Defense from the Imputation of Self Contradiction by Daniel Cawdry, Chapter 7
CHAP. 7.
Touching the 14th Contradiction with 15. and 16.
The 14th Contradiction is thus laied out.
| 14. Paul and Barnabas were Ordained to that Office (of Apostleship) by the Imposition of hands of some officers or Members of the Church, Way, p. 45. | 14. In Act. 13. 2, 3. There is no Ordination to Office at all: for the Apostles had their office before Mr. Hooker, Surv. Part. 2. p. 83. This was not to put a new office upon them, but to confirme their sending to the Gentiles ib. p. 60. | 14. This was done in a Particular Church Keyes, p. 29. The officers of one Church did what was done in an ordinary Way, Surv. Parr. 2. p. 83. Then it followeth (by Mr. C.) his Doctrine that the Apostles who were officers in all Churches were ordained in a Particular Church: or that officers of a Church may be ordained in another Church: which he said was unwarrantable. |
Ans. 1. When I say (in the Way) That Paul and Barnabas, were ordained to the Apostolick office by Imposition of hands of some officers of the Church at Antioch (Act. 13. 1, 2, 3.) It is not Disproved (by Mr Hooker) saying that they had had their office before. For I noe where say, That ordination Giveth the office, but only Approveth it and Solemnely, (as it were) Installeth the elect officer into it, and sendeth him forth with a Blessing into the Administration of it. Neither when he saith, That there is there no Ordination unto office at all, doth he contradict what I affirme, For his meaning is, to Deny it in Mr Rutherford's sence, who speaketh there of Ordination, as Giving the calling unto the office: which Mr Hooker Disproveth, and therein I concurre with him. For it puts no New office upon them, but Bare witnesse to that calling, which the Holy Ghost had given them.
When Mr Hooker saith, The Officers of one Church did what was done in an ordinary way, He himselfe inferreth the consequence, Therefore it is no Precedent for the Pastors of many Churches, what either they may or should doe.
But the Inferences which Mr Cawdry gathereth, as from my Doctrine out of that Text, either will not hold, or not hurt our cause. For this Inference will not hold, That then the Officers of one Chuch may be ordained in another.
For they were as much Officers of the Church of Antioch, as of any other Churches, It will only inferre, That they who are officers in many Churches, may be Ordained in any one of them.
The other inference will in part follow That some of the Apostles (who were Officers in all Churches) may be Ordained in a Particular Church, when the Holy Ghost calleth for it. For they Act now not in their own Name, or Power, but in the great Name, and Soveraigne Power of the Lord Jesus, who is the Head of all Churhes.
But what Prejudice is that to our cause? or wherein doth it contradict any of our Tenents?
The 15th Contradiction is thus Declared.
| 15. What if the whole Presbytery offend? The readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod, the keyes pag. 43. | 15. There is a readier and nearer way; The Brethren may censure them all, Way pag. 45. If the Congregation be found faithfull and willing to Remove an offence by due censure, why should the offence be called up to a more publicke Judicature. Keyes pag. 42. |
Ans. This Contradiction is made partly out of the concealment of Part of my words in the first Columne, and Partly out of the Addition of some words of his own in the second Columne. In the former Columne I say, If the whole Presbytery offend, or such a Part as will draw a Party, and a Faction in the Church with them, the readiest course then is, to bring the matter to a Synod where those words, such a Part as will draw a Party, or Faction in the Church with them, are given for the just Reason, why in such a case, the case of the offending Presbytery, or other such Leading members in the Church should be brought to a Synod, before it be censured in the Church. But in the words recited in the latter Columne, I speak of the Congregation as Agreeing together, and both faithfull and willing to Proceed against Hereticall Doctrine and Scandalous crimes in whomsoever. And then they need not Trouble the Synod to cleare the case, which is already cleare unto themselves, so that this Contradiction speaketh not ad Idem. The one Columne speaketh of a Church, Divided into parts and Factions, and their readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod. The second Columne speaketh of a Church both faithfull and willing to Proceede against offences with one accord. And then they have sufficient Power within themselves, to judge that which is right, and to execute their Judgment. That which is Added of the Replyers own words, in the latter Columne, doth help not a little to make up an Appearance of the Contradiction. In the Keyes I had sayd (In the case above mentioned) It is the readiest course to bring the matter to the Synod. In the Way he quoteth my words, as if I had said, There is a readier and nearer way. The Brethren may censure them all. If these words had been mine, there had been an Appearance of Contradiction.
To say this is the readyest course, and yet to say, a Discrepant course is a readier and nearer way, is (at least, verbo tenus) an apparent Contradiction. But the Truth is, Those words are none of mine, but the Replyers own. And so it will be an easy matter to make up Contradictions (tot quot) if we may take leave, in one sentence to conceale Part of the words necessary to make up the sense, and in another sentence to Adde words of our owne.
The 16th Contradiction is delivered thus.
| 16. It belongeth to the civill Magistrate, to establish pure Religion, in Doctrine, worship and Government: partly by civill Punishment upon the wilfull oppressours, and Disturbers of the same. Keyes p. 50. | 16. Yet the Brethren here call for, or Tolerate Toleration of all Opinions, and Deny the magistrate Power to Punish any Pretending conscience Bartlets Model, pag. 128. | 16. See Mr. Bartlets Modell p. 25. Contrà |
Ans. 1. This Contradiction laboureth of the same Disease (as the rest generally Doe) It speaketh not ad Idem. Such as require the Magistrate to establish Pure Religion, in Doctrine, worship and Government, and to Restraine the willfull opposers and Disturbers thereof by civill Punishments, They speak of Fundamentals in Religion, and such opinions as apparently tend to libertinisme, and licentious ungodlynesse, as Mr Bartlet expresseth it, Modell pag. 126.
But the Toleration which they Allow and call for, is of such opinions, as neither subvert the Foundation of Religion, nor Practise of Piety. Both these may be maintained without the least shew of the face of Contradiction. Further I find this in Mr Bartlet, That himselfe and some others are not free, That Hereticks should be put to Death, in case they keep their errors to themselves, and doe not seek to seduce, and corrupt others. And though I grant, that such an Heretick after once or twice Admonition may be Rejected out of the Church (according to Titus 3. 10, 11.) yet I doe not finde, that Moses condemned them unto Death, unlesse they became blasphemers, or Idolators, or Seducers to Idolatry. What Christ, and Moses doe both of them Tolerate, the Servants of Christ need not to be ashamed of such Toleration.
Ans. 2. This Contradiction (for ought I can Discerne) laboureth also Crimine falsi. For it seemeth a manifest untruth, what he speaketh in Columne 2. That the Brethren call for, or Tolerate Toleration of all opinions, and Deny the magistrate Power to punish any Pretending conscience, Mr Bartlet Alledged for the proofe hereof, p. 128. saith no such thing, And the contrary he proveth, from the expresse Testimony of Mr Burroughs, Mr Thomas Goodwin, & others of that way.