Divino:</HI> Seing that <HI>Jue Divinum,</HI> in the word of God, tyeth all Subjects to render active obedience to <HI>Jus Humanum</HI> and lawfull Authority, in the&s;e things, whereby the e&s;teem of Religion and fun|damentals of Faith are not &s;haken; and &s;uch may Epi&s;copacy and Presbyteriani&s;me be conceived to be: And who&s;oever re&s;ufeth to &s;ubmit to either of them, being e&s;tabli&s;hed by Authority, mu&s;t be, not only a Rebel to the Supream Power upon earth, but to God him&s;elf al&s;o. Now to an&s;wer your long que&s;tion in few words, let me intreat you to di&s;tingui&s;h betwixt a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel <HI>&s;impliciter quatalis,</HI> and a Mini|&s;ter of the Go&s;pel <HI>in potentia proxima,</HI> to be a Bi&s;hop: Albeit Presbyterian Ordination may make a qualified per&s;on a lawfull Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel; yet, in my weak judgment, to put him <HI>in potentia proxima</HI> to be a Bi|&s;hop, Epi&s;copal Ordination, if not nece&s;&s;ary <HI>ad e&s;&s;e,</HI> yet <HI>requi&s;ita ad decorum &amp; ad bene e&s;&s;e.</HI> Hence may be inferred, that by the re-ordaining of, or conferring Epi&s;copal Ordination upon Presbyterian Divines, to put them in a capacity to be Bi&s;hops, as no &s;candal is ju&s;tly given by the Engli&s;h Bi&s;hops to the Presbyterian Churches in Forraign Countries, &s;o I am confident (as being throughly acquainted with the opinion in that point, of many of the mo&s;t learned and eminent among&s;t them) that no occa&s;ion of &s;candal will be taken by them at the &s;ame; far le&s;s that they will think that the Church of <HI>England</HI> (which they ever held, and &s;till do hold as it was con&s;tituted in the dayes of Queen <HI>Elizabeth,</HI> King <HI>James</HI> and King <HI>Charles</HI> the fir&s;t, all of ble&s;&s;ed memory, to have been a glorious Orthodox Church) doth thereby intend to di&s;claim communion with them; their Maximes and Principles both of Divinity and Policy (for they never e&s;teemed bad Policy to be con&s;i&s;tent with good Divinity) being more con&s;onant to the&s;e of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> con&s;titued as &s;aid is, then to tho&s;e, according to which the Presbyterians in the&s;e Kingdoms have walked the&s;e three and twenty years by-gone. But I forbear now to enter upon this point; their new Doctrine and the woefull effects that have followed thereupon, do &s;ufficiently evidence the truth of it to the world.</P>
</LETTER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
