Baxter - BV669 B3 1681

-ed, (of a Bifisep over many Churches without Bithops under hint.; and of half-Presbyters) how little he faith the Reader will foon foe (yea how much on out fide.) an: 4 A s for Hooker, till his ithBook came lately out, we hadnothing in fatted as him conliderableof this fubje&t And in that Book it felf, fo little to .farasour thepurpofe, as to our forelaid two Controverfies, as is next to nothing, vaufe re nor worthy a Reply. In his §. z. p. 4. He attempts (that which few quireth. do) to give us the' definitionof aBifhop, which is .[ABifhop is a Mini- Remem- fier of God, unto whom with permanent continuance, there is given not only ber alfo power of Adminiflring the Word and Sacraments, which power other Presby- that Hook- ter, have, but alfo áfurtherpower toOrdain Eccleftaflical perfons, and a.power er's third of Chiefty inGovernment over Presbyters as well as La men, a power to be by BOOlt's f `, f o tva uri dictiona Pager even toPa ors them elves. And then he dillin- written to y prove that. elhethof:B ops at large or indefinite, and Bifhops with rellraint, anti no one faith he meaneth the later. _ And fo you have what mull be expeled Form is from Mr. Hooker for the information of you, what Epifcopacy hepleads man- tled for : Where it is obvious -how fraudulently (through overfight or .par- sc it tiality I knownot) he dealeth : For whereas he durst put no more into scripture: Y 'Therefore the definitionof Epifcopacy about Jurifdi&ion but [a power of Chiefly in notthe Government over Presbyters.:nowellas Lay-men.] yet would not tell us, whe- Prelatical, ther Government of,Lay-men, (under the Bithop) belongto the Presbyters ,,or not : His wordsfeem plainly to imply it ; what ufe elfe is there for his [Chiefty] and Exwell as Lay-men.] And yet twice over he would name nothing-but, Teachingand Sacraments which belongto the Pallor as a Pa- !tor in general; .leaving it as a thing.which he would neither affirmnor deny, whether Paltors Governed their Flocks. Yet all that Decantate Book turneth on the Hinges of this lame Definition ( which bathother defels which I pafs by;) And without this we cannot know what Sub- je t he difputethof. Whereas Saraviawell noted and acknowledged three Effential parts of theMiniftry in General, Mr. Hooker who leaveth out one of them, andyet durit not deny it, thould have told us, whetherhe in- clude it or not ; feeing it is the matter of molt of our difference ; and we take him for no Pallor or Presbyter that is without the power of Go- vernment, nor that to be a -true Church (in .fenfu politico) that bath no other Pallor. z. And when as one part of his Adverfaries deny not (at leafs) the Lawfulnefs of one Bilhops fuperiority in a tingle Church, as far as his defcription fpeaketh, but only in many Churches; no, nor one Archbi- shops power over many Churches that have their own Bithops, but only his power to depofe all the Bifhops of particular Churches and. turn them all into one Diocefan Church ; his Definition vifibly reacheth to no other fort of Bithops, but fuch as we oppofe not ; and fo he faith no- thingat allagainfbus, toany purpofe through all his Book: for where after be confidently tells us that the extent of his Jurifdi&ion_alters .not the