Defense from the Imputation of Self Contradiction by Daniel Cawdry, Chapter 1

Defense from the Imputation of Self Contradiction by Daniel Cawdry · Chapter 1

p. 3CHAP. 1.

THE first offence he taketh, is against my Inconstancy, and (that which is the fruit of it) my manifest and manifold Contradictions to my selfe to the number of about 21: Inconstancy in the generall He Intimateth in the Text of James in his Frontispiece, James 1. 8.

A Double minded man is unstable in all his wayes.

To which I will Rejoyne no other Answer than a Text of like Authority, and alleadged (I hope) with more Pertinency, Math. 11. 7. What went p. 4you out into the wildernesse to see? A Reede shaken with the winde?

The Contradictions are set forth in great letters in the Title Page and afterwards particularly in an ample Scheme in 3 Columnes in the end of his reply, let us consider of them in order.

The 1^rst Contradiction.

The Reconciliation of this Seeming Contradiction were obvious and easy; take the words as they stand in the Scheme; for so it might be said, Brethren, are sometimes put for private members of the Church, and Contradistinguished from such as beare office in the Church. As when it is said in the Synodicall Letter (Act. p. 515. 23.) The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. Sometimes Brethren are put more generally, as Comprehending all the members of the Church, both officers and private members as Gal. 6. 1: and frequently else where: In the former Sence, the Passage in the Keyes speaketh, when it saith, the sense of the words will be most full, if Peter be conceived as Receiving the Keyes in the Name both of the officers, and private members, to wit, in the Name of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. In the latter sense, the words of the Scheme might be taken to Runne, That the Power of the keyes was given to Peter, not as an Apostle (for then it had been Given only to the Apostles:) nor as an Elder (for then it had been only to Elders) but as a Profest Believer. And under the Generall Name of Profest Believers, not only private Brethren, but Apostles, and Elders may be comprehended. For all the Apostles & all the Elders are profest Believers: p. 6And so all of them may claime their Interest in the Power of the keyes, according to the severall measure and latitude of Power assigned to them in the Scriptures. But I will not so answer; because in the Way the context speaketh of such Brethren, as have not power to exercise the Pastoral Ministry of the word & Sacraments. But notwithstanding that the Assoylment of the contradiction is no lesse faire and cleare. For M^r Cawdrey well knoweth (and so doth any Logician:) That to a contradiction, It is a necessary Requisite (amongst others:) That both speake ad Idem. But here it is otherwise. In the keyes I spake of such a power of the keyes, as Peter Received Formally, standing in the roome both of an Apostle and of an Elder, and of a Profest Believer: that is, such a Power as Peter having Received might exercise in his own person, and each one of them respectively. In the Way, I spake of such a power, as the Brethren of the Church p. 7have Received not formally (farther than concerneth their own liberty) but virtually only.

For though the Brethren have not a formall Power to excercise the Pastorall ministry of the word and Sacraments, yet they have a virtuall Power to exercise them by choosing and calling forth such Officers as have a formall Power to exercise the same. And there is nothing in the keyes, or in the way, or in the Defence, that contradicteth this. So that both these two Passages (in the keyes, and in the way) are so farre from making a Contradiction (and that so flat as never any more) as that they doe not indeed amount to an Opposition. In an Opposition both parts cannot be true: here both are true. Peter considered as standing in the Roome of an Apostle, Elder, and Profest Believer, did receive Formally all the Power of the keyes: The Body of the Brethren have received, though the power of their liberty Formally; p. 8yet all other Parts of Church Power which belongeth to Officers, they have Received only virtually and this very distinction is expressed in terminis, in the very same Page (27. of the way) whence this foreign is fetched. As for his Exageration of the Contradiction, That is was as flat, as never any more, though he to make this Comparative Speech seem lesse hyperbolicall, doe tell us in a Parenthesis, That Contradictions doe not Recipere magis & minùs (and therefore if they make any Contradiction at all It must needs be as slat, as ever any was:) He may be pleased to Consider, That such a Parenthesis, though it make his Speech, lesse hyperbolicall, yet it maketh it the more irrationall; If I should say Nero was as wicked a man as ever any was, and yet presuppose all men were equally wicked (wickednesse in men did not Recipere magis & minùs) there were very little Reason in Such Exaggeration. In my former Answer to this Contradiction p. 9(intituled, The way of the Congregationall Churches cleared) I said the words whereon the Assertour grounded this Contradiction, were his own not mine. For He reporteth me to say (in the keyes pag. 4.) That the keyes were delivered to Peter as an Apostle, as an Elder, as a Believer. But in his Preface (Sect. 5. Num. 1.) He confesseth;

That the words are not mine in terminis: but in sense, (he saith) they be. For I said take Peter not as an Apostle Only, but as an Elder also, and a Believer too, all may well stand together.

Whereupon he Inferreth; Doth not this discourse clearly hold forth this Proposition, as the sense of that Text, The keyes were delivered to Peter as an Apostle, as an Elder, as a Believer too? all may well stand together.

Ans. That discourse of mine is so farre from clearly holding forth that Proposition, that it clearly holdeth forth the contrary in expresse termes: p. 14my expresse termes be, Take Peter considered not only as an Apostle &c. now if not only as an Apostle, than not as an Apostle, For if they were delivered to him as an Apostle, then to all the Apostles, and only to the Apostles: which my words in Terminis doe expresly Deny.

But saith he, This Apology maketh it worse, For if it be so that whatsoever is Attributed to any as such, is given to all such universally, reciprocally, and only to such: Now Assume.

But the keyes were given to Peter as an Apostle, Therefore they were given only to the Apostles, and not to the Believers as such.

But here the Assumption is Palpably false, not at all delivered by me, but dragged out of my words against the letter and against the sence of them. I say the keyes were not given to Peter as an Apostle only: why then not to him as an Apostle, but as He is joyntly considered with other Officers and Brethren. When therefore p. 15he Appealeth to the Judgment of any Logician, whether to say Peter Received the keyes not as an Apostle only, but an Elder also, and a Believer, be not as much as to say, Peter had the Power of the keyes given Him, as an Apostle, as an Elder, and as a Believer: Verily if that were the Judgment of all Logicians I should conclude, either that Logick had forsaken the world, or at least that my selfe were forsaken of Logick.

When Christ Promised the keyes to Peter, though he spake Indefinitely, keyes, yet he meaneth universally all the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven. And to put all the keyes into Peter's hand as an Apostle, though it would communicate them indeed to all the Apostles, yet since the Death of all the Apostles, all the Churches and all the Elders, have been left destitute of the Power of the keyes.

And if so, then why doe we blame the Seekers who have cast off all Churches, p. 12and all Ordinances, 'till new Apostles come?

Againe the Replyer Argueth thus on the contrary (from that Passage in the way pag. 27:) If the keyes were given to Peter, not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, then to all Believers, and only to Believers. But (saith the Way) the keyes were given to Peter not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, therefore they were given to all Believers (Women and all) and only to Believers.

Ans. It hath been shewed above, That in that Place in the Way, I speak expresly of Profest Believers, to have received all the power of the keyes not Formally, but virtually. So that if there be some Power of the keyes which they cannot exercise Formally as Brethren, yet they may exercise the same virtually, by choosing and calling forth such, as may formally exercise the same for them: which presupposed I answer to the Major, If the Power of the keyes (which was to continue p. 13in the Church) were given to Peter, not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, then it was Given to all Believers, and only to believers, & to such whom Believers shall orderly choose, and call forth to execute the same. As to instance in a like example, If heate be Given to Fire, as such, then to all Fire, and only to Fire, & to such other things, as Fire communicateth his virtue to. When therefore the Publishers of the keyes say, The Power of the keyes may be Disposed in a due Allotment into divers hands. The Replyer had no cause to say, Herein they neither Agree with me, nor with them. They say it is put into diverse hands, And he saith it is Given only to Believers: And is not this a Contradiction?

Ans: No verily; For when I say It is given to Believers as such, and expresse virtually, as well as Formally, The meaning is cleare, It is given to all Believers, and only to Believers, and by them Communicated to such, as p. 10they doe orderly choose and call forth, to the exercise of the same. And the publishers of the keyes I doubt not, will say as much. When I said (in the way) That the brethren might not administer Sacraments in Defect of all Officers, And therefore made it appeare that one sort of men (the brethren) had not Received all the Power of the keyes Formally. The Replyer returneth, Truly this is to Discover the Contradiction the more. For if the Power of the keyes be Delivered to Believers as such, then the Power of Administring the Sacraments is Given to them: for that is a Part of the Power of the keyes.

Ans. It is wearysome to repeat so often the same Answer; yet let me say it once more, and leave it; He that saith, Believers Receive all the Power of the keyes as Profest Believers, He saith all of them have Received the Power, and they only, and such as Receive their Power from them. And this is the force of quateuus p. 11Tale; That whosoever Receive any thing as such, all such doe Receive it, & none but such as Derive it from them.

But saith the Replyer, In the Way, he giveth the greater part of Church power to the Body of the Church (pag. 45.) to wit, to Ordaine, and in some cases) to excommunicate all their Church Officers: which are the highest Acts of Rule (as else where he speaketh:) Therefore he may not Deny them the lesser, which is to Administer the Sacraments.

Ans. The answer is ready at hand, and was ready at his hand (in Part 2: of the Congregationall way cleared pag. 29.) where I Distinguish Potestas into officiariam and honorariam. Excommunication by the Brethren is the highest Act of Honoraria Potestas: but not of Officiaria Potestas. To Preach the word with Authority, and to Administer the Seales of it, are acts of the highest office-Power in the Church. Popish Divines would take p. 16it very ill, if any Act of Church Power were said to be higher than Conficere corpus Domini. But excommunication largly taken is an Act of a Power proper to a Community. Any community hath power ex Natura rei, to Receive into their Communion, & to cast not of their Communion. Every sound Body hath a power to cast out his own superfluous humours, and to cut off his own Putrid members: As for ordination, though we looke at it (with D^r Ames) as Adjunctum consummans of the Peoples Election, and vocation of their Officers (and therefore not utterly Excentrical from the Peoples power;) yet our Churches doe not Practise it ordinarily, where they have Elders of their own, or can Procure other Elders to Joyne with them.

As for that last words in the Scheme of the first Contradiction, I know not whether the Replyer put any weight, or stresse, in that, in the first Columne, the keyes are said to be given (to p. 17wit, partly) to Believers, and in the same Columne againe to the Fraternity, with the Presbytery, in the second Columne to Profest Believers, In the third to Believers Publickly Professing their Faith: And (in M^r Hookers Judgment) Not to Believers as Believers, but as Believers Covenanting.

But if it be requisite to say any thing to this, I would say. 1. That the Fraternity, and Profest Believers, and Believers Publickly Professing their Faith, are all one. And the common Name of Believers is often put for all the rest, They that were Added to the Church (Acts 2. 47: and 41:) are called by the common name of Believers Acts 2. 44. and 4. 32. when M^r Hooker saith the Power is not Given to Believers as Believers, but as Believers Covenanting, He meaneth the same that I do, by Profest Believers.

As for women (whom the Replyer cast in our way before) though they be Believers and so partake in the same common Salvation, as also in the word p. 18and seales: yet because of the frailty of their sex, they are expresly exempted by the Apostle from any Act of Power in the Church. 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. and 1 Tim: 2. 11, 12. Yet that Impeacheth not the Generality of the Proposition; That all the Fraternity of Believers have Part in the Power of the Keyes: That all men once Dye is the generall Proposition of the Apostle Heb: 9. 27. which is not Impeached by the Translation of Enoch and Elias.

Having thus cleared the first Answer to this contradiction, Let us weigh next what he saith to the second Answer, which saith he is given to help out the former, for I had said.

2. If there had been some Difference between the Keyes and the Way, in some expressions: yet it lay rather in Logicall Termes, then in the Doctrine of Divinity, or Church Practise, and such is this, about the first subject of the Power of the Keyes.

What saith the Replyer to this? He Returneth a double exception.

1. Saith He, Had it been only a lesser p. 19Difference about a Logicall Notion (as he minceth it) the Assertor had not Observed it. But a difference (of the highest magnitude) to Contradiction, in Delivering a New way is very Remarkable. How shall we be brought to Agree with them that contradict not only one another, but one man himselfe.

Answer 1. It was not any weaknesse of the first Answer, that needed a second to Help it out, but variety of fit matter for a just Defence produced it: It needed no help, but to cleare it selfe from groundlesse exceptions.

Answer 2. The seeming Difference between the way and the Keyes (if any be in this point) it lyeth rather in Logicall expressions, then in the Doctrine of Divinity, or Church Practise. For what ever the Different Judgments of men of our way may be, touching the first subject of the Power of the Keyes (some Placing it in the Body of the Church, others Dividing it between officers and Brethren:) yet in the Doctrine of Divinity we all Agree with one Accord, that p. 20the Church (even the Body of Churchmembers) have power to choose their officers, to Admit members, and to censure offenders: And that the officers only have Power to Preach the word with office and Authority, and to Administer the Sacraments. And according to this unity of judgment is the uniforme Practise of our Churches. And therefore let mincing be left to curious Cookes to prepare their shread meat for queazy stomackes: or let it be left to such as would make the best of a bad cause: we neither Distrust our Cause to be of God, nor do feare any thing more then that it should be hid, and clouded with prejudices and calumnies from such as know it not, and yet seek the Truth in sincerity. And therefore let the Replyer be pleased to consider, whether the Difference be indeed any more then in a Logicall Notion: and whether they be the words not only of an Assertour, but of an Avenger, to style it a Difference of the highest magnitude? Surely if there were not some more then p. 21common zeale and Indignation in the cause, A Contradiction in Logicall Termes, would not be counted a Difference of the highest magnitude in Divinity: nor vvould such Difference in vvords so easy to be reconciled, be blovven up to so high an opposition, as a Contradiction.

2. His second exception is, That Howsoever the first Subject is indeed a Logicall Terme, yet the matter Discoursed is Doctrinall Divinity: And whatsoever the Practise be, It is a Contradiction in Divinity as well as in Logick.

Answer: But I hope it hath appeared, there hath been found no Contradiction at all, neither in Logick nor in Divinity, though there have wanted no Industry to search it, nor animosity to charge it. And therefore your Question is easily Answered, How shall we be brought to Agree with them, that Contradict not only one another, but one man himselfe? For here is yet no Contradiction found of one man to himselfe, nor any Appearance of Contradiction neither in one p. 22man nor other, unlesse it be only in Logicall Termes, and scarce therein. But If the Replyer deferre his Agreeing with Divines or Churches, in any way of Religion, till he meet with such as neither Contradict themselves, nor one another, He must neither be Protestant nor Puritan (as they have been called) nor of the Presbyterian, nor Congregationall way.

What if it be said (in the way, pag: 45.) The brethren of the Church might Proceed (to wit, upon just, and weighty grounds) against all their officers as well as one? yet in such cases our Churches are never wont to proceed, but in the Presence, and with the Consent and approbation of other Churches?

Why then saith he their Doctrine and Practise agree not, which is the greater Blemish.

How hard is it for a heart leavened with Prejudice to take good things in good part? A free man, sui juris (having his fathers consent) might marry a wife (if he would) without his Brethrens consent: And for Adultery, he p. 23might put her away also without their Consent, And yet he will not do either, without their consent, and Approbaion. Is this mans Judgment contrary to his Practise, and is it the greater Blemish? what say we to Paul? He Received his Gospell, neither of man, nor by man. And he might have Preached it every where boldly and confidently, and have called an Anathema upon all such as had gainesayed Him, whether Angells or Apostles Gal. 1. 8, 9. yet he chose rather to go up to Jerusalem to conferre with the Apostles about his whole Gospell Gal. 2. 1, 2. and that lest he had Runne in vaine, or should Runne in vaine. What then? shall we say Then Pauls Doctrine and Practise Agree not, which is the greater Blemish? God forbid. Christian Prudence and Religious care to Prevent offence, will condescend to cleare Righteous Proceedings to all judicious and equall mindes. And yet neither crosse his owne judgment of his owne Right, nor blemish (but rather Honour) himselfe by Approving it to others.

p. 243. I gave a third Answer to the former Charge of Contradictions, which he saith, I Added to succour both the former.

But the Truth is, they need no succour to Defend themselves against such exceptions: but it is an Honour to truth, to have many witnesses to attend upon it.

I said it for a third Answer, That it were no just matter of calumny, If in some latter Tractate, I should Retract or expresse more commodiously, what I wrote in a former lesse safely: as Augustine &c.

Whereto he Replyeth, Truly S^r, It had been no just Calumny so to do, but matter of Honour and Reputation rather. But to write Contradictions, and to take no Notice of them, till observed by others: and then to be so farre from Retracting, as to stand upon Justification of them, is nothing like Augustines Practise, and so falleth short of his Reputation.

Answer: Though Augustine Retracted, what he was convinced of, to be erroneous, or unsafe, yet he did not Retract p. 25what every one objected against him, (not only what Faustus, or Petilius or Julian objected, but not so much as what Jerome himselfe objected,) but justly stood upon his owne Defence. Had Vindex his objections been Convictions, Reason, and (I hope) conscience, would not have suffered me to Justify knowne Errours. He doth himselfe beare me witnesse, That he hath sometimes heard, I have often changed my opinions. And (I thank God) I take it for no shame to change for the better.

But to confesse I am convinced, when I am not, and to Retract what a Stranger (though a Brother) conceiveth erroneous, to wit, in his Judgment, but not in mine own, It were as much as to live by another man's Faith, and not mine own: and with all to cast my selfe under that Reproach, which the Title of his Booke implicitly casteth upon me.

A wavering minded man is unstable in all his wayes.

In the conclusiō of his Preface he saith, there are in that Prefatory Epistle to the Way, p. 26and in that other to the keyes, other Differences observed, betweene the Author and the Prefacers, but the Author is not pleased to take Notice of them.

It is too hard perhaps to Reconcile others to himselfe.

It is well if he can Reconcile himselfe to himselfe.

Ans. This is the word not of an Assertour but of an avenger, (whose heart is hot, Deut. 19. 6.) But Though M^r Cawdry know not so much, yet I have taken Notice of those Differences, and have Advertised the Prefacers of the same, whom it concerned. My letters to them are not present at hand with me: If they were I should not think it meet to publish them. In the Preface to the keyes, the Prefacers note a Difference between me and them about the Prophecying of Private Brethren, concerning which I sent them word, I Discerned no Dissent at all between them and me in that Point, though they had Added a case or two of liberty, more than there they did expresse.

p. 27Whether it be too hard for me or no to Reconcile others with my selfe it is enough, that I keep the unity of the Spirit with them in the bond of Peace: and that I have learned Placidè ferre contra Sentientes.

But howsoever I hope (by the help of Christ) I shall soone Reconcile my selfe to my selfe, unlesse the Replyer can prevaile with me so farre, as to make me not only to fall out with my selfe, but to fall off from the Truth too, or else convince me that I have so fallen, and yet even so I hope the Lord will help me rather to Reconcile my selfe to the Truth, than my selfe to my selfe.