Defense from the Imputation of Self Contradiction by Daniel Cawdry, Chapter 3
Chap. 3.
Touching the sixth Contradiction.
The sixth Contradiction is thus Presented.
| 6. Examination is one of the highest Acts of Rule: and therefore cannot be performed, but by some Rulers. Keyes pag. 16. The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbytery, because they have not received frō Christ an office of Rule without their officers, ibid. No Act of the Peoples power doth properly bind unlesse the Authority of the Presbytery Joyne with it. Ibid. pag. 36. | 6. If all their officers were found Culpable either in Hereticall Doctrine, Or in scandalous Crimes, the Church hath lawfull Authority to proceed against them all. The Way, pag. 45. In case of offence given by an Elder, or the whole Eldership together, the Church hath Authority to require satisfaction, and if they give it not, to Proceed to Censure Ibid. page 101. | 6. Excommunication is not an Act of the Power of office, but of judgment, Nor an Act of highest Rule but of supreame Judgment seated in the Fraternity. Surv. part. 3. pag. 45. As a Church of Brethren can not proceed to any publick Censure without the Elders so nor the Elders without concurrence of the People, Preface to the Keyes pag. 4. |
Answer 1. Here is indeede a Discrepance in Expressions between the Way, and the Keyes. But it was not my Act, that any such Discrepance should have been extant. The truth is, That many yeares agoe, (and some yeares before the suppressing of the Bishops in England) I was seriously moved by some of our Brethren, and fellow Elders here, to Draw up an Historicall Narration of our Church-way together with some familiar grounds of the same briefly. In short time as God Helped, I dispatched it, which when our brethren had perused, I saw they did not close with it. Yet a Brother going for England, got some where a Copy of it, and Presented it to some of the Congregationall way there: and I afterwards heard, that neither did they close with it: and in particular not with that Passage, which is here recited, as a part of the Contradiction. Which since appeareth more openly, by the Asterisk put upon that Passage, and upon sundry other in the Book: But before I saw that, and had only heard, That they did not fully Accord, I hoped it had met with a timely suppression, rather then an impression: for I heard no more of it, for two, or three yeares after: Meane while perceiving That one maine Point of Dissatisfaction, was the Authority given to the Fraternity, I considered more seriously and Distinctly, of the whole Power of the Keyes, and expressed my Apprehensions in that Treatise of the Keyes, which our brethren here did well Accept, and so did the brethren (of like Judgment) in England, and some of them were pleased to Attest it with the Preface which is now extant before it: yea I have heard (as well as some other of our Brethren here) by some letters from England, that Reverend Mr Rutherford (who was a great Part of the Assembly at Westminster) offered to the Dissenting brethren, That if they would come up to the Treatise of the Keyes, themselves would meet them there. But this was sundry yeares, after the Treatise of the way had been finished, and carried to England, and (as I hoped) suppressed. But it seemeth some Brother there, having got a Copy of it, being zealous of the Authority of the Fraternity, and Perceiving that their Authority was not so fully Acknowledged in the Keyes as in the Way; He caused his Copy of the Way (which was indeed abrupt in the entrance, and imperfect otherwise) to be Published in Print: which when I saw, It troubled me not a little, as knowing, That the Discrepant Expressions in the one, and in the other, might trouble friends, and give Advantage to Adversaries. Afterwards Mr Hooker coming downe from Connectiquol, to consult with the Elders here about his Book; He pleaded seriously for the Placing of all Church power, primitively, in the Body of the Church, and also for their Judiciary Power of Censure over the Presbytery, suitable to what I had delivered in the Way; Now, though I cannot say, that his Reasons did prevaile with me, to lter the Placing of the First Subject of the Power of the Keyes, from what I had delivered in the Treatise of the Keyes: yet Perceiving that some mens Judgments did more Adhere as to his Judgment, so to the former course of the Way: others to that of the Keyes, I suffered both to stand as they did, especially seeing I could not help it, the Book of the Way being published without my Consent; and both the Way, and the Keyes being disperst into many hands (past my Revoking) and Refuted by some; So that if the Replyer find some Discrepancy in one of these bookes from the other, Let him know that the Doctrine of the Way (in such few Points wherein it differeth from the Keyes) was not then mine when the Keyes were published, much lesse when the Way was published, which was many yeares after, though it had been penned many yeares before. And yet take all the Discrepancyes, and weigh them (I will not say with Candour but with Rigour) and I do not yet remember, nor can I yet find any of them, but they lye rather in Difference of Logicall Notion, then in Doctrine of Divinity, or Church Practise, as I said before.
Answer 2. This further; let me Acquaint both the Replyer, and the Reader withall, that sometimes there hath growne a Question, amongst us whether all Excommunication be an Act of Officiaria Potestas, or not some Honoraria only? If of Officiaria, It cannot be Dispensed by the Brethren only, as the first Columne hath it. If of Honoraria, It may, and so the second Columne hath it: and then the Contradiction is not ejusdem.
Neither is this Censure dispensed by the brethren (as I conceive) one of the highest Acts of Rule (which is to deliver unto Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5.) but Reacheth only to cast their Elders, out of Administration of office to them, and out of Church Communion with them. The Truth is, Ego libenter in eorum me numero esse Profiteor, qui proficiendo Scribunt, & Scribendo proficiunt; which gave me occasion to Adde the third Answer given above to the first Contradiction, Some things in the way which I delivered more laxly, I expresse more distinctly in the Treatise of the Keyes which followed after: and some things more fully and clearely, in the way cleared, then in either of the former.
Answer 3. When I say No Act of the Peoples part, doeth properly binde, unlesse the Authority of the Elder joyne with it (Keyes pag. 36.) I would be understood to speak it as I meant it, of the Elders walking without offence; in the Right Administration of their office, and Conversation of their lives.
Answer 4. When Mr Hooker saith. Excommunication is not an Act of Office, Power, nor of Rule, but of supreame Judgment seated in the Fraternity, I easily grant that the Excommunication dispensed by the Fraternity is not an Act of Office-Power; But it may Justly be Inquired, whether Excommunication, being Dispensed by the Elders with the consent of the Church, be not an Act, as of the Churches honourable Judiciall Power, so of the Elders Office-Power, and Rule in the Church? For as the Pastorall Preaching of the Elders is Officiall, and so Authoritative, though the Preaching of other Brethren (as of the Sonnes of the Prophets) be not so: so why may there not be the like Difference, observed here? To deliver unto Satan seemeth to be an Act of Judiciall Office-Power, as when in another case it is said, The Judge delivereth a man to the Officer, and the officer casteth him into Prison Matth. 5. 25. He that casteth into Prison is an Inferiour officer. The Judge must therefore be a Superiour officer, that delivereth an offendour to the officer, to be cast into Prison. In the Excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian (where both the Elders and Brethren concurred) the sentence might well be delivered in Termes that expresse an Act of highest Authority, To deliver unto Satan. But where the Church is called to Act against their Elders (who corrupt them with false Doctrine) there the Apostle Requireth the Church, to mark them, and Avoyd them, Rom. 16. 17, 18. which may expresse an Act of liberty, and Judiciall Power, but not of Authority.