Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy of his Erastian doctrine to the word of God, to the solemne League and Covenant, and to the ordinances of Parliament: also his contradictions, tergiversations, heterodoxies, calumnies, and perverting of testimonies, are made more apparent then formerly. Together with some animadversions upon Master Hussey his Plea for Christian magistracy: shewing, that in divers of the afore mentioned particulars he hath miscarried as much, and in some particulars more then Mr Coleman. / By George Gillespie, minister at Edinbrugh. Published by authority.

CHAP. IIII.

Master Coleman and Master Hussey their er∣rors in Divinity.

MAster Hussey all along calls for Divinity Schoolrs; I confesse himselfe hath much need of them, that he may be better grounded in his Divinity; and that if he will plead any more for Christian Magistracy, he may not involve himselfe into such dangerous heterodoxies as have fallen from his pen in this short Tractate. I instance in these:

First, In his Epistle to the Parliament, he hath divers pas∣sages against Synodicall Votes, he will have no putting to the Vote; For Votes, saith he, pag. 6 are of no other use but to gather parties, and ought no where to be used but by those that have the power of the Sword. And pag. 3. he will have the businesse of Assemblies to be only Doctrinall, and by dispute to finde out truth; their Disputes ought to end in a brotherly accord, as in Act. 15. much disputing, but all ended in accord, no putting to the Vote. And pag. 5. he will have things carried with strength, of Argument and unanimous consent of the whole Clergy. Behold how he joyneth issue with the Remonstrants against the Contra-Remonstrants, to introduce not onely an Accade∣micall,* 1.1 but a Scepticall and Pyrrhonian Dubitation and un∣certainty, so that there shall never be an end of controversie, nor any settlement of truth and of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, so long as there shall be but one tenacious Disputer to hold up the ball of contention. One egge is not liker another, then Master Husseys Tenent is like that of the Armi∣nians, for which see the Synod of Dort Sess. 25. It was the nin••h condition which the Arminians required in a lawfull and well constituted Synod, that there might be no decision

of the controverted Articles, but onely such an accommo∣dation as both sides might agree to. And generally they hold that Synods ought not to meet for decision, or deter∣mination, but for examining, disputing, discussing. So their Examen Censurae, cap. 25. and their Vindiciae, lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 131. 133.

Secondly, In that same Epistle to the Parliament, pag. 4. he hath this passage; Will-worship is unlawfull, I meane in matters that are essentiall to Gods Worship, which are matters of duty, as for circumstantials of time and place (except the Sabbath) which are matters of liberty, in these the Common-wealth may Vote, &c, and this is your christian liberty, that in matters of liberty yee make Rules and Lawes to your selves, not crossing the ends that you are tyed to in duty. And is the Sabbath onely a circumstan∣tiall of time contra-distinct from matters of duty? It seemes he will cry downe not onely the Jus divinum of Church∣censures with the Erastians, but the Jus divinum of the Sab∣bath with the Canterburians. And if Will-worship be un∣lawfull onely in the essentialls of Gods Worship, why was the Argument of Will-worship so much tossed, not onely between Prelates and Non-Conformists, but between Pa∣pists and Protestants, even in reference to Ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr. Hussey here ingaged himselfe to hold it free and lawfull to the Christian Magistrate, yea to private Christians (for he calls it Christian liberty, not Parlia∣mentary liberty: now Christian liberty belongs to all sorts of Christians) to make Lawes to themselves for taking the Sacrament anniversarily on Christmasse, Good-Friday, and Easter, or to appoint a perpetuall Monethly Fast, or Thanksgiving: yea another Parliament may (if so it should seeme good to them) impose againe the Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme, Fonts, Railing of Communion Tables, the reading of divers passages of Apocrypha to the Congrega∣tion, Doxologies, Anthems, Responsories, &c. as heretofore they were used: or they may appoint all and every one to sit in the Church with their faces toward the East, to stand up at the Epistles and Gospels, &c. yea what Ceremonies, Jewish, Popish, Heathenish, may they not impose, provided

they onely hold the foundation, and keepe to those essen∣tials which he calls matters of duty: by restraining the unlawfulnesse of Will-worship to the essentialls, he leaves men free to doe any thing in Religion, pr••ter verbum, so that it appeare not to them to be c••ntra verbum; any thing they may adde to the Word, or doe beside the Word, so that the thing cannot be proved contrary to the Word.

Thirdly, Mr. Hussey, ibid. pag, 4. 5. saith, That the Parlia∣ment may require such as they receive for Preachers of truth, to send out able men to supply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or dis-allowance of the people. Where in the first part of that which he saith, there is either a Hete∣rodoxie, or a controdiction. A heterodoxie, if he meane that Ministers are to be sent out without Ordination: a contradiction, if he meane that they must be Ordained; for then he gives Classes, a worke which is not meerly Doctri∣nall. But most strange it is, that he so farre departeth from Protestant Divines in point of the Churches liberty in chu∣sing Ministers, He tells us, pag. 14. that Mr. Herle for want of skill and Theologicall Disputations hath granted to people a right to chuse their Minister. Master Herles skill both Lo∣gicall and Theologicall is greater then it seemes he can well Judge of: neither can this bold arrogant censure of his derogate from Mr. Herles but from his owne reputation. For the matter it selfe, it is one and not the least of the Contro∣versies between the Papists and Protestants, what right the Church hath in the Vocation of Ministers, Read Bellarmine de cleric. and those that writ against him, and see whether it be not so. The Helvetick confession tells us that the right chusing of Ministers is by the consent of the Church, and the Belgick confession saith, We beleeve that the Ministers, Seniors and Deacons, ought to be called to those their Functions, and by the lawfull elections of the Church to be advanced into those roomes. See both these in the Harmony of Confessions, Sect. 11. I might here (if it were requisite) bring a heape of Testimonies from Protestant Writers, the least thing which they can admit of is, that a Minister be not obtruded renitente Ecclesia, Factum valet, fieri non debet. It may be helped after it is done, without making null or void the Ministery:

but in a well constituted Church there ought to be no in∣trusion into the Ministery, the Churches consent is requisite, for which also I might bring both Scripture and Antiquity: but that is not my present businesse. One thing I must needs put Mr. Hussey in minde of, that when the Prelates did in∣trude Ministers without any regard to the dis-allowance of the people, it was cried out against as an oppression and usurpation: And we are often warned by Mr. Prynne, by Mr. Coleman, and by my selfe, to cast away the Prelates usurpation with themselves. But who Lords it now over the Lords inheritance, the Presbyterians or the Erastians? Nay he who will have Ministers put in churches without any regard to the allowance or dis-allowance of people, falls farre short of divers Prelaticall men, who did much commend the an∣tient primitive forme of calling Ministers, not without the churches consent. See Dr. Field of the Church, lib. 5. cap. 54. Bilson de gubern Eccl. cap. 15. pag. 417. The Author of the History of Epic••pacy, part 2. pag. 360.

Fourthly, Master Hussey, Epist. pag. 7. saith, That upon further consideration he found the Minister charged onely with Preaching, and Baptizing. The like he hath afterwards, pag. 39. Let any man prove that a Minister hath any more to doe from Christ then to teach and baptize. And againe, pag. 44. he pro∣pounds this Quaere, Whether Christ gave any more Government, (he should have said any more to doe, for Preaching and Baptizing are not acts of Government) then is contained in Preaching and Baptizing, and he holds the negative. If only Preaching and Baptizing, then not praying, and reading in the Congregation, ministring the Lords Supper, visiting the Sick and particular families.

Fifthly, He holdeth, pag. 20. that a Heathen Magistrate is unlawfull, and for his government, if sinne be lawfull, it is law∣full. A grosse heterodoxie. The Apostle exhorteth to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates, Rom. 13. (for there were no other at that time) and to pray for them, 1 Tim. 2. so that by Mr. Hu••sseys Divinity the Apostle would have men to be subject untoa and to pray for an unlawfull Govern∣ment. It is an An baptisticall Tenent that an Heathen Ma∣gistrate is not from God: which Gerhard de Magistratu po∣sition, pag. 498. 499. fully confutes.

Sixthly, he saith of Christ, pag. 40. He doth nothing as Mediator, which he doth not as God, or as man. It is a dange∣rous mistake; for take the worke of Mediation it selfe, he neither doth it as God, nor as man, but as God-man.

Seventhly, He saith, pag. 35. Nothing can be said of Christ as second Person in Trinity in opposition to Mediator, but in oppo∣sition to man there may. So that he will not admit of this op∣position; Christ as the second Person in the Trinity is equall and consubstantiall to the Father, but as Mediator he is not equall to his Father, but lesse then his Father, and subject and subordinate to his Father; a distinction used by our Divines against the Antitrinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not admitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence myre himselfe in Socinianisme, for Christ as Mediator is the Fathers servant, Isa 42. 1. and the Fa∣ther is greater then he, Joh. 14. 28. and as the head of the man is Christ, so the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11. 3. If therefore it cannot be said of Christ as he is the second Person in the Trinity, that his Father is not greater then he, and that he is not subordinate to God as his head, then fare-well Anti-Socinianisme. I dare boldly say, it is impossible to confute the Socinians, or to assert the eter∣nall God-head of Jesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the second Person of the Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something be denied of him as he is the second Person in the Trinity, which must be affirmed of him as he is Mediator.

Eighthly, He saith, pag. 36. That Christ by his Media∣tion hath obtained from the Father that he shall not Judge any man according to rigor, but as they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of Judgement from the wicked is in and for Christ, which otherwise the Justice of God would not allow. Then Christ did thus farre make satisfaction to the Justice of God in the behalfe of the wicked, and dye for them, that Judge∣ment might be deferred from them: and thus farre performe Acts of Mediation for the Savages, and Mahume∣tans, and for them that never heard the Gospell, that by such Mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they

shall be Judged not according to rigour, but by the Gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath taken away all their sinnes against the Law, so that all men shall now goe upon a new score, and none shall be condemned or Judged by the Law, but by the Gospell onely; for if Christ have not taken away their sinnes against the Law, the Justice of God will ••udge them according to the rigour of the Law. Must not every jot of the Law be fulfilled? and is there not a necessity that every one underlye the cusre and rigour of the Law, o•• el••e that the Mediator hath underlyed it for them.

Ninthly, He propounds this Quere, pag. 44. Whether Mi∣nisters have any right to those Priviledges which are given to the Church, more then another Christian; and he holds the ne∣gative. Now the Preaching of the Word, and the admini∣stration of the Sacraments, the power of the Keyes are Pri∣viledges given to the Church, that is for the Churches good, For all things are yours, saith the Apostle, whether Paul, or Apollo, &c. c. 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22. Therefore by Mr. Husseys Divinity, any other Christian hath as much right to admi∣nister Word, Sacraments, Keys, as the Minister.

Come on now to Mr. Colemans errours in Divinity, not to repeat what was expressed in my Nihil Respondes, but to take off the Maledicis in the maine points.

The tenth, Heterodoxie shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not as the eternall Son of God. Into this ditch did Mr. Coleman first fall, and then Mr. Hussey, pag. 25. after him. I said this Tenent lea∣deth to a blasphemous Heresie. For the better understanding whereof let it be remembred what I did premise in my Ni∣hil Respondes, pag. 11. in reply to his Proposition, That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, pag. 45. concerning the Headship and Dignity of Christ, as the naturall Son of God, the Image of the inv••sible God, Colossians, 1. 15. and pag. 43. of the dominion of Christ, as he is the eternall Sonne of God. This being pre∣mised, &c. Mr. Coleman without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and plainly premise, begins

to speake of God essentially, and that if something ma•• be given to Christ as God, then something may be gi¦ven to God, and then God is not absolutely perfect, &c Maledicis, pag. 13. 14. Thus he turneth over to the Essence and Nature of God, what I spake of the second Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternall Son of God. Was not the Question between him and me, Whether the Kingdome and Dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ, as he is the eternall Son of God? This is the point which he did argue against, because it takes off his Argument first brought to prove that all Government even civill is given to Christ, as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning I spake of Christ as the second person in Trinity, or the eternall Sonne of God. Thus therefore the case stands; The Reverend Brother to prove that an Univer∣sall Soveraignty and Government over all things is given to Christ, as he is Mediator; and to confute my Assertion, that it is given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God, doth frame this Argument against me, That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. But here dignity is given to Christ. Therefore not here to be taken as God. Where there is more in the conclu∣sion then in the Premisses, for the conclusion which naturally followes had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dig∣nity as God. It seemes he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premisses which inferre the conclusion. But this by the way. I speake to his Proposition; That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. These words, as God, either he un∣derstands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 essentially, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 personally, that is, either in regard of the nature and essence of God, which is common to the Sonne of God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one, or in regard of the person of the Word, as Christ is the second Person in the Trinity, and personally distinct from the Fa∣ther and the Holy Ghost. If in the former sense, then he must lay aside his whole Argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all against my Theses, which affirmed that an Universall Dominion and Kingdome over all things is given to Christ, not as he is Mediator, (in which capacity

he is onely King of the Church,) but as he is the Eternall Sonne of God. In opposing of which Assertion, as the Re∣verend Brother was before Nihil Respondens, so now he is twice nought. But if in the other sense he understands his Proposi∣tion, (which I must needs suppose he doth, it being in oppo∣sition to what I said,) then I still averre his Proposition will inferre a blasphemous heresie, as I proved before by a cleare demonstration. That which is given to Christ, he hath it not as God. But life, glory, &c. is given to Christ; Ergo, Christ hath not life, glory, &c. as God. The Reverend Brother saith, I acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the Major is mine owne, and the Minor is the very Scripture. Yet he denies the conclusion, and cleares himselfe by this simile, That which was given this poore man, he had not before, but a shilling was given this poore man: Ergo, He had not a shilling before. Where both Propositions are true, yet the conclusion is false, saith he, con∣trary to the axiome, Ex veris nil nisi verum. You are extreamly out Sir, your Syllogisme of the poore man is fallacia ab am∣phibolia. The Major of it is ambiguous, dubious, and fallaci∣ous, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you acknowledge the Major of my Argument to be your owne, and so not fallacious in your opinion. You acknowledge the Minor to be Scripture. You have not found foure termes in my Premisses, nor charged my Ma∣jor or Minor with the least fault in matter or forme, and yet forsooth you denie the Conclusion, and doe not ad∣mit that uncontrovertible Maxime in Logick, Ex veris nil* 1.2 nisi••••rum, or as Kekerman hath it. Ex veris praemiss••s fal•••••• conclusionem colligi est impossibile; It is impossible that a false Con∣clusion s••••uid be gathered from true Premisses. Now let us heare what he would say against my Conclusion; it is concerning the sense of the word hath, For hath, saith he, by me is used for receiving or having by vertue of the gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally. You are still out Sir; I take it just as you take it; for though the Sonne of God, as God essentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of God, which is common to all three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of himselfe a Kingdome

and Dominion over all, yet as he is the second Person in Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the Kingdome and Dominion over all, not of him∣selfe, but by vertue of the gift of his Father. So that the Reverend Brother is still Nihil Respondens, and therefore he shall be concluded in this Syllogisme. He who holds that whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not by vertue of the gift, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or second Per∣son in the Trinity, but onely as Mediator; he holds by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers gift, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or second Person in the Trinity. But Master Coleman holds the former, Ergo, Master Coleman holds the latter. The consequence in the Proposition is proved from Joh. 7. 22. The glory which thou gavest me. The assumption he will owne, or else quit his ar∣gument against my distinction of the double Kingdome gi∣ven to Christ, as the eternall Sonne of God, and as Media∣tor. The conclusion which followes is hereticall; for wher∣as the Nicen Creed said that Christ in regard of his eternall generation, that he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, God of God, Light of Light; Master Colemans argument will infe••••e that he is not onely ex seipso Deus, but ex seipso filius; and so denie the eternall generation of the Sonne of God, and the communication of the Godhead, and the Soveraignty, Glo∣ry, and Attributes thereof, from the Father to the Sonne. For if Christ, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers Gift, then he hath it not by vertue of the eternall generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally of himselfe.

As for the other branch of Master Colemans Argument, tending to prove, that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God cannot be given, which he indeavours to vindicate, pag. 14. 15. I answer these two things:

First, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me, for I did from the beginning expound those words, Eph. 1. 22. And gave him to be the head over all things to the church, in this sence, that Christ as Mediator is given on∣ly to the Church, to be her head, but he that is given as Me∣diator

to the Church, is over all. So that the giving of Christ there spoken of, is as Mediator, and he is given to the Church only, which I cleared by the Syriak, And him who is over all, he gave to be the head to the church. But his being over all, there spoken of, if understood of glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator, (yea in regard of the exaltation of his humane nature,) and this helpeth not Ma∣ster Coleman, who intends to prove from that place, That all Government, even Civill, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a Kingdome and Government, over all, so he is over all as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.

Secondly, The Question which the Reverend Brother fals upon, concerning the personall inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from any thing which I said, more then Gods giving of his Sonne to us, will inferre a personall inhabitation of the Sonne of God in us. That which I said was to this intent, That both the Sonne of God and the Ho∣ly Ghost are given, not as God essentially; that is, in respect of the Godhead it self, or as they are one in nature with the Fa∣ther, (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy Ghost which is given, could not be distinguished) but the Sonne is given as the Sonne proceeding from the Father; and the Ho∣ly Ghost is given as the Holy Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Sonne; whether he be given to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations onely, is another question, which hath nothing to doe with the pre∣sent argument, and therefore I will not be led out of my way.

The Eleventh Heterodoxy is this, I see an absurdity to hold that every man in authority is either Christs Vicegerent, or the Di∣velo Maledicis, pag. 16. Here I make this inference; Heathen and Infidell Magistrates, either they are not men in authori∣ty; or 2. They are Christs Vicegerents; or 3. They are the Divels Maledicis. If he say they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the Apostle Paul, who cals them Higher Pow∣ers, Rom. 13. 1. and men in activity, 1 Tim. 2. 2. speaking in reference even to the Magistrates of that time, which were

Infidels. If he say they are Christs Vicegerents, Then 1. I must say, that Christ as Mediator reignes without the Church, and is a King to those to whom he is neither Priest nor Prophet. 2. He must finde a Commission given by Christ to the Infidell Magistrate. 3. Whom in authority will he make to be the Divels Vicegerents, if Infidell Magistrates be Christs Vicegerents? If he say that they are the Divels Vice∣gerents, then it followes, 1. That they who resist the Divels Vicegerent, resist the Ordinance of God, for they that resist an Infidell Magistrate and doe not submit to his lawfull au∣thority, (which his Infidelity takes not away,) is said Rom. 13. v. 2. to resist the Ordinance of God. 2. That the Apostle Paul bade pray for the Divels Vicegerent, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. The Reverend Brother doth but more and more winde himselfe into a lab erinth of errors, while he endeavours to take away the distinction of the two fold Kingdome, and the two fold Vicegerentship of God and of Christ.

The twelfth Heterodoxy followeth; Now it is true, that Christ being God as well as man, hath of himselfe originally as God, whatsoever he hath by vertue of gift as Mediator Maledicis, pag. 13. Now subsume, Christ hath by vertue of gift, as Mediator, the Priestly office. Ergo, By Master Colemans Principles, Christ hath of himselfe originally as God, the Priestly office. And if Christ hath it of himselfe originally as God, then the Fa∣ther and the Holy Ghost hath it also; so that by his Doctrine the Father and the Holy Ghost shall be the Priests of the Church as well as Christ, for Christ hath nothing of himself originally as God, which the Father and the Holy Ghost have not likewise.

The thirdteenth & last errour concerneth the office of Dea∣cons. Not onely a Widow but a Deacon is denyed to be a Church-Officer, or to have any warrant from Scripture. I hold not a Widow a Church-Officer, saith he: no more doe I a Deacon; both having a like foundation in Scripture, which truly is none at all. Maledicis, pag. 9. If this was his opinion for∣merly, why did he not in so maine a point enter his dissent from the Votes of the Assembly concerning Deacons, to∣gether with his Reasons? Well, his opinion is so now,

whereby he runneth contrary not onely to the reformed Churches (which it seemes weigh not much in his bal∣lance) but to the plaine Scripture which speakes of the Of∣fice of a Deacon, 1 Tim. 3. 10. and this could be no civill Office, but an Ecclesiasticall Office, for the Deacons were chosen by the Church, were ordained with Prayer, and laying on of hands, and their charge was to take speciall care of the poore, all which is cleare, Act. 6. If he had gi∣ven us the grounds of his Opinion, he should have heard more against it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ʋt de contro∣versis articulis non ••ia•• decisio, sed accmodatio∣oni studeatur: cujus tamen via & ratio rata non ha••eatur, nisi accedente ••tri••••que partis consensu.
• * 1.2

  ••••stem. l••g. lib. 3. cap. 5.