Nihil respondes: or, A discovery of the extream unsatisfactorinesse of Master Colemans peece, published last weeke under the title of A brotherly examination re-examined. Wherein, his self-contradictions: his yeelding of some things, and not answering to other things objected against him: his abusing of Scripture: his errors in divinity: his abusing of the Parliament, and indangering their authority: his abusing of the Assembly: his calumnies, and namely against the Church of Scotland, and against my selfe: the repugnancy of his doctrin to the solemne League and Covenant, are plainly demonstrated. / By George Gillespie minister at Edenburgh. Published by authority.

His Calumnies.

PAge 3. He desireth me with wisdome and humility to minde what Church-refining, and sin-censuring worke this Church-Government with all his activity hath made in Scotland, in the point of promiscuous communicating; I shall desire him with wisdome and humility to mind what charity or conscience there is in such an aspersion; I dare say divers thousands have keen kept off from the Sacrament in Scotland, as unworthy to be admitted, where I my selfe have exercised my Ministery, there have been some hundreds kept off; part∣ly for ignorance, and partly for scandall. The order of the Church of Scotland, and the Acts of generall Assemblies are for keeping off all scandalous Persons, which every godly and faithfull Minister doth conscientiously and effectually en∣deavour; and if here or there it be too much neglected by some Archippus who takes not heed to fulfill the Ministery which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his Elder∣ship

beare the blame, and answer for it.

Page 4. I having professed my unwillingnesse to fall upon such a Controversie in a Fast Sermon. He replyeth; How can you say, you were unwilling? But how can you in brotherly cha∣rity doubt of it, after I had seriously professed it? My doing it at two severall Fasts (the onely opportunities I then had to give a testimony to that presently controverted truth is no Argument of the contrary. May not a man doe a thing twen∣ty times over and yet doe it unwillingly?

Page 5. He slandereth those that did in their Sermons give a publike testimony against his Doctrine, the occasion (as he gives out) not being offered, but taken. But had they not a publike calling and employment to Preach as well as him∣selfe? And if a Fast was not occasion offered to them, how was a Fast an occasion offered to him to fall upon the same controversie first, and when none had done the like before him?

A fourth Calumny is this. He had first blamed two Parties that they came byassed to the Assembly; I answered, How then shall he make himselfe blamelesse who came byassed a third way, which was the Erastian way; and that for our part we came no more byassed to this Assembly then the forraine Divines came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander to the Councell of Nice, and Cyrell to that of Ephesus, and Paul to the Synod at Jerusa∣lem; but now page 6. 7, instead of doing us right he doth us greater injury, for now he makes us byassed not onely by our owne judgements, but by something adventitious from without, which he denyeth himself to be, (but how truely I take not on me to judge: beholders doe often perceive the byassing better then the Bowlers) yea he saith, that I have acknowledged the byas, and justifie it. Where Sir, where? I deny it; Its no byas for a man to be setled, resolved, and in∣gaged in his judgement for the truth, especially when wil∣ling to receive more light, and to learne what needeth to be further reformed. Hath he forgotten his owne definition of the byas which he had but just now given? But he will needs make it more then probable by the instances which I

brought, that the Commissioners from Scotland came not to this Assembly, as Divines by dispute and disquisition to finde out truth, but as Judges to censure all different opinions as errours; for so came forraigne Divines to Dort, Alexander to the Councell of Nice, Cy∣rill to Ephesus. Is it not enough to slander us, though he doe not for our sakes slander those worthy Divines that came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander also and Cyrill, prime Witnesses for the truth in their daies? could no lesse content him then to approve the Objections of the Arminians against the Synod of Dort, which I had mentioned page 33? but he gets not away so; the strongest instance which I had given he hath not once touched: it was concerning Paul and Barnabas who were ingaged (not in the behalfe of one Nation, but of all the Churches of the Gentiles) against the imposition of the Mo∣saicall Rites, and had so declared themselves at Antioch be∣fore they came to Jerusalem. Finally, whereas he doubts, though not of our willingnesse to learne more, yet of our permission to receive more: That very paper first given in by us (which I had cited, and unto which he makes this reply) did speake not onely of our learning, but of the Church of Scotlands receiving; and which is more, there is an actuall experiment of it, the last generall Assembly having ordered the laying aside of some particular customes in that Church, and that for the nearer uniformity with this Church of Eng∣land, as was expressed in their owne Letter to the reverend Assembly of Divines.

A fifth calumny there is, page 9. 6. The Commissioner is con∣tent that Jus divinum should be a Noli me tangere to the Parlia∣ment, yet blames what himselfe grants. I was never content it should be a Noli me tangere to the Parliament, but at most a Non necesse est tangere, for so I explained my selfe, page 32, 33. If the Parliament establish that thing which is agreeable to the Word of God, though they doe not establish it as Jure divino, I acquiesce; in the meane time both they and all Christians, but especially Ministers ought to search the Scrip∣tures, that what they doe in matters of Church-Government they may doe it in faith and assurance that it is acceptable to

God. It was not of Parliamentary Sanction, but of Divines doctrinall asserting of the will of God that I said, Why should Ius Divinum be such a Nolime tangere?

6 It seemes strange to him that I did at all give instance of the usefulnesse of Church-Government in the preservation of purity in the Ordinances and in Church-members. He saith for an Independent to have given this instance, had been some∣thing; but it seemes strange to him that I should have given an instance of the power and efficacy of Government, as it is Pres∣byteriall, and contradistinct to Congregationall. This is a calumny against Presbyteriall Government, which is neither privative nor contradistinct, but cumulative to Congregationall Go∣vernment; and the Congregationall is a part of that Govern∣ment which is comprehended under the name of Presbyteriall. But in cases of common concernment, difficulty, appeals, and the like, the preserving of the Ordinances and Church-members from pollution, doth belong to Presbyteries and Synods.

7 He sayth of me, page 9. He ascribeth this power of purif••ing men, and means of advancing the power of godlinesse afterward, to Government. A calumny. It was only a sine quo non which I ascribed to Government, thus farre, that without it Ministers shall not keep themselves nor the Ordinances from pollution, pag. 23. But that Church-Government hath power to purify men, I never thought it, nor said it. That which I sayd of the power (which he pointeth at) was, that his way can neither preserve the purity, nor advance the power of Religion; page 40. and the reason is, because his way provideth no ecclesiasticall effe∣ctuall remedy for removing and purging away the most grosse scandalous sinnes, which are destructive to the power of godli∣nesse. God must by his Word and Spirit purify men, and work in them the power of godlinesse. The Church-Govern∣ment which I plead for against him, is a meanes subservient and helpfull, so farre as removere prohibens, to remove that which apparently is impeditive and destructive to that purity and power.

8 Having told us of the proud swelling waves of Presbyte∣riall Goverment, I asked upon what coast had those waves done any hurt, France, or Scotland, or Holland, or Terra incognita? He replieth page 12. I confesse, I have had no great experience of

the Presbyteriall Government. Why make you bold then to slander it, when you can give no sure ground for that you say? He tels us, his feares arise from Scotland, and from London. The Reverend and worthy Ministers of London can speak for them∣selves aetatem habent. For my part (though I know not the parti∣culars) I am bound in charity not to beleeve those aspersions put upon them by a discontented Brother. But what from Scotland? I my selfe (sayth he) did heare the Presbytery of Edingburgh cen∣sure a woman to be banished out of the gates of the City; was not this an encroachment? It had bin an encroachment indeed, if it had bin so. But he will excuse me if I answer him in his own lan∣guage (which I use not) page 3 and 5. It is at the best a most uncharitable slander. And, there was either ignorance or mind∣lesnesse in him that sets it down.

There is no Banishment in Scotland but by the Civill Ma∣gistrate, who so farre aideth and assisteth Church Discipline, that prophane and scandalous persons when they are found un∣ruly and incorrigible, are punished with Banshment or other∣wise. A stranger comming at a time into one of our Presbyte∣ries, and hearing of somewhat which was represented to or re∣ported from the Magistrate, ought to have had so much both circumspection and charity, as not to make such a rash and un∣true report. He might have at least enquired when he was in Scotland and informed himselfe better, whether Presbyteries or the Civill Magistrate doe banish. If he made no such enqui∣ry, he was rash injudging. If he did, his offence is greater, when after information he will not understand.

9 He makes this to be a position of mine, pag. 13. That a learned Ministery puts no black marke upon prophanenesse more then upon others. A calumny. For first he makes me to speake Non∣sence. Secondly I did not speake it of a learned Ministery, but of his way page 40. How long agoe since a learned Ministery was knowne by the name of Master Colemans way? His way is a Ministery without power of Government, or Church Cen∣sures. Of this his way I said, that it putteth no black marke upon prophanenesse and scandall in Church Members more than in any others. And the reason is, because the corrective or punitive part of Government he will have to be only Civill or Tempo∣rall▪ which striketh against those that are without, as well as

those within. Put the Apostle tells us of such a corrective Go∣vernement, as is a judging of those that are within, and of those only 1 Cor. 5. 12. And this way (which is not only ours, but the Apostolicall way) puts a black marke upon prophanenesse & scandalous sins, in Church members more then in any others.

10. He saith of me page 17. The Commissioner is the only man that we shall meet with, that forsaking the words, judgeth of the Intentions. A Calumny. I judged nothing but ex ore tuo. But in this thing he himselfe hath trespassed. I will instance but in two particulars. In that very place he saith Admonition is a spirituall censure in the Commissioners opinion. Whence knowes he that to be my opinion? Consistoriall or Presbyteriall Ad∣monition given to the unruly, may be called a censure. And if this were his meaning, then ascribing to Elderships power of Admonition, he gives them some power of spirituall Censures, and so something of the corrective part of Government; which were contrary to his owne Principles. But he speaketh it of the Ministers admonishing, who are but a part of the Elderships, as himselfe there granteth. Now where did I ever say or write, that Admonition by a Minister is a spirituall censure? Againe page 4. He so judgeth me, that he not only forsaketh but con∣tradicteth my words, How can you say you were unwilling?

11. He saith page 16. Now the Commissioner speaks out, &c▪ What! not the Parliament of England meddle with Religion? A horrid calumny. Where have I said it. Dic sodes. I never preached before 〈…〉〈…〉 but I exhorted them to meddle with Re∣ligion, and that in the first place and above all other things. I shall sooner prove, that Master Coleman will not have the Par∣liament of England to meddle with Civill affaires, because he makes them Church Officers. Its a non-sequitur. Their power is Civill, Ergo they are not to meddle with Religion? It will be a better consequence. They are Church Officers. So he makes them, page 14. and Christian Magistracy is an Ecclesiasticall Administration. So he saith, page 20. Ergo, they are not to meddle with Civill Government.