Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
Whether it be againſt the light of Nature that the adverſe party be judge; and whether Mr. Rutherford can ſafely ſay that none of them do ſo teach, and whether this ſaying that parties may not be judges do make againſt entireneſse of power in a Congation, any more then in a generall or Nationall Councell.
THe next place where Mr. Rutherford deales with the Anſwer, is in his P. 456. Where alledging Mr. Tompſon and me, Page 5. he hath theſe words as ours, viz. If it be againſt the light of Nature that the adverſe party be the ſole Iudge, which muſt be if the ſole power of Iuriſdiction be in the Congregation (as wee grant in an extraordinary caſe and the Congregation is in an Iland it ſelfe alone) and ſo it ſhall be lawfull for a ſingle Congregation to do that which is againſt all equity, and the very light of Nature, it muſt then follow, that it is not againſt the light of Nature that a Congregation though conſociated with other Congregations have entire Juriſdiction within it ſelfe.
Anſw. Our words in the Page alledged are more proſpicuous and cleere, then theſe which are here ſet down for ours: neither do wee make any mention of a Congregation in an Iland, nor yet of a Congregation conſociated with other Churches, leaſt of all do we ſay (or report others to ſay) that it is lawfull for a ſingle Congregation to do that which is againſt all equity and the very light of Nature; none of theſe things are ours. And therefore, that our true meaning may plainely appeare as it is, I will tranſcribe a few of our words, which are theſe, viz. Sure we cannot thinke that there can be ſuch a caſe imagined, wherein you would grant it lawfull for a ſingle Congregation to do that which is againſt all equity and the very light of Nature, and yet you grant that the caſe may be ſuch that a ſingle Congregation may have entireneſſe of Juriſdiction within it ſelfe; which ſeemes to us plainly to prove that for a Congregation to bee ſo independent as to be the finall Judge of offences within it ſelfe, is not againſt all equity nor againſt the light of Nature, as is intimated by you. Theſe are our words, much differing from thoſe which Mr. Rutherford ſets down as ours, which I thought meet to relate out of the Anſwer, that our meaning might appeare as it is, and no otherwiſe. And now let us heare what our Brother ſubjoyneth for anſwer.
None of us, ſaith he, Do teach that it is againſt the light of Nature that the adverſe party be the Iudge: it might fall out in a generall Councell lawfully convened from which their is no Provocation: Yea and in a Nationall Councell (for all Councels may erre) the adverſe party may Judge; as it was a lawfull Councell according to a Church conſtitution that condemned Chriſt of Blaſphemy and they were alſo his enemies.
Anſw. And may it not alſo fall out in a Provinc…all Synod, and in a Claſſis or Presbtytery of many Churches? I ſuppoſe it cannot be denyed, but the Iudges in all theſe may be the adverſe parties; and ſo if the adverſe party may not be Iudge, then neither generall nor Nationall Councels, nor Provinciall Synods, nor Claſſes, nor Presbyteries may be Iudges; becauſe there is none of theſe but poſſibly they may be parties. And ſo this argument, parties may not be Iudges, doth make no more againſt the Congregations power of judging, then againſt all Eccleſiaſticall Aſſemblies whatſoever. Vnleſſe therefore men would overthrow the power of all Eccleſiaſticall Iudicatories whatſoever without exception of any, they can have no help from this Argument to overthrow the power of Iuriſdiction in Congregations. Not to inſiſt upon that which might alſo be truly alledged, that the Objection hath the like force, (if any at all) againſt civill Iudicatories.
But is it ſo indeed as our Brother affirmeth, that none of them do teach that it is againſt the light of Nature that the adverſe party be the judge? I thinke he ſhould not thus have ſpoken, for I am much miſtaken if the contrary hereunto be not certainly true. For firſt of all, I alledge the words of Reverend Mr, Herle, in his Book of Independency Page 5. alledged in the Anſwer: Page 6, the very Pag. which here Mr Rutherford is dealing againſt. In which place of Mr. Herle there are theſe words, viz. That there ought to be graduall Judicatories, wherein the agrieved party may appeale from the leſſer to the higher, that againſt the very light of Nature the adverſe party be not the ſole Iudge and party too in the cauſe, there can be no Ceremony or Type in this, Next of all I alledge the words of the ſame Reverend Author in his Page 10▪ (Which is alſo alledged in the forementioned place of the Anſwer) Where the words are theſe, What if a Brother offend not a particular Brother, but the whole Congregation? What if ten Brethren offend the whole or part? Shall we thinke the offence fals not within our Saviours remed or complaint or Appeale here? That the offended party be not againſt all equity the ſole and finall Judge of the offence. In which places wee ſee it is plaine, yet this Reverend Author counts it againſt the very light of Nature; that the adverſe party ſhould bee Iudge and party too in the cauſe, and that it is againſt all equity that the party offended ſhould bee ſole and finall Iudge of the offence. And therefore it is marvellous that Mr. Rutherford ſhould ſay that none of them do ſo teach: Yea, it is the more marvellous inaſmuch as both theſe places of Mr. Herle are expreſly mentioned in that very page of the Anſwer which here Mr. Rutherford is diſputing againſt. And therefore it he had not remembred that himſelfe had read the ſame in Mr Herle, as like enough he had, yet finding the ſame alledged by us in that Scripture of ou…s, it is marvell hee would not turne to the places alledged to ſearch and ſee whether the thing were ſo or no, afore he had denyed the ſame. Whereas on the contrary, whether he ſearched or ſearched not, this we ſee that he roundly affirmes, that none of them do so teach; to which ſaying I know not how to aſſent, our eyes having ſo plainly ſeene and read the direct contrary,
Yea and further, it is yet more marvellous that Mr. Rutherford ſhould thus write, conſidering not only what hath been already ſaid, but alſo what himſelfe hath written elſewhere: I will mention a few of his own ſayings, and then himſelfe ſhall be …udge, whether the thing we have now in hand was by him adviſe…ly and well ſpoken. In his Pe…ceable Plea, Page 218 he hath theſe words, When the Graecian Church offendeth the Hebrew Church, the Hebrew Church cannot complaine to the Graecian Church, for the Law forbiddeth the party to bee Judge. And what Law hee meanes may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the ſame Treatiſe, where he ſaith, If one man be wronged and ſee truth ſuffer by partiality, the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeale to an Aſſembly, where there is more light and greater Authority, as the weaker may fly to the ſtronger. Now let himſelfe be judge whether in theſe teſtimonies compared, he do not teach, that it is againſt the Law of Nature that parties ſhould be Iudge…, and that therefore men may appeale from them. Againe, thoſe words Page 27 of the ſame Book are ſo plaine as that nothing can be more, Theſe words ſaith he what ſoever yee bind on earth, &c. Muſt be meant only of the Apoſtles, and of the Church, verſe 18. Yea, and it muſt exclude Peter and his offending Brother, ſuppoſe they were both beleevers; becauſe parties by the Law of Nature and Nations cannot be Iudges. Laſ…ly, thoſe words are expreſſe in his Due Right of Presbytery, in his ſee …nd P. 338, 339. Where hee writes thus, If according to the Law of Nature and Nations, no man can be Iudge in his own cauſe, then are appeales from the Elderſhip of one Congregation, when they are a party to the cauſed perſon, Naturall—but the former is reaſon, Nature, Law of Nations. Ergo ſo is the latter. In the Aſſumption of which Sylogiſme he plainly affirmes that it is reaſon, Nature, and the Law of Nations, that no man may be judge in his own cauſe, and by all this I ſuppoſe t… is manifeſt that the thing which he ſaith none of them do teach is expreſly and plainly taught by ſome of them, and among others even by himſelfe, who therefore ought not to have denyed the ſame, nor can bee cleered from much forgetfulneſſe in ſo doing.
And if ſo great an overſight be found in him, I hope himſelf may thereby be intreated to be tender of agravating matters againſt us or others, at leaſtwiſe not ſo farre to agravate them, as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold: for a mans owne infirmities ſhould make him more equitable and favourable towards others. And Chriſtian Readers may be warned hereby not haſtily to receive all that Mr. Rutherford hath written, afore they have duly examined and tryed the ſame, whether the things bee ſo or not, for wee ſee through forgetfulneſſe or otherwiſe hee may greatly miſtake himſelfe, and miſſe of the truth, and give forth ſuch ſayings and expreſſions for truth, as are in no ſort to be maintained but recalled, though nevertheleſſe he is otherwiſe a man of great worth, and ſo ever to be acknowledged.
We teach that it is not Congruous to the wiſdome of Christ, nor to the light of Nature, that Chriſt ſhould have appointed all the ordinary Church Courts, ſo many thouſand Congregations, who may rather crie then extraordinary and higher Synods to bee the onelyonly ordinary Iudges in their own cauſe.
Anſw. Theſe qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being Iudges are ſuch as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now. Now indeed it is ſaid 1. That all Congregations being ſo many thouſand. 2. May not be the only ordinary Iudges in their own cauſe, but it would bee againſt the wiſdome of Chriſt and light of Nature if it ſhould ſo be; Yet formerly it was delivered abſolutely and ſimply, that it is againſt the light of Nature for parties to be Iudges, without any ſuch modifications and qualifications as now Mr. Rutherf. gives to help the matter withall. Nevertheleſſe by qualifying the thing in this ſort, it ſeemes thereby to bee ſtill granted that though ſo many thouſand Congregations may not ordinarily be Iudge in their own cauſe, but the light of Nature will be againſt it, yet for ſome Congregations and at ſome times the thing may be allowed well enough: elſe why is the thing denyed only to ſo many Congregations, and ordinarily, if it be not thereby implyed that ſome Congregations and at ſome times may thus practiſe? Now hereupon the queſtion groweth, whether ſome at ſome times may bee allowed to do contrary to the light of Nature, though all may not: or whether the light of Nature bee changed when there comes to be many Congregations, and be not the ſame that it was before, when there was no more Congregations but one, whether I ſay ſome new light of Nature do ariſe with the riſe of new Congregations, ſo that when they are many it would be againſt this light for them thus to bee Iudges, though it was not ſo when there was but one: or whether we muſt ſay the light of Nature remaining in the ſame, one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto, but many may not. It ſeemes to be inconvenient and ha…d to affirme either of theſe; and yet the one or the other ſeemes unavoidable by this that Mr. Rutherford here teacheth. For let it be granted that a Congregation that is alone, yea a generall Councell, yea a Nationall Councell alſo may be Iudges in their own cauſe, and that no light of Nature is againſt the ſame, and yet many Congregations may not be ſo, but then the light of Nature will be againſt it, let theſe things I ſay be granted, which are all of them granted and taught by Mr. Rutherford, and then I deſire to know how the inconveniences mentioned can be avoided; I meane how it can be avoided, but either ſome men or Church Aſſemblies may lawfully do that which is againſt the very light of Nature, or elſe that the light of Nature is changed when many Congregations do ariſe, from that which it was when there was but one. Yea the difficulty and intrica…y in this way is yet more, if it be well conſidered. For firſt of all when a Congregation is alone, it is yeelded that it is not againſt Natures light for them to bee Iudges in their own cauſe. Secondly, when many Congregations do ariſe, now it is ſaid it is againſt ſuch light, that they ſhould ſo be Iudges: Yet thirdly, when theſe Congregations do gather into a Nationall Councell, then this light of Nature will allow them to be Iudges, as in the firſt caſe of a ſingle Congregation that is alone: And the ſame is alſo ſaid of the generall Councell: ſo that here is ſtrange varying and changing of the light of Nature, and of that which is againſt it, lawfull or unlawfull thereby. And when good reaſon and ground is given for the cleering of theſe things, we ſhall then conſider further thereof, and ſee more then yet we do. In the meane time taking what is granted, that no light of Nature forbids a Congregation when it is alone, to have entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction within it ſelfe, nor forbids the ſame to the generall or Nationall Councels, I thinke it may thence be inferred, that the like muſt be allowed to Congregationall Churches that have neighbours, and that entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction in theſe is no more againſt the light of Nature, then in the other. For to ſay that one Congregation may have this entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction and the light of Nature allowe… it, and others may not but the light of Nature forbids it; yea to ſay firſt the light of Nature allowes it, and then it forbids it, and then it allowes it againe, theſe are ſuch abſtruſe and intricate things, yea ſo apparantly incongruous and inconſiſtent, that it paſſeth my underſtanding to perceive how they can ſtand together.