(4) Anfw. //you underflandby the word [Order] a di:. Asa Office, none may create any of thefe but Gad. But if by [Suhje6t Presbyters] be meant only men of the fame Office with Bifhops, that do for the Churches benefit Jubjec`l themfelves to the dir.eiïion or- Prefzdency ofanother, (upon Tome difparity in their gifts or the like) in the exercife of that office, I fuppofc that this is a thin- that by ConCent may be lawfully done. And fo 1 verily be- lieve that betimes in the Church it was done, (of which anon.) So if by [Bithops ] be meant no diflintl Office, but one of the Presbyters chofen from among the refl, to exercife his Mini(lery inform :eminency above the refl, by reafonofhis greater Gifts, orfor Peace and order, 1 doubt not but it is a thing that content may do : (end accor-. dingly the Canon Law defines- á Ki(hop that he is [L1nus e. Presbyteris, &c.] So if by [a Metropolitan] be not .meant another Office, but one in the fame Office, by reafon of theadvantage of his Seat, chofen to forne atis of order for the common benefit , I doubt not bat it may be done : But every (itchIndifferent thing, is not . to be made Neceffary, fiatedly. and univerfally to the Church. Se& 5. When I do in thefe Papers plead that the Order of Subje.á Presbyters was, not inftituted in Scri-, pture times,. and confequently that it is not of Divine Inßitution, 1 mean its- aforefaid,,that as a drflint.l Office, or. Species of Church .miniflers, as to the Power from,. God% .. it is, not of Divine Inflitution, nor a lawful Infii_; tution ofman ; but that among men ?, in the fame Office, Tome might Prudentially be chofen to an eminency of de. greeas to the exercife ; andthat:according to the difference of their, advantages there might be Itch' parity in tht ufe of their authorityandgifts I think was done in Scripture times, andmight have beenafter,; if it hadnot then. And my judgement is, that ordinarily every particular Church,, (filch
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=