Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 27
The 29. Section examined. Concerning the undue power of the Claſsis in making lawes.
IN this Section, they produce the ſecond proofe of the juſtnes their complaint of his ſubjecting the Church under an undue power of the Claſſis, viz, his giving them power to make lawes and orders, whereunto, whoſoever will be miniſters of that Church muſt ſubmit.] For proofe hereof they give two inſtances. 1. that they bind Miniſters to obſerve the orders and cuſtoms of the Dutch Church. 2. their ſecond inſtance is concerning this order of promiſcuous baptiſing, which they made a cōdition of my admittance to that Miniſtry. The juſtnes of their laying the blame of boath theſe upon the Anſwerer they prove. 1. Becauſe ſome of the Dutch preachers themſelves have declared their willingnes to caſt off ſome of thoſe cuſtoms, if the vaſtnes of their Church would perm… it. 2. Becauſe one of them ſaid to the Anſwerer in the Claſſis (upon occaſion of his complaining of my not conforming to their orders) you your ſelfe doe not conforme to all our orders. 3. Becauſe they have profeſſed that they ſhould have bene glad that the differences had bene ended among our ſelves. 4. Becauſe he hath of late required of the Elders that an order might be made in the Conſiſtory, that whatſoever miniſter ſhall hereafter be called to that Church ſhould conforme to that wrighting of the five Miniſters.]
Now let us ſee what anſwers he pretendeth to make. 1. to their complaint againſt the proceeding of the Claſsis, in this particular. 2. to their complaint of his giving this undue power to the Claſsis.
Firſt. To their complaint of the undue proceeding of the Claſſis.] Herein he anſwereth nothing to the purpoſe. For he, neither denyeth the fact, nor giveth any ſatiſfaction about the aequity of it. In a word, he ſo anſwereth, as if he ſaught nothing elſe but how to evade anſwering, and to get ſome hole to hide his head in. Wherefore, that the truth in this matter may appeare, we will conſider two things. 1. de facto, whether they have made ſuch lawes and orders, or not? 2. de jure, whether they have done it by a due, or by an undue power?
1. That they have made ſuch lawes and orders can not be denyed. For, if the praeſcription of neceſſary obſervances, be a law; if the impoſition of any thing with a binding power, be a law; if the decrees, to the obedience whereof men are any way compelled, are lawes; the things inſtanced in, to witt, conformity to their eccleſiaſticall cuſtoms, and promiſcuous adminiſtration of Baptiſme, according to the wrighting of the five Miniſters, were impoſed as lawes upon me. For, did they not bind me to reſt in that wrighting, and to conforme to thoſe cuſtoms, under no leſſe paenalty then my not admittance to the paſtorall worke, in the Engliſh Church, notwithſtanding the unanimous deſire of the Congregation? Was not this to make them neceſſary obſervances? The caſe is ſo cleare that the Anſwerer himſelfe doeth not at all deny it.
2. Let us ſee, whether the power, whereby they have done this, be a due, or an undue power. And it will appeare to be undue, if, neither the Scripture, nor the Nationall Synods, nor the Church, nor any good reaſon have given them any ſuch power. And this we will declare, with Gods aſsiſtance, diſtinctly, in every one of them.
Firſt. The Scripture is ſo farr from giving the Claſſis any power of making lawes to bind particular Churches, in caſes of that nature, that it doeth not once mention any ſuch kind of combination, nor doeth allow any ſuch power to the deputyes of any Churches conſulting together for their common good. The Texts, which Bellarmine alleadgeth for the power of Councills in making lawes, are the ſame which the Anſwerer ſometimes harpeth upon, in this caſe, but Iunius clearly ſheweth, that they make nothing to the purpoſe.
Deut. 17.8.10. Sect. 24. Anſ. 4.The firſt is Deut. 17. Which place the Anſwerer alleadgeth, to prove the Claſſis to be an higher judicatory, and above the Church. Thou ſhalt doe according to the ſentence which they of that place ſhall ſhew thee. To which Iunius giveth 2 anſwers. 1. The caſes are not alike. For, in thoſe times, the mind of God was revealed to thoſe Judges, in obſcure and difficult caſes, by ſignes and anſwers from God himſelfe. 2. He grants that the ſentence of thoſe Iudges was to be obeyed, ſervatâ clauſulâ ſalutari; that holeſom clauſe, which Moſes puts in, being obſerved, according to the ſentence of the law, Verſ. 11.which they ſhall teach thee. So that the ſentence of thoſe Iudges did no further bind men to reſt in it, then it was according to the ſentence of the Law. And yet theſe were Iudges by Gods expreſſe appoyntment, which the Claſſes have not to ſhew for their judicatory, in the ſame manner as thoſe Judges had.
Act. 15.2. The other Text is Acts 15. alleadged by Bellarmine to prove the binding force of the decrees of Councills, and, by the Anſwerer,Sect. 31. Anſ. 5. to ſhew the authority of the Claſſis: whereunto Iunius giveth 2 anſwers alſo. 1. Non ſequitur ex particulari, ſi cuſtodienda fuerint decreta Concilij Apoſtolici, ergo & omnium ſervari oportere. It doeth not follow, from a particular, that, becauſe the decrees of an Apoſtolicall Councill are to be obſerved, therefore the decrees of all Councills muſt be ſo kept.Cont. 3. lib 4. cap. 16. And, whereas Bellarmine affirmeth that the queſtion there was not defined by Scripture, but by the voyces of the Apoſtles, Iunius denyeth that any thing was ordayned in that Councill, but from the Scripture, as he had before demonſtrated, & thereunto referreth the Reader. And, whereas Bellarmine ſayth that the decree of the Apoſtles was not left to the examination of the Diſciples, but, that they were ſimply commanded to obey, Iunius chargeth him with falſely ſuppoſing two things. 1. That the Apoſtles alone made this order. For the Elders concurred with the Apoſtles in this ſentence, and the wholl Church, all of them being taught by the ſpirit of truth, to thinck the ſame thing. And this, he ſayth, is the manner of proceeding in thoſe Councills, where Chriſt is praeſident. 2. That the ſame reſpect is to be had to the determination of others, as of the Apoſtles. Which is an errour, he ſayth, For it was the ſingular priviledge of the Apoſtles, that they had immediate aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, and infallibility, in their Apoſtolicall determinations, ſo that, what they delivered was to be received without examination, whereas the dictates & ſentēces of all other are to be examined by their wrightings, wherby it appeareth that the Scripture acknowledgeth no ſuch power of making lawes to be due to the Claſſes, unleſſe they can produce ſome other texts, which, when they ſhall be alleadged, ſhall be further examined, if God permit.
Secondly. No generall Councills, or Nationall Synods have acknowledged any ſuch power to be due to Claſſes, for aught I can find, if any others have found out any ſuch, let them declare the Canon of ſuch Councills and Synods, wherein it was ſo concluded, and, the ground of ſuch a determination being found ſufficient, I ſhall willingly receive it, and ſubmit thereunto. In the meane ſpace, let it be conſidered, that they, who diſtinguiſh betweene Generall, Nationall, Provinciall, and Dioceſan Councills, ſay, that the two former have authority to make Canons, but the two latter onelyonly to ſee that the Canons impoſed by the two former, be obſerved,Praef▪ ad diſtinct. 18 as may be ſeene in Gratian.
Thirdly. The Church hath not given them any ſuch power, nor indeed, can it. 1. It hath not; as appeareth in their complaints of it as undue, & as a greivance, and in the profeſſion of diverſe of the members that they never knew that the Church was ſo ſubjected. 2, That it cannot; appeareth in this, that the Church it ſelfe hath no ſuch power, and none can give what they have not. In what ſenſe this aſſertion is to be underſtood, and upon what grounds it is to be received, we ſhall have occaſion to declare in examining his anſwer, ſhortly to follow, whereunto I referr the Reader.
Fourthly. That no good reaſon giveth the Claſſis this power of making lawes, to bind particular Churches, will appeare, if two things be declared. 1. what things are required to the making of a law. 2. what inſtances they produce to ſhew the undue proceedings of that Claſſis herein. Firſt, the things required to a law are theſe, at leaſt. 1. a due authority, or power orderly authoriſed thereunto. 2. its conſonancy and conſent with the law of God. 3. that it is referred unto, and doeth reſpect the common good. Secondly, let the inſtances produced by them be brought to theſe rules, and it will be found, 1. that they want ſufficient authority for making of ſuch lawes, 2. that ſuch a law agreeth not with the law of God. 3. that it is not referred to the publick and common good, by what hath bene already ſaid, partly in this Section, partly in the 12 Section, and partly in other Sections. The iſſue, whereunto the inſtances drive, is, that the Claſſis excerciſeth an undue power, when it bindeth men to any obſervance, upon no better ground then the mere cuſtom of a place, which is then done, when …hat cuſtom is not warranted by the word. For, howſoever, in civill adminiſtrations, in Common wealths, ſome cuſtoms have the force of a law,Hist. 1. part 2. book. 4. Chap. 15. Sect: Vlp. li. 29 (as Sir Walter Raleigh well obſerveth.) Yet, in Church matters it will not hold, the reaſon of Churches and Commonwealths being not the ſame. But, if the rule hold in Commonwealths, that, quod ab initio vitioſum eſt, non poteſt tractu temporis convaleſcere, much more will it hold in the Church, in ſuch a caſe as that unwarrantable cuſtom of promiſcuous baptiſing,Sect. 12. which I have proved to be unlawfull, in Sect. 12.
Secondly. Seing nothing hath bene ſaid by the Anſwerer, in defence of the proceeding of the Claſſis, in anſwer to their complaint of their excerciſing an undue power, in this particular, let us now ſee if he anſwer ſufficiently in his owne defence, wherein, we will, with Gods helpe, examine, what he ſayth in anſwer 1. to the generall charge. 2. to the proofes of it.
Firſt. The generall charge is, that he hath given them this undue power. Hereunto he pretendeth to make five Anſwers.
1. He ſayth it is untrue. He onelyonly ſayth ſo, but doeth not ſhew it to be untrue, by declaring that, either the Scriptures, or the Nationall Synods, or the Church, or good reaſon hath given it them. And ſo ſeemeth to be content that the ſuſpicion of uſurping may lye upon the wholl Claſſis, rather then he ſhould be ſuſpected to have given it them. But he will not ſo evade, if what was replyed to the ſame anſwer, in the foregoing Section, be conſidered, and applyed to this alſo.
2. In his ſecond anſwer he ſeemeth ſo to deny his giving them this undue power, as withall ſecretly to confeſſe that he gave them counſaile to uſe this power. which he hath not proved to be due. That it is undue hath bene proved already,, and that, it being ſo, he hath not behaved himſelfe as a paſtor in the government of the Church, in counſailing them to uſe an undue power over his Church, needs no proofe at all, the thing done being ſufficient evidence againſt him.
3. His third anſwer is a mere retortion of the complaint upon the Complainants, and a recrimination of them for allowing the Conſiſtory to make orders & lawes, & thereupon he demandeth, can this power of making lawes and orders, be lawfull, and due in a Conſiſtory, and yet an undue power in the Claſſis? Are they not condemned of themſelves? For anſwer hereunto, it muſt be underſtood. 1, That orders and lawes are ill confounded by the Anſwerer, They may make orders who have no power of making lawes: So Iunius diſtinguiſheth them fitly. Praelatorum non eſt foreign ſive mandata dare: non praecepta, ſed ordinationes, foreign. Eccleſiaſticall Governours may give orders, not lawes, not commands, not praecepts. Elſe where he ſayth, the Fathers called them more fitly Canons, becauſe a Canon ſerveth to direct agentem volùntariè, one that acteth voluntarily, whereas a law, neceſſitate etiam cogit in voluntarium, compelleth a man againſt his will, Chame… alſo expreſſeth himſelfe acutely to the ſame purpoſe,De eccleſiâ p. 367. 368. ſaying, that the determinatiōs of Churches are more fitly called admonitions and exhortations then lawes, and that, when they agree with the word, they are admonitions, in reſpect of the Church, but lawes in reſpect of God onelyonly, to wit, becauſe the Church commendeth that which God hath commanded, and that which the Church ſo commendeth is the word of God.
2. That all miſtake may be prevented, & the two extremes avoyded, of tyranny; by aſcribing too much power to the Church, and of diſſolute libertiniſme, and Anabaptiſme; by denying its due power, in this particular, we will declare what authority the Church hath about lawes and orders, by diſtinguiſhing betweene lawes already made,Luke 10.16. Mat: 18.17. 1 Cor. 4.21. and lawes to be made. In the firſt, we grant, that Church governours have great authority and power, to wit, of providing that men yeeld due obedience to all Gods lawes and ordinances, which they are to commend and declare to the Church, and to exact their obedience thereunto. And indeed this is the very end of all Eccleſiaſticall authority. Rom. 1.5. and 15.18. So that herein they have more power then of admoniſhing, and exhorting, and reproving onelyonly, they have the power of cenſuring, and thereby of compelling the ſeverall members to their duety, and of ſeeing that all things be done in the houſe of God decently and in order.1 Cor. 14.40.
In this ſenſe, I conceive, the order to be made in the Conſiſtory, is to be underſtood, the things thereby ordered being no other then that rule of having all holy adminiſtrations performed decently and in order requireth. And, being ſo underſtood, it doeth not at all patronize that undue power of the Claſſis. 1. Becauſe the Church hath that power, in her owne matters, which the Claſſis hath not. 2. Becauſe this was but an order, for my accommodation, in my voluntary obedience of the word warranted by the rule, but the contrary, made by them, is a law, for the eſtabliſhing of an evill cuſtom, not warranted by the word, and to compell me, againſt my will, to the obſervance of it.
As for the ſecond. The things, about which lawes are made, are, either neceſſary, or indifferent. Things neceſſary are things cōmanded or forbidden in the Scripture. And they are neceſſary, either abſolutely or in ſome conſiderable reſpect. Things abſolutely neceſſary to godlines are ſo conſtituted in the Scripture that no place is left for the impoſitions of any new law givers. About things neceſſary, in ſome conſiderable reſpect, Churchgovernours have power to give order, as did the Synod at Ieruſalem touching thoſe things which they called neceſſary Act. 15.28. viz, neceſſary during the time of the offence of the Iew which was neceſſary to be avoyded. Hereunto alſo ſerveth that rule, Let all things be done decently and in order Cor. 14.40. but the rule of that decency muſt be, not the will and pleaſure of men, but the light of nature, Scripture, or warrantable cuſtom. For ſo it was in the inſtances given in that chapter, as, for men to pray with long hayre, & woemen bare-headed, in thoſe Eaſterne countryes, and for woemen to ſpeake in the Congregation, and for many men to ſpeake at once. Things indifferent are ſuch as, being neyther commanded nor forbidden in the Scripture, may be variouſly permitted or prohibited according to various circumſtances And they are, eyther improperly, or properly ſo called. Things improperly called indifferent, are things not neceſſary, but onelyonly expedient in ſome reſpect. In ſuch caſes Churchgovernours have power to declare the decency and expediency of them: yea, and to adviſe and perſwade the practiſe thereof, but not by ſtanding lawes to bind the people thereunto. As the Apoſtle gave his judgmēt 1. Cor. 7.25.40. & adviſe cō cerning ſingle life, in time of the Churches diſtreſſe: yea, and perſwaded to it, for avoyding trouble in the fleſh, verſ. 26.28. but would not bind them to it, neither in point of conſcience, nor of outward practiſe as having no commandment from the Lord (verſ. 25.) and ſayth that ſuch a commandment had bene a ſnare (verſ. 35. And herein the power of Churchgovernours falleth ſhort of the authority of civill Magiſtrates, who may, in civill matters, make ſtanding and binding lawes for any thing expedient to the Common wealth. Whereunto ſubjects are bound readily to ſubmit. (1. Pet. 2.13.)
Things properly called indifferent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Churchgovernours did adviſe & perſwade them, much leſſe charge & cōmand them, leaſt of all make ſtanding, & binding lawes to determine them: nor doth that place in (1. Cor. 14.40.) give them any ſuch power, nor have the Apoſtles themſelves received any ſuch authority from Chriſt, as appeareth in the commiſſion given them, which was onelyonly to teach men to obſerve and doe what Chriſt ſhall command them, Mat. 28.20. Their office being onelyonly miniſteriall & oeconomicall, Chriſt reſerving to himſelfe the ſoveraigne lawgiving power, as his praerogative.
For application of the premiſes to the caſe in queſtion, I demand whether this cuſtom be thus impoſed as a thing properly indifferēt, or as expedient, or as neceſſary in ſome conſiderable reſpect, or as abſolutely neceſſary? If it be properly indifferent; why doe they, by command, make the practiſe of it neceſſary? If it be expedient; let them ſhew the expediency of it, & leave men free. If it be neceſſary, in thoſe conſiderable reſpects; let it appeare that the contrary practiſe will be ſo offenſive or diſorderly that, for the avoyding of that offence or diſorder, a miniſter is bound to doe it. If it be abſolutely neceſſary to godlines; let the Scripture be ſhewē that cōmandeth that practiſe, or forbiddeth the cōtrary.
His fourth anſwer is not worth a Reply.
His fifth anſwer maketh againſt himſelfe. For, if they leave men at liberty about things indifferent &c. (wherein they are to be approved as walking according to the rule) why doe they bind men, by unaequall conditions, to this cuſtom, which they, neither doe, nor can ſufficiently declare to be commanded by Chriſt, or to be warranted by the rule?
Let us now ſee what he ſayth to the proofes of the juſtnes of their laying the blame of this miſcarriage upō him, rather then upō the Claſſis.
Firſt. They ſay, that ſome of the Dutch Miniſters themſelves are willing to caſt off ſome of their cuſtoms, if the vaſtnes of theire Church did not force them thereunto. Hereunto he giveth two anſwers. 1. that things ſimply unlawfull are as well to be caſt off in a great Church as in a ſmall.] Reply. True: it is a duety as neceſſary to be done in the one as in the other, yet, it may more eaſily be done in the ſmaller Churches, and therefore the ſinne of the ſmaller Churches is the greater, if they doe not caſt off ſuch an unwarrantable cuſtom. The vaſtnes of their Churches doth only excuſe them, a tanto, not a toto. 2. that, in the ſmaller Churches in the villages, the ſame order is obſerved.] But. 1. it hath not bene expreſly required of any of the Miniſters of thoſe Churches (as a condition of their admittāce, as it was of me) that they ſhould reſt in ſuch a wrighting, which bindeth them to baptize all that are brought. 2. It may be queſtioned, whether all the Miniſters, in thoſe ſmaller villages, doe ſo promiſcuouſly adminiſter Baptiſme, as they doe, in Amſterdam, ſeing ſuch different ſorts of people are not in thoſe villages as in that Citty.
Secondly. They ſay, that one of the Miniſters ſaid to the Anſwerer in the Claſſis (upon occaſion of his complaining of my not conforming to all their orders) why? you your ſelfe doe not conforme to all our orders. Hereunto he pretendeth to give five anſwers. I ſay pretendeth. For, the firſt anſwer is no anſwer, but onelyonly a queſtion, who told this? His ſecond anſwer is, that the mind of the Claſſis is not to be collected by the ſpeech of one.] Neither doe they ſay that all of thē are of that mind, but that one of them ſaid ſo, whereof, it ſeemeth, the reſt ſhewed no diſlike, and ſo ſeemed to conſent to it, and more then one of them have bene heard to ſay as much as the Complainants affirme. His third anſwer is, that the ſpeech of the Miniſter is not in right manner repeated by them.] But, if the matter be right, it is true in the ſubſtance of their report, which is ſufficient, in this caſe, what ever fayling may ſeeme to be in a circumſtance. His fourth anſwer is, that this one Miniſter undertooke in wrighting to ſatiſfye my objections, and, having replyed to myne anſwer, received no anſwer to his ſecond wrighting. It is true: I did not anſwer his ſecond wrighting. 1. Becauſe, that wrighting did not ſufficiently anſwer my firſt. 2. Becauſe, at that time, I wrote to the wholl Claſſis, in which reſpect, there was no uſe of wrighting to one member of the Claſſis alone. His fifth anſwer is, The nationall Synod, at Dort, in things indifferent, Kercken ordeningh. Art. 85.doeth allow Churches of other Nations in theſe Countreys to vary from their cuſtoms.] It is well they doe ſo, and it is fit they ſhould ſo doe. But, if it be ſo. 1. why was it required of me that I ſhould conforme to all the orders and cuſtoms of the Dutch Church? 2. Why was I not allowed to vary from their cuſtoms, in the practiſe of promiſcuous baptizing, ſeing I profeſſed that I could not doe it with a good conſcience, and they gave me no grounds from the Scriptures to ſatiſfye my conſcience, that I might doe it lawfully?
Thirdly. They ſay, that the Dutch Miniſters have profeſſed that they ſhould have bene glad that this difference might have bene ended among our ſelves:] What ſayth the Anſwerer hereunto? Iuſt nothing. And it was his wiſdom to be ſilent here. For what could he ſay? He could not deny it, and the confeſſion of it to be true would diſcover him to have bene a greater impediment of the Churches deſire, and my accommodation, then he was willing ſhould appeare. And I wiſh, from my heart, he had bene as ſilent in all the reſt, that I might have paſſed by all theſe injuryes in ſilence warrantably.
Fourthly. They ſay, that he hath required of the Elders that an order might be made in the Conſiſtory, that whatſoever Miniſter ſhall hereafter be called to that Church, ſhould conforme to that wrighting of the five Ministers.] Hereunto he pretendeth to give five anſwers, but one good one were worth them all.
His firſt anſwer is onelyonly a queſtion, as before, who told this?
His ſecond anſwer is, in part, negative, but upon an ill ground, viz, becauſe the Claſſis had already approved and confirmed it. Concerning the vanity of that pretence enough hath bene ſpoken already, yet, in part, he affirmeth it, in ſaying that he ſhewed it to be unreaſonable if that order ſhould not be required of any other miniſter as well as of me. But, ſeing there was no good reaſon why it ſhould be required of me, what reaſon is there that it ſhould be required of others? Is it a good courſe to hide an injury done to one by profeſſing to doe the ſame injury to many?
His third anſwer is, that, by the motion of a Dutch Miniſter and a ſpeciall freind of myne, &c. the Dutch Miniſters came to his houſe and made that wrighting.] That Reverend Dutch miniſters love and paines I acknowledge, with all thanckfullnes, and am ſorry that a learned and godly Brother, of another Nation, ſhould ſhew himſelfe more deſirous of myne accommodation then myne owne countryman, from whom, in many reſpects, I had cauſe to expect more favour and love then from forraigners, eſpecially▪ ſeing their labour proved no more ſucceſfull, thorough the violence of a contrary ſtreame, of which enough hath bene ſaid in former Sections.
His fourth anſwer chargeth me with untruth in my wrighting to the Claſſis that, at his requeſt alone, they did in wrighting declare their private judgment.] But, why did he not, at leaſt, more roundly deny it, if it be untrue? For, it may be true, notwithſtanding any thing ſayd by him to the contrary. For, why might not that Miniſter propound it to the reſt being thereunto prepared by the Anſwerers private intimations or intreaty? But, ſuppoſe the Miniſter propounded it, of his owne accord, yet, what I wrote is true, in the ſenſe, wherein I meant it. For I ſpake of the Anſwerer alone, not in reference to the Miniſters of the Claſſis, but in reference to the Elders of his owne Church, and in this ſenſe it is true, that the Anſwerer (conſidered with the Elders and the Church) did alone propound it: the motion came not from the Elders, but from him onelyonly, in that ſenſe. But, what is this to the order, which he required the Elders to make in the Conſiſtory, which is the matter in queſtion? Is this a fit place to ſpeake of paſſages betweene the five Miniſters & him, when the Complainants charge him with ſeeking to make an injurious order in the Conſiſtory? Had not the twelfth Section bene a fitter place for this matter, where it is purpoſely ſpoken of? But I forbeare to geſſe at the reaſon hereof. Whereas he addeth, if he had bene the onelyonly ſecker thereof, there is no cauſe for them, that meane to deale uprightly, to complaine of ſuch a lawfull & ſafe courſe] I need not to add any thing, in way of Reply thereunto, having already ſaid enough, in the foregoing Sections, to prove that that courſe was, neither ſafe, nor lawfull.
His fifth anſwer is a mere catching at an advantage, which one expreſſion in their wrighting ſeemeth to give him, I ſay, ſeemeth, for it doeth it not really. They ſay, that they thinck no godly man will abſolutely be bound to conforme to that wrighting.] To let paſſe his unworthy ſcoffes, he accuſeth them of a raſh and praeſumptious judgment for ſaying ſo, whereas. 1. they profeſſe onelyonly that they thinck ſo. Now, every thought, though it may be raſh, is not to be accounted a praeſumptious judgement. 2. they doe not ſpeake of ſuffering themſelves to be bound to ſuch a wrighting, but of being abſolutely bound to conforme to it. And there is a great difference betweene thoſe two expreſſions. 3. My name is altogether needleſly brought in here, as the Reader may well perceive. But I paſſe it by. But, is his ſeeking to have that order made in the Conſiſtory, to bind all Miniſters that ſhall be called in that Church, proved to be lawfull, and for the good of the Church, by this, or by any thing elſe, he hath ſayd, in the 5 pretended anſwers? If not, It appeareth that no ſatiſfaction is given to the Complainants by his anſwers. And ſo their ſecond proofe of his ſubjecting the Church under an undue power of the Claſſis, which they produce for an evidence of his not behaving himſelfe as he aught, in his paſtorall government, remayneth unanſwered.