Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Whether the lawfulneſſe or neceſſity of Appeales doe prove a ſuperiority of Iuriſdiction in Synods over Congregations, and of ſundry ſayings of our Author which ſeeme to interfere.
IN his page 422. he propounds a 19.th Objection to this effect, If the Government of conſociated Churches be warranted by the light of Nature, then this light of Nature being common to us in civill as in Eccleſiaſticall cauſes, it will follow that every City governed with rulers within it ſelfe▪ muſt be ſubordinate to a Claſſe of many Cities, and that Claſſe to a Nationall meeting of all the Cities: and the Nationall government to be a Catholike or Oecumenicke civill Court—. And becauſe by the ſame light of Nature there muſt bee ſome finall and ſupreame Iudgement of controverſies, leaſt Appeales ſhould be ſpun out in infinitum, it muſt be proved that this ſupremacie lyeth not in a Congregation. And in the Margent he citeth Mr. Tompſon and my ſelfe in page 16 and page 10, of the Anſwer, as Authors of this laſt baſſis in the O…ectjection.
Anſw. It is true that in one of thoſe pages alledged we ſpeake to the like purpoſe as here is reported. For we there ſuppoſe it to be cleere by the light of Nature, that there muſt be ſome finall and ſupreame judgement of Cauſes, and that unleſſe it be determined where that ſupremacie doth lye, (which we account the very thing in queſtion) we ſay the uſefulneſſe and neceſſity of Appeales may be granted, and yet we ſhall be ſtill at uncertainty about the thing in queſtion, and as much to ſeeke as before, becauſe that there ought to be appeales til you come to the higheſt is one thing, and that a Synod and not a Congregation is the higheſt is another. To this purpoſe we have written in one of thoſe Pages, the ſumme whereof is this much; that though the uſefulneſſe of Appeales till you come to the higheſt be granted, yet the ſupremacie of Synods over Congregations in matter of Iudicature is not concluded thereby.
Now what doth our Reverend Brother returne in his Anſwer? Doth he prove the contrary to what is here affirmed by us? Doth he cleere it ſufficiently, that if it bee once granted that there muſt be Appeales till you come to the higheſt, then the ſupremacie of Synods over Congregations muſt inevitably follow? I conceive the neceſſity of this conſequence had need to be cleered, if that which we have ſaid be ſufficiently anſwered. But doth our Brother cleere this? Or doth he ſo much as once attempt the cleering thereof? Surely to ſpeake freely what I find, I find nothing that looketh that way, and therfore cannot but wonder why our opinion ſhould be alledged in this Objection, and ſo his Reader be led into expectation of ſome ſufficient Anſwer thereto, and then the anſwer which he returnes to be taken up in other matters, our opinion propoſed in the Objection, being wholly in his Anſwer left untouched. If that ſaying of ours be not ſound, why doth he not returne ſome anſwer? If it be ſound and good, why doth he make an Objection of it, and ſo breed an apprehenſion in weake Readers of its unſoundneſſe, and put them in hope of a confutation, when no ſuch thing is performed? I leave it to the wiſe in heart to conſider what this doth argue.
Nevertheleſſe, let us conſider of what he doth returne for Anſwer, Page 423. Firſt he ſaith, Appeales being warranted by the Counſell which Iethro gave to Moſes—cannot but be naturall?
Anſw. Suppoſe this be ſo, what can there be concluded hence, that makes againſt us? cannot appeales be Naturall, but the ſupremacie of Synods over Congregations muſt needs follow? If there muſt be an higheſt, muſt it needs be yeelded that the Synod and not the Congregation is that higheſt? I conceive this needs not to be yeelded at all, and therefore though Appeales be Naturall, I ſee not what is gained thereby.
Againe, he ſaith, God hath appointed that the ſupremacie ſhould lye within the bounds of every free Monarchy or State, ſo that there can be no Appeale to any Oecumenicall or Catholike civill Church, for that is againſt the independant power that God hath given to States.
Anſw. Let this be granted alſo, and are we not ſtill where we were before? Is there in this any thing at all that doth make for the removall of our opinion, as himſelfe hath ſee it down in his Objection? We may truly ſay we ſee it not.
No, nor in that which doth follow, viz. But in the Church it is farre otherwiſe, for God hath appoynted no viſſible Monarchy in his Church, nor no ſuch independency of policie within a Congregation, Claſſicall Provinciall or Nationall Church.
Anſw. For that which is ſaid of a viſible Monarchy in the Church, I confeſſe it is true, God hath appointed none ſuch. But for the reſt, of theſe words, ſith they containe an expreſſe denyall of the ſupremacie of all Eccleſiaſticall Iudicatures, except it be the generall Councell, I would gladly know how our Tenent afore expreſſed is diſproved, or how the neceſſity of that Conſequence afore mentioned is at all cleered hereby. If there be no independencie of policie in Congregations, nor yet in any Synods exc…pt it be the Oecumenicall, doth this prove that the ſupremacie doth lye in Synods and not in the Congregation? Nothing leſſe: for how can our Brother prove that it lyes in the one and not in the other, by ſaying as here he doth, that indeed it lyes in neither? Or how is that Conſequence made good, that if there muſt be appeales till we come to the higheſt, then the Synod is the higheſt? How is this I ſay made good by affirming, that neither the Congregation nor the Synod is the higheſt? For my part I muſt confeſſe it paſſeth my underſtanding to conceive, how the denying of a thing ſhould be the proving and cleering thereof. And yet except this be admitted, I know not how our apprehenſion in the matter we have in hand is at all diſproved. For whereas we ſay, Appeales may be granted and yet the ſupremacie of Synods over Congregations will not follow, Mr. Rutherford for the diſproving of what wee apprehend herein, doth bring nothing in the place wee have in hand but only this, that the Supremacie doth neither lye in the Congregation nor in the Synod. Which is no diſproving of us all, except as I ſaid, that the denying of a thing may ſuffice for the confirming and cleering thereof. For I conceive if we be diſproved the ſupremacie of Synods muſt be proved and cleered, which here our Brother doth not, but on the contrary denies the ſame.
Furthermore, if there be no independency of policie within a Congregation, a Claſſicall, Provinciall or Nationall Church, As here our Brother affirmeth, then what ſhall become of that which he tels us elſewhere, viz. Page 483. That that remedie of our Saviour, Tell the Church, is not needfull in any Church above a Nationall? For ſure if there be no independencie of policie in any of the leſſer Churches, nor yet in the Nationall Church, one would thinke that of our Saviour ſhould be needfull in ſome Church above the Nationall. Or if it be nor needfull in any Church above Nationall, then one would thinke there ſhould be ſome indepencie of policie in the Nationall Church, or in ſome of the former. For my part I know not how this difficulty will be expedited, I meane how both theſe ſayings of our Brother can ſtand good, except we ſhall ſay that which I ſuppoſe he will not ſay, viz. That independencie of policie is no where. And yet I cannot ſee but this muſt be ſaid, if both the other ſayings ſtand good? For if independencie of policie be neither in the Nationall Church nor in any Church above it, nor in any Church below it, I know not where we ſhall have it.
Againe, if there be no independencie of policie in any of the Churches afore named, what ſhall we ſay to that paſſage where our Brother doth verily profeſſe, That he cannot ſee what power of Juriſdiction to cenſure Scandals can be in a generall Councell, affirming further, that there might be ſome meerly Doctrinall power if ſuch a Councell could be had, and that is all, Pag 482. For if there be no Independencie of policie in any Church below a generall Councell, one would thinke there ſhould be in the generall Councill ſome power of Iuriſdiction to cenſure Scandals, yea and an independant power too▪ Or if there be not ſuch power in the generall Councill, nor yet in the Nationall Church, nor in any Church below the Nationall, we muſt then ſay there is no independant Power of Iuriſdiction to cenſure Scandals in any Church upon earth. Which latter if it be not owned, as I conceive our Brother will no…, I know not how the other two can both ſtand.
Though appeales be warranted both in Church and State by the light of Nature, yet appeales to Exotique and forraigne Judicatures is not warranted by any ſuch light, but rather the contrary.
Anſw. Let this be granted alſo, and are we ever a whit neerer to the point, then before? Is this good arguing, appeales to exotique Indicatures are not warrantable, Ergo a Synod and not the Congregation is the ſupreame Iudicature? Is this Conſequence ſtrong and cleere? If it be not, how is our Tenent removed? If our Brother intend it not for a removall thereof, why is it brought in for anſwer to an Objection propoſed by himſelfe as ours?
Further, let this ſentence be compared with the former immediately preceding, and more difficulties ſtill ariſe. For in this he tels us we ſee, That appeales to forraigne Judicatures are not warrantable; And in the other he tels us as wee heard afore, That there is no independencie of policie within a Congregation, a Claſſicall, Provinciall, or Nationall Church. Now to find how theſe things do agree, I am at a loſſe, for if there bee no independencie of policie in the Congregation, nor the other Churches mentioned, I ſhould have thought, it might have been lawfull to have appealed from them to others. For why may there not bee appeales from them in whom no independen…ie of Policie is ſeated? Yet now we are reſtrained from ſuch appeales, for that all other Iudicatures are accounted forraigne and Exotique. So that of two ſentences the one immediately following upon the other, the former tels us there is no independencie of policie in any of the Churches mentioned, which are Domeſticque and neere, and the other tels us that other Churches are ſo Exotique and forraigne, that appeales to them are unwarrantable: and what to ſay for the reconciling of theſe things, I muſt confeſſe I find not.
I grant it is true, Appeales to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures are not warrantable. But why are we not certified what Iudicatures are to be accounted Exotique and Forraigne? For here I conceive lyes the pinch of the queſtion; and unleſſe this be determined, the thing in queſtion is ſtill left at uncertainty. For as in civill ſtates there are many Cities and Townes which have independent power within themſelves, as Geneva, Strasburgh, Zuricke, Baſill, and many others, and Appeales from any of theſe, though to the City or Town next adjoyning, would be to a Iudicature Exotique or forraigne, ſo ſome are apt to conceive the like of Congregationall Churches. And therefore it had need to be cleered that Appeales from ſuch Churches is not to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures; for if this be not cleered, the unlawfulneſſe of Appeales to forraigne and exotique Powers may be granted, and the queſtion will remaine uncleered.
Church Appeales though warranted by the light of Nature, yet it is ſuppoſed they be rationall, and grounded on good reaſon, as that either the matter belong not to the Congregation, or then it bee certain or morally preſumed the Congregation will be partiall or unjuſt, or the buſineſſe bee difficill and intricate; and if appeales be groundleſſe and unjuſt, neither Chriſt nor Natures light doth warrant them. Yea in ſuch caſe the ſupremacie from which no man can lawfully appeale, lyeth ſometime in the Congregation ſometime in the Claſſicall Presbytery, ſo as it is unlawfull to appeale for Illud tantum poſſumus quod jure poſſumus.
Anſw. The ſhort ſumme is thus much, that appeales are then lawfull when there is juſt ground and reaſon for them, otherwiſe they are unlawfull. Now firſt of all how doth this prove (for we would ſtill keep to the point) the neceſſity of that Conſequence whereof we ſpeak afore, viz. That if appeales be lawfull, then there is a ſupremacie of Syno…s over Congregations. I conceive it is not proved hereby all; but contrarily appeales may be granted lawfull, when there is juſt reaſon and ground for them, and yet the ſupremacie of Synods over Congregations is ſtill uncle…red. Nextly, it ſtill remaines a queſtion, who muſt be judge of the reaſonableneſſe of the Appeale and of thoſe caſes that are put to ſhew when they are reaſonable, viz. That the matter belongs not to the Congregation and the reſt that are named: and unleſſe it be cleered to whom it belongs to judge theſe things, we are ſtill left at uncertainty, in the maine matter, viz. In whom the ſupremacie doth lye, from whom we may not appeale. For to ſay as our Reverend Author doth, That in ſome caſe the ſupremacie from which no man can lawfully appeale, lyeth in the Congregation, and ſometimes it doth not: Appeales when they are grounded upon good reaſon are warrantable, elſe they are not: when the matter belongs not to the Congregation or the Congregation will be partiall and unjuſt, or when the buſineſſe is diffic…ll and intricate, then we may appeale from the Congregation, elſe we may not, Theſe things I ſay doe not cleere the matter at all, becauſe ſtill the queſtion remaines who muſt be judge of theſe things, whether the party appealing, or the Congregation from whom, or the Synod to whom the appeale is made: and unleſſe this be determined, the things mentioned alledged by our Brother do afford us ſmall help in the matter for the cleering of it. And therefore, what we ſaid in the Anſwer doth ſtill for ought I ſee remaine ſound, viz. That there muſt be ſome finall and ſupreame judgement that controverſies may not by appeales after appeales be ſpun out in infinitum, and to determine where that ſupremacie doth lye, is the maine queſtion, which unleſſe it be determined, the uſefulneſſe of appeales may be granted, and yet we ſhall be ſtill at uncertainty about the thing in queſtion and as much to ſeeke as before, becauſe that there ought to be appeales till you come to the higheſt is one thing, and that a Synod and n…t the Congregation is the higheſt is another. Now whether our Brother in that which we have hitherto heard have ſufficiently cleered it unto us, that we may know where this ſupremacie doth lye, I leave it to the Iudicious to conſider.