A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION OF SOME PASSAGES OF MR COLEMAN’S LATE SERMON UPON
JOB XI. 20.
A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION
OF SOME PASSAGES OF
MR COLEMAN’S LATE SERMON UPON JOB XI. 20,
AS IT IS NOW PRINTED AND PUBLISHED:
BY WHICH HE HATH,
TO THE GREAT OFFENCE OF VERY MANY,
ENDEAVOURED TO STRIKE AT THE VERY ROOT OF ALL SPIRITUAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
GOVERNMENT,
CONTRARY TO
THE WORD OF GOD, THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, OTHER REFORMED CHURCHES,
AND THE VOTES OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT,
AFTER ADVICE HAD WITH THE REVEREND AND LEARNED
ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.
BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,
MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.
EDINBURGH:
ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.
M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.
J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.
W. M’COMB, BELFAST.
HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.
1645.
REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.
1844.
NOTICE.
In order to render the following controversial writings of Gillespie
intelligible to the general reader, we have judged it expedient to prefix
to the “Brotherly Examination” that portion of Coleman’s sermon on which
Gillespie thought it his duty to animadvert. And as a tolerably full
account of the whole controversy between Coleman and Gillespie will be
found in the Memoir of Gillespie’s Life, we refrain from occupying space
with any additional remarks here.
EXTRACT FROM COLEMAN’S SERMON.
“All eyes are upon government, they look upon it as the only help. If
anywhere, here let wisdom be used. To prescribe is above me, only let me
offer two or three rules, which may either be helpful to the work, or
useful to the workmen.
“1. _Establish as few things by divine right as can well be._ Hold out the
practice but not the ground: it will gather more, nay all, that hold it
not unlawful; men differently principled may meet in one practice. _It may
be_, will be of larger extent than _it must be_. This (the divine right)
was the only thing that hindered union in the Assembly. Two parties came
biassed, the one with a national determination, the other with a
congregational engagement. The reverend Commissioners from Scotland were
for the divine right of the presbyterial, the Independents for the
congregational government. How should either move? where should both meet?
Here was the great bar, which, if you can avoid, you may do much.
“2. _Let all precepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear
scriptures._ I could never yet see how two co-ordinate governments, exempt
from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state; and in Scripture no
such thing is found, that I know of. That place, 1 Cor. v., takes not hold
of my conscience for excommunication, and I admire that Matt. xviii. so
should upon any; yet these two are the common places on which are erected
the chiefest acts of ruling. And when I see not an institution, nor any
one act of government in the whole Bible performed, how can it be evinced
that a ruling elder is an instituted officer? Let the Scripture speak
expressly, and institutions appear institutions, and all must bow.
“3. _Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of ministers than
Christ hath plainly laid upon them._ The ministers have other work to do,
and such as will take up the whole man, might I measure others by myself.
It was the king of Sodom’s speech to Abraham, ‘Give me the persons; take
thou the goods:’ so say I, Give us doctrine; take you the government. As
is said, Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the
behalf of the ministry, Give us two things, and we shall do well—learning
and a competency.
“4. _A Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate, is a governor in
the church._ Christ has placed government in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28.
Of other governments, beside magistracy, I find no institution; of them I
do, Rom. xii. 1, 2. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ
as Mediator, Eph. i. 22, 23. I desire all to consider it. To rob the
kingdom of Christ of the magistrate, and his governing power, I cannot
excuse, no not from a kind of sacrilege, if the magistrate be His.”
A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION, &c.
I have before touched this purpose in the third branch of the third
application of my second doctrine; and did, in my sermon in the Abbey
church, express my thoughts of it at some length. But as I was then
unwilling to fall upon such a controversy so publicly, and especially in a
Fast sermon, if that which I intend to examine had not been as publicly
and upon the like occasion delivered; so now, in the publishing, I have
thought good to open my mind concerning this thing distinctly, and by
itself. That which had been too late to be preached after sermon is not
too late to be printed after sermon. Others (upon occasion offered) have
given their testimony against his doctrine; and I should think myself
unfaithful in the trust put upon me, if, upon such an occasion, I should
be silent in this business; and I believe no man will think it strange
that a piece of this nature and strain get an answer; and I go about it
without any disrespect either to the person or parts of my reverend
brother. Only I must give a testimony to the truth when I hear it spoken
against; and I hope his objections have made no such impression in any
man’s mind as to make him unwilling to hear an answer. Come we therefore
to the particulars.
Four rules were offered by the reverend brother, as tending to unity, and
to the healing of the present controversies about church government. But
in truth his cure is worse than the disease; and, instead of making any
agreement, he is like to have his hand against every man, and every man’s
hand against him.
The first rule was this, “Establish as few things _jure divino_ as can
well be;” which is, by interpretation, as little fine gold, and as much
dross as can well be. “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times,” Psal. xii, 6. What you
take from the word of God is fine “gold tried in the fire” (Rev. iii. 18);
but an holy thing of man’s devising is the dross of silver. Can he not be
content to have the dross purged from the silver except the silver itself
be cast away? The very contrary rule is more sure and safe; which I prove
thus:—
If it be a sin to diminish or take aught from the word of God, insomuch
that it is forbidden under pain of taking away a man’s part out of the
book of life, and out of the holy city; then as many things are to be
established _jure divino_ as can well be. But it is a sin to diminish or
take aught from the word of God, insomuch that it is forbidden under pain
of taking away a man’s part out of the book of life, and out of the holy
city; therefore as many things are to be established _jure divino_ as can
well be.
It must be remembered, withal, 1. That the question is not now, Whether
this or that form of church government be _jure divino_; but, Whether a
church government be _jure divino_; whether Jesus Christ hath thus far
revealed his will in his word, that there are to be church-censures, and
those to be dispensed by church-officers. The brother is for the negative
of this question. 2. Neither is it stood upon by any, so far as I know,
that what the Parliament shall establish concerning church government must
be established by them _jure divino_ If the Parliament shall, in a
parliamentary and legislative way, establish that thing which really, and
in itself, is agreeable to the word of God, though they do not declare it
to be the will of Jesus Christ, I am satisfied, and, I am confident, so
are others. This I confess, That it is incumbent to parliament-men, to
ministers, and to all other Christians, according to their vocation and
interest, to search the Scriptures, and thereby to inform their own and
other men’s consciences, so as they may do in faith what they do in point
of church government, that is, that they may know they are not sinning,
but doing the will of God. And it ought to be no prejudice nor exception
against a form of church government that many learned and godly divines do
assert it from Scripture to be the will of God. And why should _jus
divinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_? The reason was given. “This was the
only thing that hindered union in the Assembly (saith he). Two parties
came biassed. The reverend commissioners from Scotland were for the _jus
divinum_ of the presbyterial, the Independents for the congregational
government. How should either move? where should both meet?” If it was
thus, how shall he make himself blameless, who made union in the Assembly
yet more difficult, because he came biassed a third way, with the Erastian
tenets? And where he asketh where the Independents and we should meet, I
answer, In holding a church government _jure divino_, that is, that the
pastors and elders ought to suspend or excommunicate (according to the
degree of the offence) scandalous sinners. Who can tell but the purging of
the church from scandals, and the keeping of the ordinances pure (when it
shall be actually seen to be the great thing endeavoured on both sides),
may make union between us and the Independents more easy than many
imagine. As for his exceptions against us who are commissioners from the
church of Scotland, I thank God it is but such, yea, not so much, as the
Arminians did object(1330) against the foreign divines who came to the
Synod of Dort. They complained that those divines were pre-engaged and
biassed, in regard of the judgment of those churches from which they came;
and that therefore they did not help, but hinder, union in that assembly.
And might not the Arians have thus excepted against Alexander, who was
engaged against them before he came to the Council of Nice? Might not the
Nestorians have made the same exception against Cyril, because he was
under an engagement against them before he came to the Council of Ephesus?
Nay, had not the Jewish zealots the very same objection to make against
Paul and Barnabas, who were engaged, not in the behalf of one nation, but
of all the churches of the Gentiles, against the imposition of the
Mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at Antioch before they came
to the synod at Jerusalem? Acts xv. 2. It is not faulty to be engaged for
the truth, but against the truth. It is not blameworthy, but praiseworthy,
to hold fast so much as we have already attained unto. Notwithstanding we,
for our part, have also from the beginning professed, “That we are most
willing to hear and learn from the word of God what needeth further to be
reformed in the church of Scotland.”(1331)
The second rule which was offered in that sermon was this: “Let all
precepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear scriptures,” &c.;
“Let the Scripture speak expressly,” saith he. I answer: The Scripture
speaks in that manner which seemed fittest to the wisdom of God; that is,
so as it must cost us much searching of the Scripture, as men search for a
hid treasure, before we find out what is the good, and acceptable, and
perfect will of God concerning the government of his church. Will any
divine in the world deny that it is a divine truth which, by necessary
consequence, is drawn from Scripture, as well as that which, in express
words and syllables, is written in Scripture? Are not divers articles of
our profession,—for instance, the baptism of infants,—necessarily and
certainly proved from Scripture, although it makes no express mention
thereof in words and syllables? But let us hear what he hath said
concerning some scriptures (for he names but two of them) upon which the
acts of spiritual or ecclesiastical government have been grounded. “That
place, 1 Cor. v., takes not hold (saith he) on my conscience for
excommunication, and I admire that Matt. xviii. so should upon any.” It is
strange that he should superciliously pass them over without respect to so
great a cloud of witnesses in all the reformed churches, or without so
much as offering any answer at all to the arguments which so many learned
and godly divines of old and of late have drawn from these places for
excommunication; which, if he had done, he should not want a reply. In the
meantime, he intermixeth a politic consideration into this debate of
divine right. “I could never yet see (saith he) how two co-ordinate
governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one
state.” I suppose he hath seen the co-ordinate governments of a general
and of an admiral; or, if we shall come lower, the government of parents
over their children, and masters over their servants, though it fall often
out, that he who is subject to one man as his master, is subject to
another man as his father. In one ship there may be two co-ordinate
governments, the captain governing the soldiers, the master governing the
mariners. In these and such like cases you have two co-ordinate
governments, when the one governor is not subordinate to the other. There
is more subordination in the ministers and other church-officers towards
the civil magistrate. For the minister of Christ must be in subjection to
the magistrate; and if he be not, he is punishable by the law of the land
as well as any other subject. The persons and estates of church-officers,
and all that they have in this world, are subject to civil authority. But
that which is Christ’s, and not ours, the royal prerogative of the King of
saints, in governing of his church according to his own will, is not
subject to the pleasure of any man living. But the reverend brother might
well have spared this. It is not the independency of the church government
upon the civil government which he intended to speak against, it is the
very thing itself, a church government, as is manifest by his other two
rules.
I come therefore to his next, which is the third rule: “Lay no more burden
of government upon the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly
laid upon them.” He means none at all, as is manifest not only by his
fourth rule, where he saith that he finds no institution of other
governments beside magistracy, but also by the next words, “The ministers
have other work to do (saith he), and such as will take up the whole man.”
He might have added this one word more, that without the power of church
government, when ministers have done all that ever they can, they shall
not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution. Before I proceed
any farther, let it be remembered, when he excludes ministers from
government: First, It is from spiritual or ecclesiastical government, for
the question is not of civil government. Secondly, He excludes ruling
elders too, and therefore ought to have mentioned them with the ministers
as those who are to draw the same yoke together, rather than to tell us of
an “innate enmity between the clergy and the laity.” The keeping up of the
names of the clergy and laity savoureth more of a domineering power than
anything the brother can charge upon presbyteries. It is a point of
controversy between Bellarmine(1332) and those that write against him; he
holding up, and they crying down those names, because the Christian people
are the κλῆρος, the heritage of the Lord as well as the ministers. Thus
much by the way of that distinction of names; and, for the thing itself,
to object an innate enmity between the ministers of the gospel and those
that are not ministers, is no less than a dishonouring and aspersing of
the Christian religion. To return, you see his words tend to the taking
away of all church government out of the hands of church-officers. Now may
we know his reasons? He fetcheth the ground of an argument out of his own
heart: “I have a heart (saith he) that knows better how to be governed
than govern.” I wish his words might hold true in a sense of pliableness
and yielding to government. How he knows to govern I know not; but it
should seem in this particular he knows not how to be governed; for after
both houses of parliament have concluded “that many particular
congregations shall be under one presbyterial government,” he still
acknowledgeth no such thing as presbyterial government. I dare be bold to
say he is the first divine, in all the Christian world, that ever advised
a state to give no government to church-officers, after the state had
resolved to establish presbyterian government; but let us take the
strength of his argument as he pretendeth it. He means not of an humble
pliableness and subjection (for that should ease him from his fear of an
ambitious ensnarement, and so were contrary to his intention), but of a
sinful infirmity and ambition in the heart, which makes it fitter for him
and others to be kept under the yoke than to govern. And thus his
argumentation runs: “Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why
I may not (God fashions men’s hearts alike; and as in water face answers
face, so the heart of man to man), I ingenuously profess I have a heart
that knows better how to be governed than govern,—I fear an ambitious
ensnarement, and I have cause,—I see what raised Prelacy and Papacy to
such a height,” &c. The two scriptures will not prove what he would. The
first of them, Psal. xxxiii. 15, “He fashioneth their hearts alike,” gives
him no ground at all, except it be the homonomy of the English word
_alike_, which in this place noteth nothing else but τὸ καθόλου,—all men’s
hearts are alike in this, that God fashioneth them all, and therefore
knoweth them all _æque_ or alike (that is the scope of the place). The
Hebrew _jachad_ is used in the same sense, Ezra iv. 3, “We ourselves
together will build;”(1333) they mean not they will all build in the like
fashion, or in the same manner, but that they will build all of them
together, one as well as another; so Psal. ii. 2, “The rulers take counsel
together;” Jer. xlvi. 12, “They are fallen both together.” The other
place, Prov. xxvii. 19, if you take it word by word as it is in the
Hebrew, is thus: “As in water faces to faces; so the heart of man to man.”
Our translators add the word _answereth_, but the Hebrew will suffer the
negative reading, _As in water faces answer not to faces_. The Septuagint
reads: “As faces are not like faces, so neither are the hearts of men
alike.” The Chaldee paraphrase thus: “As waters and as countenances, which
are not like one another, so the hearts of the sons of men are not alike.”
Thus doth Mr Cartwright, in his judicious commentary, give the sense: “As
in the water face doth not answer fully to face, but in some sort, so
there may be a conjecture, but no certain knowledge of the heart of man.”
But let the text be read affirmatively, not negatively, what shall be the
sense? Some take it thus:(1334) A man’s heart may be someway seen in his
countenance as a face in the water. Others(1335) thus: As a face in the
water is various and changeable to him that looketh upon it, so is the
heart of man inconstant to a friend that trusteth in him. Others(1336)
thus: As a man seeth his own face in the water, so he may see himself in
his own heart or conscience. Others(1337) thus: As face answereth face in
the water, so he that looketh for a friendly affection from others, must
show it in himself. It will never be proved that any such thing is
intended in that place as may warrant this argumentation. There is a
particular corruption in one man’s heart—for instance, ambition—which
makes him unfit to be trusted with government; therefore the same
corruption is in all other men’s hearts; even as the face in the water
answereth the face out of the water so just, that there is not a spot or
blemish in the one but it is in the other. I am sure Paul taught us not so
when he said, “In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than
themselves,” Phil. ii. 3. Nay, the brother himself hath taken off the edge
of his own argument (if it had any) in his epistle printed before his
sermon, where, speaking of his brethren, from whose judgment he dissenteth
in point of government, he hath these words: “Whose wisdom and humility (I
speak it confidently) may safely be trusted with as large a share of
government as they themselves desire.” Well, but suppose now the same
corruption to be in other men’s hearts, that they are in great danger of
an ambitious ensnarement if they be trusted with government, is this
corruption only in the hearts of ministers, or is it in the hearts of all
other men? I suppose he will say, in all men’s hearts, and then his
argument will conclude against all civil government. Last of all, Admit
that there be just fears of abusing the power and government
ecclesiastical,—let the persons to be intrusted with it be examined, and
the power itself bounded according to the strictest rules of Christ. Let
abuses be prevented, reformed, corrected. The abuse cannot take away the
use where the thing itself is necessary. Why might he not have satisfied
himself without speaking against the thing itself? Once, indeed, he
seemeth to recoil, and saith, “Only I would have it so bounded, that it
might be said, Hitherto shalt thou come, and here shalt thou stay thy
proud waves,” yet by and by he passeth his own bounds, and totally
renounceth the government to the civil power, which I shall speak to anon.
But I must first ask, Whence is this fear of the proud swelling waves of
presbyterial government? Where have they done hurt? Was it upon the coast
of France, or upon the coast of Holland, or upon the coast of Scotland, or
where was it? Or was it the dashing upon _terra in cognita_? He that would
forewarn men to beware of presbyterial usurpations (for so the brother
speaking to the present controversy about church government must be
apprehended), and to make good what he saith falls upon the stories of
Pope Paul V., and of the Bishop of Canterbury, is not a little wide from
the mark. I should have expected some examples of evils and mischiefs
which presbyterial government hath brought upon other reformed churches.
Well, the reverend brother hath not done, but he proceedeth thus: “It was
the king of Sodom’s speech to Abraham, ‘Give me the persons, take thou the
goods;’ so say I, Give us doctrine, take you the government: as is said,
Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the behalf of the
ministry. Give us two things and we shall do well: 1. Give us learning;
and, 2. Give us a competency.”
This calls to mind a story which Clemens Alexandrinus tells us:(1338) When
one had painted Helena with much gold, Apolles, looking upon it, “Friend
(saith he), when you could not make her fair, you have made her rich.”
Learning and competency do enrich. The Jesuits have enough of both, but
that which maketh a visible ministerial church to be “beautiful as Tizrah,
comely as Jerusalem,” that which maketh fair the outward face of a church,
is _government_ and _discipline_, the removing of scandals, the preserving
of the ordinances from pollution. He had spoken more for the honour of God
and for the power of godliness, if he had said this in the behalf of the
ministry: It were better for us to want competency and helps to learning,
than to partake with other men’s sins, by admitting the scandalous and
profane to the Lord’s table. His way, which he adviseth, will perhaps “get
us an able ministry, and procure us honour enough,” as he speaketh; but,
sure, it can neither preserve the purity, nor advance the power of
religion, because it putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in
church-members more than in any others. The king of Sodom’s speech cannot
serve his turn except it be turned over, and then it will serve him as
just as anything, thus: Give us the goods, take you the persons (or _the
souls_, as the Hebrew and the Chaldee hath it); “Give us a competency,”
saith he,—here he asketh the goods,—“take you the government,”—here he
quitteth the persons or souls to be governed only by the civil power.
However, as at that time Abraham would take nothing that was not his own,
insomuch as he answereth the king of Sodom: “I will not take from a thread
even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine,”
Gen. xiv. 23; so this Parliament, I trust, shall be so counselled and
guided of the Lord, that they will leave to the church what is the
church’s, or rather to Christ what is Christ’s. And as Abraham had lift up
his hand to the most high God to do that (ver. 32), so have the Honourable
Houses, with hands lift up to the most high God, promised to do this.
And now, seeing I have touched upon the covenant, I wish the reverend
brother may seriously consider whether he hath not violated the oath of
God in advising the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon
church-officers, but to take the government of the church wholly into
their own hands. In the first article of the solemn league and covenant,
there is thrice mention made of the government of the church; and namely,
That we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of
England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,
according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed
churches. Where observe,
1. The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it. The
second article is indeed of things to be extirpated; but this of things to
be preserved and reformed. Therefore as by the covenant Prelacy was not to
be reformed, but to be abolished, so, by the same covenant, church
government was not to be abolished, but to be reformed.
2. Church government is mentioned in the covenant as a spiritual, not a
civil thing. The matters of religion are put together—doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government; the privileges of Parliament come after, in
the third article.
3. That clause, “According to the word of God,” implieth, that the word of
God holdeth forth such light unto us as may guide and direct us in the
reformation of church government.
4. And will the brother say that the example of the best reformed churches
leadeth us his way; that is, to have no church government at all distinct
from the civil government?
And so much concerning his third rule.
The fourth was this: “A Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate,
is a governor in the church.” And who denieth this? The question is,
Whether there ought to be no other government in the church beside that of
the Christian magistrate. That which he driveth at is, That the Christian
magistrate should leave no power of spiritual censures to the elderships.
He would have the magistrate to do like the rich man in the parable, who
had exceeding many flocks and herds, and yet did take away the little
ewe-lamb from the poor man, who had nothing save that. The brother saith,
“Of other governments besides magistracy, I find no institution; of them I
do, Rom. xiii. 1, 2.” I am sorry he sought no better, else he had found
more. Subjection and obedience is commanded, as due not only to civil but
to spiritual governors, to those that are over us in the Lord, 1 Thess. v.
12; so, 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of
double honour;” Heb. xiii. 7, “Remember them which have the rule over you,
who have spoken unto you the word of God;” ver. 17, “Obey them that have
the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls.”
And what understandeth he by “he that ruleth,” Rom. xii. 8? If the
judgment of Gualther and Bullinger have any weight with him (as I suppose
it hath) they do not there exclude, but take in, under that word, the
ruling officers of the church.
But now, in the close, let the reverend brother take heed he hath not
split upon a rock, and taken from the magistrate more than he hath given
him. He saith, “Christian magistrates are to manage their office under
Christ, and for Christ. Christ hath placed governments in his church, 1
Cor. xii. 28, &c. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ as
Mediator (I desire all to consider it), Eph. i. 3, 23, and Christ, as Head
of these, given to the church.” If this be good divinity, then I am sure
it will be the hardest task which ever he took in hand to uphold and
assert the authority either of pagan or Christian magistrates.
First, He lets the pagan or infidel magistrate fall to the ground, as an
usurper who hath no just title to reign, because all government is given
to Christ, and to him as Mediator. But which way was the authority of
government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a pagan
prince or emperor?
Next, He will make it to fare little better with the Christian magistrate.
For if the Christian magistrate be the vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ
as Mediator; and if he be to manage his office under, and for Christ,—then
the reverend brother must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as
Mediator, hath given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to
the Christian magistrate; or otherwise, acknowledge that he hath given a
most dangerous wound to magistracy, and made it an empty title, claiming
that power which it hath no warrant to assume.
God and nature hath made magistrates, and given them great authority; but
from Christ as Mediator they have it not.
I find in Scripture, that church-officers have their power from Christ as
Mediator; and they are to manage their office under and for Christ; and in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ do we assemble ourselves together, Matt.
xviii. 20; in his name do we preach, Luke xxiv. 47; Acts iv. 17, 18; v.
28, 41; ix. 27; in his name do we baptise, Acts ii. 38; iv. 12, 16; xix.
5; in his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. v. 5. But I do not find in
Scripture that the magistrate is to rule, or to make laws, or to manage
any part of his office in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And as the
Mediator hath not anywhere given such a commission and power to the
magistrate, so, as Mediator, he had it not to give; for he was not made a
judge in civil affairs, Luke xii. 14, and his kingdom is not of this
world, John xviii. 36. How can that power which Christ as Mediator hath
not received of the Father be derived from Christ to the Christian
magistrate? I know that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, and
“thought it no robbery to be equal with God,” doth, with the Father and
the Holy Ghost, reign and rule over all the kingdoms of the sons of men.
He that is Mediator, being God, hath, as God, all power in heaven and
earth (and this power was given to him, Matt. xxviii. 18, both by the
eternal generation, and by the declaration of him to be the Son of God
with power, when he was raised from the dead, Rom. i. 4, even as he is
said to be begotten, when he was raised again, Acts xiii. 33: he had
relinquished and laid aside his divine dominion and power when he had made
himself in the form of a servant, but after his resurrection it is
gloriously manifested), and so he that is Mediator, being God, hath power
to subdue his and his church’s enemies, and to make his foes his
footstool. But as Mediator he is only the church’s King, Head, and
Governor, and hath no other kingdom. The Photinians have defined the
kingly office of Christ thus: “It is an office committed to him by God, to
govern, with the highest authority and power, all creatures endued with
understanding, and especially men, and the church gathered of them.”(1339)
But those that have written against them have corrected their definition
in this particular, because Christ is properly King of his church only.
As for those two scriptures which the brother citeth, they are extremely
misapplied. He citeth 1 Cor. xii. 28 to prove that Christ hath placed
civil governments in his church. If by the governments or governors there
mentioned he understood the civil magistrates, yet that place saith not
that Christ hath placed them, but that God hath done it.
Next, The Apostle speaks of such governors as the church had at that time;
but at that time the church had no godly nor Christian magistrates. This
is Calvin’s argument, whereby he proves that ecclesiastical, not civil
governors, are there meant.
Thirdly, I ask, How can we conceive that civil government can come into
the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual administrations? for such
are all the rest there reckoned forth.
Lastly, The brother, after second thoughts, may think he hath done another
disservice to the magistrate, in making the magistracy to be below and
behind the ministry. The Apostle puts them in this order: “God hath set
some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers,
after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments,” &c. How
makes the brother this to agree with his interpretation.
Next, He citeth Eph. i. 21-23, to prove that all government is given to
Christ, and to him as Mediator; and Christ, as Head of these, given to the
church. But this place maketh more against him than for him; for the
Apostle saith not that Christ is given to the church as the Head of all
principalities and powers. The brother saith so; and, in saying so, he
makes Christ a head to those that are not of his body.
The Apostle saith far otherwise: That God gave Christ “to be the head over
all things to the church, which is his body;” which the Syriac readeth
more plainly,—“And him who is over all he gave to be the head to the
church.” He is a head to none but the church; but He who is head to the
church “is over all, God blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5; yea, even as a
man, he is over or above all. The very human nature of Christ which was
raised from the dead, being set at the right hand of the Majesty of God,
is exalted to a higher degree of honour and glory than either man or angel
ever was, or ever shall he; so that He that is head of the church is over
all, because he doth not only excel his own members, but excel all
creatures that ever God made. It is one thing to say that Christ is
exalted to a dignity, excellency, pre-eminence, majesty, and glory, far
above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion; another thing
to say that Christ is head of all principalities and governments, and, as
Mediator, exerciseth his kingly office over these. The Apostle saith the
former, but not the latter.
Shall I need to illustrate this distinction? Is there anything more known
in the world? Will any say that he who excels other men in dignity,
splendour, honour, and glory, must therefore reign and rule over all those
whom he thus excels?
The Apostle saith indeed, in another sense, that Christ “is the head of
all principality and power,” Col. ii. 10. But that is spoken of Christ not
as he is Mediator, but only as he is God; and the Apostle’s meaning in
those words is nothing but this: That Christ is true God, saith Tossanus;
that he is omnipotent, saith Gualther; that he, being the natural Son of
God, is together with the Father, Lord of all things, saith Bullinger.
That this is the meaning will soon appear:—
1. From the scope of the place, which is to teach the Colossians not to
worship angels, because they are but servants, and the Son of God is their
Lord and Head.
2. The Apostle expounds himself how Christ is the head of all principality
and power: Col. i. 15-17, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of every creature: for by him were all things created that are
in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were
created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all
things consist.” Now all this is, without controversy, to be understood
not of the office, but of the person of Jesus Christ; not of his governing
and kingly office, as he is Mediator, but to prove that he is true and
very God; therefore Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tossanus, M.
Bayne, and divers other interpreters upon the place, do generally agree
that the Apostle (ver. 15-17) speaks of the dignity and excellency of the
person of Jesus Christ, proving him to be true God; and that (ver. 18) he
cometh to speak of his office, as he is Mediator: “And he is the head of
the body, the church,” &c. So that we may distinguish a twofold headship
of Jesus Christ: One, in regard of his Godhead,—and so he is head of all
principality and power; another, in regard of his office of
Mediatorship,—and so he is head of the church only. The present question
is of the latter, not of the former. The former is common to the Son of
God with the Father and the Holy Ghost; the latter is proper to Christ as
God and man. The former shall continue for ever; the latter shall not
continue for ever. The former doth not necessarily suppose the latter; but
the latter doth necessarily suppose the former. Christ can reign as God,
though he reign not as Mediator; but he cannot reign as Mediator and not
reign as God. The object of the former is every creature; the object of
the latter is the church gathered out of the world.
This digression concerning the headship of Jesus Christ may for the future
prevent divers objections, so I shall return.
And now (I desire all to consider it) there is not one word in those three
last verses of Eph. i. which will give any ground for that which the
brother with so much confidence averreth. Ver. 21 affordeth this argument
against him: The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of hath
place “not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” But the
kingdom and government which is given to Christ, as Mediator, shall not
continue in the world to come (for when Christ hath put his enemies under
his feet, he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and reign no
longer as Mediator, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25); therefore the government given to
Christ, as he is Mediator, cannot be meant in that place, but the
dignifying, honouring, preferring, and exalting of Christ to a higher
degree of glory than either man or angel.
Come on now and see whether ver. 22 maketh any whit more for him: He “hath
put all things under his feet;” that is, saith Zanchius, all things but
the church, which is his body. But this must be meant in respect of the
decree and foreknowledge of God, as Jerome expounds the place; and so doth
the Scripture expound itself: Heb. ii. 8, “But now we see not yet all
things put under him;” 1 Cor. xv. 25, “He must reign, till he hath put all
enemies under his feet;” Acts ii. 34, 35, “Sit thou on my right hand,
until I make thy foes thy footstool.” Now, when Christ shall have put down
all rule, and all authority, and power, and shall put his enemies under
his feet, then he shall cease to reign any more as Mediator (which I have
even now proved); but before that be done he reigns as Mediator. So that
it can never be proved that the meaning of these words, “He hath put all
things under his feet,” is, that all government in this world is given to
Christ as Mediator; and whoever saith so, must needs acknowledge that
Christ’s exercising of government, as he is Mediator, over all
principalities and powers, shall continue after all things shall be put
under his feet; or that Christ shall not govern as Mediator, “till all
things be put under his feet,” which is so contrary to the Apostle’s
meaning, that Christ shall then cease to reign as Mediator.
The next words, “And he gave him to be the head over all things to the
church,” do furnish another argument against him. Christ’s headship, and
his government as Mediator, are commensurable, and of an equal extent.
Christ is a head to none but to his church; therefore no government is
given to him as Mediator but the government of his church.
The last verse doth further confirm that which I say; for the Apostle,
continuing his speech of the church, saith, “Which is his body, the
fulness of him that filleth all in all.” He calls the church Christ’s
fulness, in reference to his headship, that which makes him full and
complete so far as he is a head or king. Having his church fully gathered,
he hath his complete kingdom, his perfect body; and this being done, he
wants nothing, so far as he is Mediator: so that the Holy Ghost doth here,
as it were on purpose, anticipate this opinion, lest any should think all
civil government is given to Christ as Mediator. Though, as God, he
filleth heaven and earth, yet, as Mediator, his filling of all in all
extends no further than his body, his church, which is therefore called
his fulness.
Finally, To avoid the mistake of this place, and upon the whole matter,
let these three things be well distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ.
1. His ὑπεροχὴ or δυχα, his eminence and highness in respect of the glory
and majesty he is exalted to, far above whatsoever is highest among all
the creatures. 2. His δύναμις, the power by which he can, and doth by
degrees, and will more and more subdue his and his church’s enemies, and
dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel, and break them with a rod of
iron. 3. His βασιλεία, his kingly power, by which he exerciseth acts of
government. These three are distinguished in an earthly king, the first
two being of a larger extent than the third. The conclusion of that prayer
which our Lord taught his disciples doth distinguish the same three in
God: “Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory.” Now these being
distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ, I conclude with these three
distinct assertions (the truth whereof I hope I have made to appear): 1.
As Mediator, he is exalted and dignified above all creatures, and his
glory is above all the earth; 2. As Mediator, he exerciseth acts of divine
power and omnipotence over all creatures, in the behalf of, and for the
good of his church, and restraineth, or diverteth, or destroyeth all his
church’s enemies; 3. As Mediator, he is king, head, and governor to none
but his church: neither was all government put in his hand, but that of
the church only.
I could enlarge myself further against that most dangerous principle,
“That all government, even that which is civil, is given to Christ, and to
him as Mediator;” but let these things suffice for the present. The
reverend brother’s opinion will find better entertainment among the Jews,
who expect a temporal monarchy of the Messiah; and among Papists, who
desire to uphold the Pope’s temporal authority over kings, as Christ’s
vicegerent upon earth.
NIHIL RESPONDES: OR A DISCOVERY OF THE EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR
COLEMAN’S PIECE.
NIHIL RESPONDES:
OR
A DISCOVERY
OF THE
EXTREME UNSATISFACTORINESS OF MR COLEMAN’S PIECE,
PUBLISHED LAST WEEK UNDER THE TITLE OF
“A BROTHERLY EXAMINATION RE-EXAMINED.”
WHEREIN HIS SELF CONTRADICTIONS;
HIS YIELDING 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 ENDANGERING THEIR AUTHORITY; HIS
ABUSING OF THE ASSEMBLY;
HIS CALUMNIES, NAMELY, AGAINST THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND AGAINST MYSELF;
THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT;—
ARE PLAINLY DEMONSTRATED.
BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,
MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642.
“Understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”—1 TIM. i.
7.
EDINBURGH:
ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.
M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.
J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.
W. M’COMB, BELFAST.
HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.
1645.
REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.
1844.
After that Mr Coleman had preached and printed such doctrine as I was, in
my conscience, fully persuaded was contrary to the covenant of the three
kingdoms, and destructive (if it were put in practice) to the reformation
of religion, he having also flatly and publicly imputed to the
Commissioners from the church of Scotland a great part of the fault of
hindering union in the Assembly here, I thought myself obliged in duty,
and in the trust which I bear, to give a public testimony against his
doctrine (which others did also) upon occasion not sought, but by divine
providence, and a public calling then offered, first for preaching, and
after for printing, in either of which I think there did not appear the
least disrespect or bitterness towards the reverend brother. The Lord
knows my intention was to speak to the matter, to vindicate the truth, and
to remove that impediment of reformation by him cast in; and if he, or any
man else had, in meekness of spirit, gravely and rationally, for clearing
of truth, endeavoured to confute me, I ought not, I should not, have taken
it ill; but now, when this piece of his against me, called “A Brotherly
Examination Re-examined” (I think he would or should have said _examined_,
for this is the first examination of it), I find it more full of _railing_
than of _reasoning_, of _gibing_ than of _gravity_; and when polemics do
so degenerate, the world is abused not edified. He tells me if I have not
work enough I shall have more. I confess the answering of this piece is no
great work; and the truth is, I am ashamed I have so little to make answer
unto; yet I shall do my best to improve even this work to edification.
When other work comes I wish it be work indeed, and not words. _Res cum
re, ratio cum ratione concertet_, as the father said: Arguments, Sir,
arguments, arguments, if there be any: you have affirmed great things, and
new things, which you have not proved. The assertions of such as are for a
church government _in genere_, and for the presbyterial government _in
specie_, are known; their arguments are known, but your solutions are not
yet known. If Mr Prynne’s book against the suspension of scandalous
persons from the sacrament be the work for the present which he means, I
hope it shall be in due time most satisfactorily spoken unto, both by
others and by myself. I desire rather solid than subitane lucubrations. In
the meanwhile, “Let not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that
putteth it off.” And let the brother that puts me in mind of other work
remember that himself hath other work to do which he hath not yet done.
I have, for better method and clearness, divided this following discourse
into certain heads, taking in under every head such particulars in his
reply as I conceive to be most proper to that point.
THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH NOT ONLY PREVARICATE, BUT CONTRADICT HIMSELF,
CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
He tells us often that he doth not deny to church officers all power of
church government, but only the corrective part of government; that the
doctrinal and declarative power is in the ministry; see p. 11, 14. He
denieth that he did “advise the Parliament to take church government
wholly into their own hands: I never had it in my thoughts (saith he) that
the Parliament had power of dispensing the word and sacraments.” I must
confess it is to me new language, which I never heard before, that the
dispensing of the word and sacraments is a part of church government; sure
the word _government_ is not, nor never was, so understood in the
controversies concerning church government. But if it be, why did the
brother in his sermon oppose doctrine and government? “Give us doctrine
(said he); take you the government.”
But behold now how he doth most palpably contradict himself, in one and
the same page; it is the 11th. “I know no such distinction of government
(saith he), ecclesiastical and civil, in the sense I take government for
the corrective part thereof; all ecclesiastical (improperly called)
government being merely doctrinal; the corrective or punitive part being
civil or temporal.” Again, within a few lines, “I do acknowledge a
presbyterian government; I said so expressly in my epistle; and do
heartily subscribe to the votes of the house.” If he heartily subscribe to
the votes and ordinances of Parliament, then he heartily subscribeth that
elderships suspend men from the sacrament for any of the scandals
enumerate, it being proved by witnesses upon oath: this power is
corrective, not merely doctrinal. He must also subscribe to the
subordination of congregational, classical, and synodical assemblies in
the government of the church, and to appeals from the lesser to the
greater, as likewise to ordination by presbyteries. And, I pray, is all
this merely doctrinal? And will he now subscribe heartily to all this? How
will that stand with the other passages before cited? or with p. 17, where
it being objected to him, that he takes away from elderships all power of
spiritual censures, his reply neither yieldeth excommunication nor
suspension, but admonition alone, and that by the ministers who are a part
of the elderships, not by the whole eldership consistorially. Again, p.
14, he confesseth: “I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of
government upon them, whom he, this commissioner, thinks church officers,
pastors and ruling elders.” Now I argue thus: He that adviseth the
Parliament to lay no burden of government upon ministers and ruling
elders, he adviseth the Parliament to do contrary to their own votes and
ordinances, and so is far from subscribing heartily thereunto. But Mr
Coleman, by his own confession, adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
of government upon ministers and ruling elders; therefore, &c. How he will
reconcile himself with himself let him look to it.
Page 11. He takes it ill that one, while I make him an enemy to all church
government, then only to the presbyterial. _Only_ is his own addition. But
I had reason to make him an enemy to both, for so he hath made himself;
yea, in opposing all church government, he cannot choose but oppose
presbyterial government, for the consequence is necessary, _a genere ad
speciem_,—negatively though not affirmatively. If no church government,
then no presbyterial government.
THE PARTICULARS IN MY BRIEF EXAMINATION, WHICH MR COLEMAN EITHER GRANTETH
EXPRESSLY, OR ELSE DOTH NOT REPLY UNTO.
My argument, p. 32, proving that as many things ought to be established
_jure divino_ as can well be, because he cannot answer it, therefore he
granteth it.
Page 5. He had in his sermon called for plain and clear institutions, and
let Scripture speak expressly. Now, p. 7, he yieldeth that it is not only
a divine truth (as I called it) but clear scripture, which is drawn by
necessary consequence from Scripture.
He hath not yet, though put in mind, produced the least exception against
the known arguments for excommunication and church government drawn from
Matt, xviii. and 1 Cor. v. He tells the affirmer is to prove; but the
affirmers have proved, and their arguments are known (yea he himself, p.
1, saith, “I have had the opportunity to hear almost what man can say in
either side,” speaking of the controversy of church government); therefore
he should have made a better answer than to say that those places did not
take hold of his conscience; yet if he have not heard enough of those
places, he shall, I trust, ere long hear more.
He had said, I could never yet see how two co-ordinate governments, exempt
from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state, p. 35. I gave him
three instances: A general and an admiral; a father and a master; a
captain and a master of a ship. This, p. 8, he doth not deny, nor saith
one word against it; only he endeavoureth to make those similes to run
upon four feet, and to resemble the General Assembly and the Parliament in
every circumstance. But I did not at all apply them to the General
Assembly and the Parliament; only I brought them to overthrow that general
thesis of his concerning the inconsistency of two co-ordinate governments,
which, if he could defend, why hath not he done it?
His keeping up of the names of clergy and laity being challenged by me, p.
36, he hath not said one word in his _Re-examination_ to justify it.
I having, p. 37, 38, confuted his argument drawn from the measuring of
others by himself, whereby he did endeavour to prove that he had cause to
fear an ambitious ensnarement in others as well as in himself, God having
fashioned all men’s hearts alike, now he quitteth his ground, and saith
nothing for vindicating that argument from my exceptions.
I showed, p. 40, his misapplying of the king of Sodom’s speech, but
neither in this doth he vindicate himself.
That which I had at length excepted against his fourth rule concerning the
magistrate, and his confirmation thereof, he hath not answered, nor so
much as touched anything which I had said against him, from the end of p.
42 to the end of p. 48, except only a part of p. 43, and of p. 44,
concerning 1 Cor. xii. 28. Some contrary argumentations he hath, p. 21, of
which after, but no answer to mine.
Page 10, He digresseth to other objections of his own framing, instead of
taking off what I had said.
HIS ABUSING OF THE SCRIPTURES.
Mr Coleman did ground an argument upon Psal. xxxiii. 15; Prov. xxvii. 29,
which cannot stand with the intent of the Holy Ghost, because contrary to
other scriptures and to the truth, as I proved, p. 38. He answereth, in
his _Re-examination_, that my sense may stand, and his may stand too. But
if my sense may stand, which is contrary to his, then his argument had no
sure ground for it; yea, that which I said was to prove that his
consequence, drawn from those scriptures, did contradict both the apostle
Paul’s doctrine and his own profession, which still lieth upon him since
it is not answered.
Page 14, He citeth 1 Cor. x. 32, “Give none offence, neither to the Jews,
nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God,” to prove that all
government is either a Jewish government, or a church government, or a
heathenish government, and that _there is no third._ Yes, Sir, yourself
hath given a third (for you have told three), but _transeat cum cæteris
erroribus_. To the matter. This is a perverting of scripture to prove an
untruth; for the government of generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, is
neither a Jewish government nor a church government, nor a heathenish
government. Neither doth the Apostle speak anything of government in that
place. He maketh a distribution of all men who are in danger to be
scandalised—not of governments; and if he had applied the place rightly to
the Parliament of England, he had said, They are either of the Jews, or of
the Gentiles, or of the church of God: and this needeth not an answer. But
when he saith, “The English Parliament is either a Jewish government, or a
church government, or a heathenish government,” I answer, It is none of
these, but it is a civil government.
Page 15, Declaring his opinion of church government he citeth Rom. xiii.
4, “To execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” to prove that the punitive
part belongs to the Christian magistrate. But what is this to the punitive
part which is in controversy,—spiritual censures, suspension from the
sacraments, deposition from the ministry, excommunication? The punitive
part spoken of, Rom. xiii., belongeth to all civil magistrates, whether
Christian or infidel.
Page 18. He maketh this reply to 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. xvii.; Heb. xiii.
7, 17: “Why, man, I have found these an hundred and an hundred times twice
told, and yet am I as I was.” Why, Sir, was the argument so ridiculous? I
had brought those places to prove another government (and, if you will,
the institution of another government) beside magistracy, which he said he
did not find in Scripture. Here are some who are no civil magistrates set
over the Thessalonians in the Lord, 1 Thess. v. 12; Paul writeth to
Timothy of elders that rule well, 1 Tim. v. 17; the churches of the
Hebrews had some rulers who had spoken to them the word of God, Heb. xiii.
7; rulers that watched for their souls as they that must give an account,
ver. 17. Now let the reverend brother speak out, What can he answer? Were
these rulers civil magistrates? Did the civil magistrate speak to them the
word of God? If these rulers were not magistrates but ministers, I ask
next. Is it a matter of indifferency, and no institution, to have a
ministry in a church or not? I hope, though he do not acknowledge ruling
elders _jure divino_, yet he will acknowledge that the ministers of the
word are _jure divino_; yet these were some of the rulers mentioned in the
scriptures quoted. Let him loose the knot, and laugh when he hath done.
Page 19, 20, He laboureth to prove from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that Christ hath
placed civil government in his church; and whereas it is said, that though
it were granted that civil governments are meant in that place, yet it
proves not that Christ hath placed them in the church. He replieth, “I am
sure the Commissioner will not stand to this: he that placed governors was
the same that placed teachers.” But his assurance deceiveth him; for upon
supposition that civil governments are there meant (which is his sense), I
deny it, and he doth but _petere principium_. God placed civil
governments, Christ placed teachers; God placed all whom Christ placed,
but Christ did not place all whom God placed. Next, whereas it was said,
that governments in that place cannot be meant of Christian magistrates,
because at that time the church had no Christian magistrates, he replieth,
That Paul speaks of governments that the church had not, because in the
enumeration, ver. 29, 30, he omits none but _helps_ and _governments_. I
answer, The reason of that omission is not because these two were not then
in being (for God had set them as well as the rest in the church, ver.
28), but to make ruling elders and deacons contented with their station,
though they be not prophets, teachers, &c. Thirdly, I asked, How comes
civil government into the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual
administrations? His reply is nothing but an affirmation, that Christian
magistracy is an ecclesiastical administration, and a query whether
working of miracles and gifts of healings be ecclesiastical. _Ans._ Hence
followeth, 1. That if the magistrate cease to be Christian he loseth his
administration; 2. That though a worker of miracles cease to be Christian,
yet it is a question whether he may not still work miracles. Lastly, Where
I objected that he puts magistracy behind ministry, he makes no answer,
but only that he may do this as well as my rule puts the nobility of
Scotland behind the ministry. No, Sir, we put but ruling elders behind
ministers in the order of their administrations because the Apostle doth
so. It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the nobility, or to
nobles to be ruling elders: there are but some so, and many otherwise.
That of placing deacons before elders, 1 Cor. xii. 28, is no great matter;
sure the Apostle, Rom. xii., placeth elders before deacons.
HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY.
1. Page 21, He admitteth no church government distinct from civil, except
that which is merely doctrinal; and, p. 14, he adviseth the Parliament to
take the corrective power wholly into their own hands, and exempteth
nothing of ecclesiastical power from their hands but the dispensing of the
word and sacraments. Hence it followeth that there ought to be neither
suspension from the sacrament, nor excommunication, nor ordination, nor
deposition of ministers, nor receiving of appeals, except all these things
be done by the civil magistrate. If he say the magistrate gives leave to
do these things, I answer, 1. So doth he give leave to preach the word and
minister the sacraments in his dominions. 2. Why doth he then, in his
sermon, and doth still, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, advise the
Parliament to lay no burden of corrective government upon ministers, but
keep it wholly in their own hands? It must needs be far contrary to his
mind that the magistrate gives leave to do the things above mentioned,
they being most of them corrective, and all of them more than doctrinal.
3. He gives no more power to ministers in church government than in civil
government; for, p. 11, he ascribeth to them a ministerial, doctrinal and
declarative power, both in civil and ecclesiastical government.
2. Page 11, 14, He holds that the corrective or punitive part of church
government is civil or temporal, and is wholly to be kept in the
magistrate’s own hands; and, in his sermon, p. 25, he told us he sees not
in the whole Bible any one act of that church government in controversy
performed. All which how erroneous it is appeareth easily from 1 Cor. v.
13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (which Mr Prynne
himself, in his _Vindication_, p. 2, acknowledged to be a warrant for
excommunication); 2 Cor. ii. 6, There is a “punishment,” or censure,
“inflicted of many;” 1 Tim. v. 19, “Against an elder receive not an
accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” Where acts of church
government or censures were neglected it is extremely blamed; Rev. ii. 14,
15, 20. Was not all this corrective? yet not civil or temporal.
3. Page 9, Whereas I had said, That without church government ministers
shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution, he replieth,
That he understands neither this keeping of themselves from pollution, nor
what this pollution of the ordinances is. I am sorry for it, that any
minister of the gospel is found unclear in such a point. I will not give
my own, but scriptural answers to both. The former is answered, 1 Tim. v.
22, Be not “partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” It is sin to
dispense ordinances to the unworthy, whether ordination, or communion in
the sacrament. For the other, the pollution of ordinances is the Scripture
language. I hope he means not to quarrel at the Holy Ghost’s language:
Ezek. xxii. 26, “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine
holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane;”
Mal. i. 7, “Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar;” ver. 12, “Ye have
profaned it;” Matt. xxi. 13, “Ye have made it a den of thieves;” Matt.
vii. 6, “Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet.”
4. Page 11, Whereas I had objected to him, that he excludeth ruling elders
as well as ministers from government, he answers, That ruling elders are
either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister (which, as
he thinks, the Independents own, but not I), or they are the Christian
magistrate; and so he saith he doth not exclude them. Mark here, he
excludeth all ruling elders from a share in church government who are not
either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister, or else the
Christian magistrate; and so, upon the matter, he holdeth that ruling
elders are to have no hand in church government. Those ruling elders which
are in the votes of the Assembly, and in the reformed churches, have
neither the power of civil magistracy (_qua_ elders, and many of them not
at all, being no magistrates), nor yet are they the same, for office and
ordination, with the minister; for their office, and, consequently, their
ordination to that office, is distinct from that of the minister among all
that I know. And so, excluding all ruling elders from government who are
neither magistrates, nor the same with ministers, he must needs take upon
him that which I charged him with.
5. Page 21, Where he makes reply to what I said against his argument from
Eph. i. 19-21, he saith, He will blow away all my discourse with this
clear demonstration, “That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God,
and Christ as God cannot be given. But this place (Eph. i. 19-21) speaketh
both of dignity given to Christ, and of Christ as a gift given; therefore
Christ cannot be here understood as God.” This is in opposition to what I
said, p. 45, concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural
son of God, “the image of the invisible God,” Col. i. 15; and, p. 43, of
the dominion of Christ, as he is the “eternal Son of God.” This being
premised, the brother’s demonstration is so strong as to blow himself into
a blasphemous heresy. I will take the proposition from himself, and the
assumption from Scripture, thus: That which is given to Christ he hath it
not as God. But all power in heaven and in earth is given to Christ, Matt.
xxviii. 18; life is given to Christ, John v. 26; authority to execute
judgment is given to Christ, ver. 27; all things are given into Christ’s
hands, John iii. 35; the Father hath given him power over all flesh, John
xvii. 2; He hath given him glory, John xvii. 22: therefore, by Mr
Coleman’s principles, Christ hath neither life, nor glory, nor authority
to execute judgment, nor power over all flesh, as he is the eternal Son of
God, consubstantial with the Father, but only as he is Mediator, God and
man. As for the giving of Christ as God, what if I argue thus? If Christ,
as he is the eternal Son of God, or Second Person of the ever-blessed
Trinity, could not be given, then the incarnation itself, or the sending
of the Son of God to take on our flesh, cannot be called a giving of a
gift to us. But this were impious to say; therefore, again, if Christ, as
he is the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, could not be given, then
the Holy Ghost, as the Third Person, cannot be given (for they are
co-essential; and that which were a dishonour to God the Son were a
dishonour to God the Holy Ghost); but to say that the Holy Ghost cannot be
given as the Third Person, were to say that he cannot be given as the Holy
Ghost. And what will he then say to all those scriptures that speak of the
giving of the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 8; Rom. v. 5; 1 John iv. 13, &c.?
Finally, As Mr Coleman’s demonstration hath blown away itself, so it could
not hurt me were it solid and good (as it is not); for he should have
taken notice, that, in my examination, I did not restrict the dignity
given to Christ, Eph. i. 21, nor the giving of Christ, ver. 22, to the
Divine nature only. Nay, I told, p. 44, 46, that these words of the
Apostle hold true even of the human nature of Christ.
6. Page 21, He concludeth with a syllogism, which he calleth the scope of
my discourse (I know not by what logic, the proposition being forged by
himself, and contrary to my discourse); thus it is:—
Whosoever do not manage their office and authority under Christ, and for
Christ, they manage it under the devil, and for the devil; for there is no
middle—either Christ or Belial: he that is not with me is against me.
But, according to the opinion of the Commissioner, Christian magistracy
doth not manage the office and authority thereof under Christ, and for
Christ.
Therefore,—
He believes I shall be hard put to it to give the kingdom a clear and
satisfactory answer. It is well that this is the hardest task he could set
me.
The truth is, his syllogism hath _quatuor terminos_, and is therefore
worthy to be exploded by all that know the laws of disputation. Those
words in the proposition, “under Christ, and for Christ,” can have no
other sense but to be serviceable to Christ, to take part with him, and to
be for the glory of Christ, as is clear by the confirmation added, “He
that is not with me is against me.” But the same words in the assumption
must needs have another sense, “Under Christ, and for Christ;” that is,
_vice Christi_, in Christ’s stead. For that which I denied was, That
magistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator, or that Christ as Mediator
hath given a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian
magistrate to manage his office and authority under, and for him, and in
his name; as is clear in my examination, p. 42. Nay, Mr Coleman himself, a
little before his syllogism, p. 19, takes notice of so much. His words are
these: “The Commissioner saith, Magistracy is not derived from Christ: I
say, Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom; so
that, though the Commissioners assertion be sound (which in due place will
be discussed), yet it infringeth nothing that I said.” Now then, _qua
fide_ could he, in his argument against me, confound these two things
which he himself had but just now carefully distinguished? If he will make
anything of his syllogism he must hold at one of these two senses. In the
first sense it is true that all are either for Christ or against Christ;
and it is as true that his assumption must be distinguished. For, _de
facto_, the Christian magistrate is for Christ when he doth his duty
faithfully, and is against Christ if he be unfaithful. But, _de jure_, it
holds true universally, that the Christian magistrate manageth his office
under and for Christ; that is, so as to be serviceable for the kingdom and
glory of Christ. In the second sense (which only concerneth me) taking
“under and for Christ,” to be in Christ’s stead, as his deputies or
vicegerents, so his assumption is lame and imperfect, because it doth not
hold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did, and still do hold, is
this: That the civil magistrate, whether Christian or pagan, is God’s
vicegerent, who, by virtue of his vicegerentship, is to manage his office
and authority under God, and for God; that is, in God’s stead, and as God
upon earth: but he is not the vicegerent of Christ as Mediator, neither is
he, by virtue of any such vicegerentship, to manage his office and
authority under Christ, and for Christ; that is, in Christ’s stead, and as
Christ Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (not mine
alone, but of others more learned), and Mr Coleman hath not said so much
as yoυ to confute it. So much for the assumption. But in the same sense I
utterly deny his proposition, as being a great untruth in divinity; for
the sense of it can be no other than this: Whosoever do not manage their
office and authority in Christ’s stead, or as deputies and vicegerents of
Christ, as he is Mediator, they manage it in the devil’s stead, as the
devil’s deputies and vicegerents. Now I assume pagan magistrates do not
manage their office as the deputies and vicegerents of Jesus Christ, as he
is Mediator, therefore as the devil’s deputies. Which way was the
authority derived to them from Christ as Mediator? Mr Coleman, p. 19,
saith in answer to this particular, formerly objected, that Christ is
rightful king of the whole earth, and all nations ought to receive Christ,
though as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to
show was, that the pagan magistrate, even while continuing pagan and not
Christian, doth manage his office as Christ’s deputy and vicegerent; if
not, then I conclude by his principles, a pagan magistrate is the devil’s
deputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to Paul’s doctrine, who will have
us to be subject for conscience’ sake, even to heathen magistrates, as the
ministers of God for good, Rom. xiii. 1-7. By the same argument Mr Coleman
must grant that generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, constables,
captains, masters, yea, every man that hath an office, is either Christ’s
vicegerent, or the devil’s vicegerent, than which what can be more absurd?
I might, beside all these, show some other flaws in his divinity, as,
namely, p. 9 and 13, he doth not agree to this proposition, that “the
admitting of the scandalous and profane to the Lord’s table, makes
ministers to partake of their sins;” and he supposeth that ministers may
do their duty, though they admit the scandalous; but of this elsewhere.
HIS ABUSING OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Most honourable senators, I humbly beseech you to look about you, and take
notice how far you are abused by Mr Coleman.
1. While he pretendeth to give you more than his brethren, he taketh a
great deal more from you, and, so far as in him lieth, even shaketh the
foundation of your authority. The known tenure of magistracy is from God.
He is the minister of God (for good, and the powers that are, are ordained
of God, saith the Apostle). The magistrate is God’s vicegerent; but now
this brother seeketh a new tenure and derivation of magistracy, which
takes away the old. He told in his sermon, p. 27: “Christ hath placed
governments in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28; of other governments besides
magistracy I find no institution, of them I do, Rom. xiii. 1, 2. I find
all government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator (I desire all to
consider it), Eph. i. 21-23; and Christ as head of those given to the
church.” Here you have these three in subordination, God, Christ, and the
Christian magistrate. God gives once all government, even civil, to
Christ, and to him as Mediator. Well, but how comes it then to the
magistrate? Not straight by a deputation from God. Mr Coleman’s doctrine
makes an interception of the power. He holds that God hath put it in
Christ’s hands as Mediator. How then? The brother holdeth that Christ, as
Mediator, hath instituted and placed the Christian magistrate, yea, and no
other government, in his church. This was the ground of my answer, p. 42,
that he “must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as Mediator, hath
given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian
magistrate, or otherwise acknowledge that he hath given a most dangerous
wound to magistracy, and made it an empty title, claiming that power which
it hath no warrant to assume.” I added: “As the Mediator hath not anywhere
given such a commission and power to the magistrate, so, as Mediator, he
had it not to give; for he was not made a judge in civil affairs, Luke
xii. 14; ‘And his kingdom is not of this world,’ John xviii. 36.” Now, but
what reply hath he made to all this? Page 19, he saith, Granting it all to
be true and sound, yet it infringeth not what he said. “The commissioner
(saith he) saith magistracy is not derived from Christ.” I say,
“Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom.” But by
his good leave and favour, he said a great deal more than this, for he
spake of Christ’s being head of all civil governments, and his placing
these in his church as he is Mediator. Yea, that fourth rule delivered by
him in his sermon, did hold forth these assertions: 1. That God gave all
government, even civil, to Christ, and to him as Mediator; 2. That Christ,
as Mediator, hath power and authority to place, and substitute under and
for him, the Christian magistrate; 3. That Christ hath placed and
instituted civil governments in his church, to be under and for him, as he
is Mediator; 4. That the Christian magistrate doth, and all magistrates
should, manage their office under and for Christ (that is, as his
vicegerents), he being, as Mediator, head of all civil government. Now
instead of defending his doctrine from my just exceptions made against it,
he resileth, and having brought the magistrate in a snare, leaves him
there. He endeavours to vindicate no more but this, That magistracy is
given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom. But if he had said so at
first, I had said with him, and not against him, in that point; and if he
will yet hold at that, why doth he, p. 19, refer my assertion to further
discussion?
Secondly, He hath abused the Parliament in holding forth that rule to them
in his sermon, “Establish as few things _jure divino_ as can well be.” And
yet now he is made, by strength of argument, to acknowledge, p. 5, that
this is a good rule, “Establish as many things _jure divino_ as can well
be.”
Thirdly, I having stated the question to be not whether this or that form
of church government be _jure divino_, but whether a church government be
_jure divino_; whether Christ hath thus far revealed his will in his word,
that there are to be church censures, and those to be dispensed by
church-officers. I said the brother is for the negative of this question,
p. 32. This he flatly denieth, p. 5, 6, whereby he acknowledgeth the
affirmative, that there is a church government _jure divino_, and that
Jesus Christ hath so far revealed his will in his word, that there are to
be church censures, and those to be dispensed by church-officers. But how
doth this agree with his sermon? “Christ hath placed governments in his
church. Of other governments (said he) beside magistracy I find no
institution, of them I do.” Is magistracy church government? Are
magistrates church officers? Are the civil punishments church censures? Is
this the mystery? Yes, that it is. He will tell us anon that the Houses of
Parliament are church officers; but if that bolt do any hurt I am much
mistaken.
Fourthly, He professeth to subscribe to the votes of Parliament concerning
church government, p. 11; and yet he still pleadeth that all
ecclesiastical government is merely doctrinal, p. 11, the Parliament
having voted that power to church-officers which is not doctrinal (as I
showed before). And he adviseth the Parliament to keep wholly in their own
hands the corrective part of church government, p. 14, though the
Parliament hath put into the hands of elderships a power of suspension
from the sacrament, which is corrective.
Fifthly, He did deliver, in that sermon before the honourable House of
Commons, divers particulars, which being justly excepted against, and he
undertaking a vindication, yet he hath receded from them, or not been able
to defend them, as that concerning two co-ordinate governments in one
kingdom; and his argument concerning the fear of an ambitious ensnarement
in ministers, these being by me infringed, he hath not so much as offered
to make them good.
Sixthly, Having acknowledged, under his own hand, that he was sorry he had
given offence to the reverend Assembly, and to the Commissioners from
Scotland, he now appealeth to the Parliament, and tells us they are able
to judge of a scandalous sermon, and they thought not so of it, p. 3. I
know they are able to judge of a scandalous sermon: that they thought not
so of it, it is more than I know or believe. However I know they have a
tender respect to the offence of others, even when themselves are not
offended, and so they, and all men, ought to do according to the rule of
Christ. For his part, after he had acknowledged he had given offence, it
is a disservice to the Parliament to lay over the thing upon them. For my
part, I think I do better service to the Parliament in interpreting
otherwise that second order of the House, not only desiring, but enjoining
Mr Coleman to print that sermon,—as near as he could,—as he preached it.
This was not, as he takes it, one portion of approbation above all its
brethren (for I shall not believe that so wise an auditory was not at all
scandalised at the hearing of that which was contrary both to the covenant
and to their own votes concerning church government, nor at that which he
told them out of the Jewish records, that “Hezekiah was the first man that
was ever sick in the world, and did recover”); but, as I humbly conceive
it was a real censure put upon him, his sermon being so much excepted
against and stumbled at, the honourable House of Commons did wisely enjoin
him to print his sermon, that it might abide trial in the light of the
world, and lie open to any just exceptions which could be made against it
abroad, and that he might stand or fall to himself.
Seventhly, He abuseth the Parliament by arrogating so much to himself, as
that his sermon “will, in the end, take away all difference, and settle
union,” p. 3; and that his _Model_ will be, when he is dead, “the model of
England’s church government,” as he saith in his postscript. Whether this
be _prophesying_ or _presuming_ I hope we are free to judge. And what if
the wisdom and authority of the honourable Houses, upon advice from the
reverend and learned Assembly, choose another way than this? Must all the
synodical debates, and all the grave parliamentary consultations, resolve
themselves into Mr Coleman’s way, like Jordan into _Mare Mortuum_.
Eighthly, He doth extremely wound the authority of Parliament in making
their office to be a church office, and of the same kind with the
minister’s office. P. 14, “Do not I hold ministers church officers?” And a
little after, “I desire the Parliament to consider another presbyterian
principle that excludes your honourable Assembly from being church
officers.” If so, then the offices of the magistrate and of the minister
must stand and fall together; that is, if the nation were not Christian
the office of magistracy should cease as well as that of the ministry. And
if he make the magistrate a church officer, he must also give him
ordination, except, with the Socinians, he deny the necessity of
ordination.
HIS ABUSING THE REVEREND ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.
Whereas I had objected that his sermon had given no small scandal and
offence, he replieth, p. 3, “But hath it given offence? To whom? I appeal
to the honourable audience.” Is this candid or fair dealing, when he
himself knew both that he had given offence, and to whom? I shall give him
no other answer but his own declaration which he gave under his hand after
he had preached that sermon:—
“For much of what is reported of my sermon I utterly deny; and refer
myself to the sermon itself. For what I have acknowledged to be delivered
by me, although it is my judgment, yet, because I see it hath given a
great deal of offence to this Assembly and the reverend Commissioners of
Scotland, I am sorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof. And for
the printing, although I have an order, I will forbear, except I be
further commanded.—THO. COLEMAN.”
Page 33, I had this passage: “And where he asketh where the Independents
and we should meet,” I answer, “In holding a church government _jure
divino_; that is, that the pastors and elders ought to suspend or
excommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) scandalous sinners.
Who can tell but the purging of the church from scandals, and the keeping
of the ordinances pure (when it shall be actually seen to be the great
work endeavoured on both sides), may make union between us and the
Independents more easy than many imagine.” What reply hath he made to
this? P. 6, “Sure I dream (awake then); but I will tell you news: The
Presbyterians and Independents are (he should have said _may be_) united;
nay, more, the Lutherans and Calvinists; nay, more yet, the Papist and
Protestant; nay, more than so, the Turk and Christian.” But wherein? “In
holding that there is a religion wherein men ought to walk.” No, Sir. They
must be united upon the like terms; that is, you must first have Turks to
be Christians, and Papists to be Protestants; and then you must have them
as willing to purge the church of scandals, and to keep the ordinances
pure. We will never despair of an union with such as are sound in the
faith, holy in life, and willing to a church-refining and sin-censuring
government in the hands of church officers. In the meanwhile, it is no
light imputation upon the Assembly to hint this much, that the harmony and
concord among the members thereof, for such a government as I have now
named (though in some other particulars dissenting), can no more unite
them than Turks and Christians, Papists and Protestants, can be united.
And now I will tell you my news: The Presbyterians and Independents are
both equally interested against the Erastian principles.
He reflecteth also upon the Assembly in the point of _jus divinum_, p. 6.
But what his part hath been, in reference to the proceedings in the
Assembly, is more fully, and in divers particulars, expressed in the
_Brief View of Mr Coleman’s New Model_, unto which he hath offered no
answer.
HIS CALUMNIES.
Page 3, He desireth me, with wisdom and humility, to mind what
church-refining and sin-censuring work this church government, with all
its activity, hath made in Scotland, in the point of promiscuous
communicating. I shall desire him, with wisdom and humility, to mind what
charity or conscience there is in such an aspersion. I dare say divers
thousands have been kept off from the sacrament in Scotland, as unworthy
to be admitted. Where I myself have exercised my ministry there have been
some hundreds kept off; partly for ignorance, and partly for scandal. The
order of the church of Scotland, and the acts of General Assemblies, are
for keeping off all scandalous persons; which every godly and faithful
minister doth conscientiously and effectually endeavour. And if, here or
there, it be too much neglected by some Archippus, who takes not heed to
fulfil the ministry which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his
eldership bear the blame, and answer for it.
Page 4, I having professed my unwillingness to fall upon such a
controversy in a Fast sermon, he replieth, “How can you say you were
unwilling?” But how can you, in brotherly charity, doubt of it after I had
seriously professed it? My doing it at two several Fasts (the only
opportunities I then had to give a testimony to that presently
controverted truth) is no argument of the contrary. May not a man do a
thing twenty times over, and yet do it unwillingly?
Page 5, He slandereth those that did, in their sermons, give a public
testimony against his doctrine; the occasion (as he gives out) not being
offered, but taken. But had they not a public calling and employment to
preach as well as himself? And if a Fast was not an occasion offered to
them, how was a Fast an occasion offered to him to fall upon the same
controversy first, and when none had dons the like before him.
A fourth calumny is this: He had first blamed two parties that they came
biassed to the Assembly; I answered, How then shall he make himself
blameless who came biassed a third way; which was the Erastian way; and
that, for our part, we came no more biassed to this Assembly than the
foreign divines came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander to the Council of
Nice, Cyril to that of Ephesus, and Paul to the synod at Jerusalem. But
now, p. 6, 7, instead of doing us right he doth us greater injury; for now
he makes us biassed, not only by our own judgments, but by something
adventitious from without; which he denieth himself to be (but how truly I
take not on me to judge: beholders do often perceive the biassing better
than the bowlers); yea, he saith that I have acknowledged the bias, and
justify it. Where, Sir? where? I deny it. It is no bias for a man to be
settled, resolved and engaged in his judgment for the truth, especially
when willing to receive more light, and to learn what needeth to be
further reformed. Hath he forgotten his own definition of the bias which
he had but just now given? But he will needs make it more than probable,
by the instances which I brought, that the Commissioners from Scotland
came not to this Assembly as divines, by dispute and disquisition, to find
out truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as errors; for
so came foreign divines to Dort, Alexander to the Council of Nice, Cyril
to Ephesus. Is it not enough that he slander us, though he do not, for our
sakes, slander those worthy divines that came to the Synod of Dort,
Alexander also, and Cyril, prime witnesses for the truth in their days?
Could no less content him than to approve the objections of the Arminians
against the Synod of Dort, which I had mentioned, p. 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 engaged (not in the
behalf of one nation, but of all the churches of the Gentiles) against the
imposition of the Mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at
Antioch, before they came to Jerusalem. Finally, Whereas he doubts, though
not of our willingness to learn 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 speak not only of our learning, but of the
church of Scotland’s receiving, and, which is more, there is an actual
experiment of it, the last General Assembly having ordered the laying
aside of some particular customs in that church, and that for the nearer
uniformity with this church of England, as was expressed in their own
letter to the reverend Assembly of Divines.
A fifth calumny there is, p. 9, 6. “The Commissioner is content that _jus
divinum_ should be a _noli me tangere_ to the Parliament, yet blames what
himself 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 myself, p. 32, 33. If the Parliament establish that thing which
is agreeable to the word of God, though they do not establish it as _jure
divino_, I acquiesce; in the meantime, both they and all Christians, but
especially ministers, ought to search the Scriptures, that what they do in
matters of church government, they may do it in faith and assurance, that
it is acceptable to God. It was not of parliamentary sanction, but of
divines doctrinal asserting of the will of God that I said, Why should
_jus divinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_?
6. It seems strange to him that I did at all give instance of the
usefulness 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 something; but it seems strange to him that
“I should have given an instance of the power and efficacy of government,
as it is presbyterial, and contradistinct to congregational.” This is a
calumny against presbyterial government, which is neither privative nor
contradistinct, but cumulative to congregational government; and the
congregational is a part of that government which is comprehended under
the name of presbyterial. 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 saith of me, p. 9, “He ascribeth this power of purifying men, and
means of advancing the power of godliness afterward, to government.” A
calumny. It was only a _sine quo non_ which I ascribed to government thus
far, that without it, ministers “shall not keep themselves nor the
ordinances from pollution,” p. 23. But that church government hath power
to purify men, I never thought it, nor said it. That which I said of the
power (which he pointeth at) was, that his way can neither preserve the
purity, nor advance the power of religion, p. 40, and the reason is,
because his way provideth no ecclesiastical effectual remedy for removing
and purging away the most gross scandalous sins, which are destructive to
the power of godliness. God must, by his word and Spirit, purify men, and
work in them the power of godliness. The church government which I plead
for against him, is a means subservient and helpful, so far 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 presbyterial government,
I asked upon what coast had those waves done any hurt, France, or
Scotland, or Holland, or _terra incognita_? He replieth, p. 12, “I confess
I have had no great experience of the presbyterial government.” Why make
you bold then to slander it, when you can give no sure ground for that you
say? He tells us, His fears arise from Scotland and from London. The
reverend and worthy ministers of London can speak for themselves _oetatem
habent_, for my part, though I know not the particulars, I am bound in
charity not to believe those aspersions put upon them by a discontented
brother. But what from Scotland? “I myself (saith he) did hear the
presbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of
the city. Was not this an encroachment?” It had been an encroachment
indeed, if it had been so. But he will excuse me if I answer him in his
own language (which I use not), p. 3 and 5: “It is, at the best, a most
uncharitable slander,” and “There was either ignorance or mindlessness in
him that sets it down.”
There is no banishment in Scotland but by the civil magistrate, who so far
aideth and assisteth church discipline, that profane and scandalous
persons, when they are found unruly and incorrigible, are punished with
banishment or otherwise. A stranger coming at a time into one of our
presbyteries, and hearing of somewhat which was represented to or reported
from the magistrate, ought to have had so much, both circumspection and
charity, as not to make such a rash and untrue report. He might have at
least inquired when he was in Scotland, and informed himself better,
whether presbyteries or the civil magistrate do banish. If he made no such
inquiry, he was rash in judging; if he did, his offence is greater, when,
after information, he will not understand.
9. He makes this to be a position of mine, p. 13, That “a learned ministry
puts no black mark upon profaneness more than upon others.” A calumny.
For, first, He makes me to speak nonsense; Secondly, I did not speak it of
a learned ministry, but of “his way,” p. 40. How long ago since a learned
ministry was known by the name of Mr Coleman’s way! His way is a ministry
without power of government or church censures. Of this his way I said,
that “it putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in church
members more than in any other;” and the reason is, because the corrective
or punitive part of government he will have to be only civil or temporal,
which striketh against those that are without, as well as those within.
But the Apostle tells us of such a corrective government as is a judging
of those that are within, and of those only, 1 Cor. v. 12; and this way
(which is not only ours, but the apostolical way) puts a black mark upon
profaneness and scandalous sins in church members more than in any others.
10. He saith of me, p. 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 himself
hath trespassed. I will instance but in two particulars: In that very
place he saith, “Admonition is a spiritual censure in the Commissioner’s
opinion.” Whence knows he that to be my opinion? Consistorial or
presbyterial admonition 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 spiritual censures, and so
something of the corrective part of government, which were contrary to his
own principles. But he speaketh it of the ministers’ admonishing, who are
but a part of the elderships, as himself there granteth. Now, where did I
ever say or write, that admonition, by a minister, is a spiritual censure?
Again, p. 4, he so judgeth me, that he not only forsaketh, but
contradicteth my words, “How can you say you were unwilling?”
11. He saith, p. 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 them but I exhorted them
to meddle with religion, and that in the first place, and above all other
things. I shall sooner prove that Mr Coleman will not have the Parliament
of England to meddle with civil affairs, because he makes them church
officers. It is a _non sequitur_. Their power is civil, therefore they are
not to meddle with religion. It will be a better consequence: They are
church officers: so he makes them, p. 14; and “Christian magistracy is an
ecclesiastical administration,” so he saith, p. 20, therefore they are not
to meddle with civil government.
THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.
Mr Coleman, p. 13, acknowledgeth, that to assert anything contrary to the
solemn league and covenant, is a great fault in any, in himself more than
in divers others, if made out; he having, for his own part, taken it with
the first, and not only so, but having administered it to divers others.
Yes; and take this one circumstance more: In his sermon upon Jer. xxx. 21,
at the taking of the covenant, Sept. 29, 1643, he answereth this objection
against the extirpation of Prelacy: “But what if the exorbitances be
purged away, may not I, notwithstanding my oath, admit of a regulated
Prelacy?” For satisfaction to this objection he answereth thus: “First, We
swear not against a government that is not; Secondly, We swear against the
evils of every government, and doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of
necessity be retained as absolutely necessary; Thirdly, Taking away the
exorbitances, the remaining will be a new government and no Prelacy.” Let
the brother now deal ingenuously. What did he understand by those
materials of Prelacy absolutely necessary to be retained? Did he
understand the dispensing of the word and sacraments, which is common to
all pastors? Or did he understand the privileges of Parliament? Were
either of those two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of
these, was this the way to satisfy that scruple concerning the extirpation
of Prelacy? Again, What was that new government which he promised them
after the taking away of the exorbitances of the old? Was it the
minister’s doctrinal part? That is no new thing in England. Was it the
Parliament’s assuming of the corrective part of church government, as he
improperly distinguisheth, wholly and solely into their own hands,
excluding the ministry from having any hand therein? This were a new
government, I confess. But, sure, he could not, in any reason, intend this
as a satisfaction to the scruples of such as desired a regulated Prelacy,
whose scruples he then spoke to, for this had been the way to dissuade
them from, not to persuade them to, the covenant.
But I go along with his _Re-examination_. P. 14, He explaineth himself and
me thus: “He should have said that I advised the Parliament to lay no
burden of government upon them whom he, this Commissioner, thinks church
officers, then had he spoken true.” I thank him for his explanation. And,
I pray, who were the church officers whom I said he excluded from church
government? Were they not pastors and ruling elders? And doth not himself
think these to be church officers? Yes; of the ministers he thinks so, but
of ruling elders he seems to doubt, except they be magistrates. Well, but
excluding those church officers from church government he takes with the
charge. Why seeks he a knot in the rush? But now how doth he explain
himself? He will have the Parliament to be church officers (of which
before), and such church officers as shall take the corrective part of
church government wholly into their own hands; yet not to dispense the
word and sacraments, but to leave the doctrinal part to the ministry, and
their power to be merely doctrinal, as he saith, p. 11. Thus you have his
explanation. But doth this solve the violating of the covenant? Nay, it
makes it more apparent; for the government of the church, which the first
article of the covenant speaks of, is distinguished from the doctrinal
part: “That we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms
of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government.”
So that, excluding pastors and ruling elders from the corrective part of
government, and from all power which is not merely doctrinal, he thereby
excludeth them from that discipline and government which the covenant
speaks of as one special part of the reformation of religion. Come on to
the reasons.
I had given four reasons; he takes notice but of three. This is the second
time he hath told three for four, yet even these three will do the
business.
1. “The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it.”
Here the brother addeth these words following as mine, which are not mine:
“Therefore he that finds no church government breaks his covenant.” His
reply is, “We must reform it according to the word of God, if that hold
out none, here is no tailing.” He addeth a simile of a jury sworn to
inquire into the felony of an accused person, but finds not guilty; and of
three men taking an oath to deliver in their opinions of church government
(where, by the way, he lets fall that I hold the national synod to be
above all courts in the kingdom; which, if he means of ecclesiastical
courts, why did he speak so generally? If he mean, above all or any civil
courts, it is a gross calumny.) But now, if this be the sense which he
gives of that first article in the covenant, then, 1. All that is in the
second article might have been put into the first article: for instance,
we might, in Mr Coleman’s sense, have sworn “to endeavour the reformation
of Prelacy, and even of Popery itself, according to the word of God, and
the example of the best reformed churches;” that is, taking an oath to
deliver in our opinions of these things according to the word of God, and
to inquire into the evils of church government by archbishops, bishops,
deans, &c., whether guilty or not guilty. I strengthened my argument by
the different nature of the first and second article. I said, “The second
article is of things to be extirpated, but this of things to be preserved
and reformed.” Why did he not take the strength of my argument and make a
reply? 2. By the same principle of his we are not tied by the first
article of our covenant to have any, either doctrine or worship, but only
to search the Scriptures whether the word hold out any; for doctrine,
worship, discipline and government, go hand in hand in the covenant. 3.
His own simile hath this much in it against him. If a jury, sworn to
inquire into the felony of an accused person, should, after such an oath,
not only find the person not guilty, but further take upon them to
maintain that there is no such thing as felony, surely this were
inconsistent with their oath, so he that swears to endeavour the
reformation of religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,
and yet will not only dislike this or that form of government, but also
hold that there is no such thing as church government, he holds that which
cannot agree with his oath. 4. This answer of Mr Coleman, leaving it free
to debate whether there be such as church government, being his only
answer to my first argument from the covenant, must needs suppose that the
government mentioned in the covenant, the reformation whereof we have
sworn to endeavour, is understood even by himself of church officers’
power of corrective government, it being the corrective part only, and not
the doctrinal part, which he casts upon an uncertainty whether the world
hold out any such thing.
2. “Church government as mentioned in the covenant is a spiritual, not a
civil thing. The matters of religion are put together,—doctrine, worship,
discipline and government. The privileges of Parliament come after in the
third article.” The reverend brother replies, “What if it be? therefore
the Parliament is not to meddle with it, and why?” And here he runs out
against me, as if I held that the Parliament is not to meddle with
religion, an assertion which I abominate. Princes and magistrates’ putting
off themselves all care of the matters of religion, was one of the great
causes of the church’s mischief, and of popish and prelatical tyranny. But
is this just and fair, Sir, to give out for my opinion that for which you
are not able to show the least colour or shadow of consequence from any
thing that ever I said? That which was to be replied unto was, Whether do
not the materials of the first article of the covenant differ from the
materials of the third article of the covenant? or whether are they the
same? Whether doth the privilege of Parliament belong to the first article
of the covenant? Whether is that government mentioned in the first article
a civil thing or a spiritual? If civil, why is discipline and government
ranked with doctrine and worship, and all these mentioned as parts of the
reformation of religion? If spiritual, then why doth the brother make it
“civil or temporal?” p. 11. To all this nothing is answered, but, “What if
it be?” Then is my argument granted.
And to put it yet further out of question, I add other two arguments from
that same first article of the covenant. One is this: In the first part of
that first article we swear all of us to endeavour “the preservation of
the reformed religion in the church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government,” where all know that the words “discipline”
and “government” (especially being mentioned as two of the principal
things in which the reformed religion in that church doth consist) signify
church government and church discipline distinct both from doctrine and
worship (which, by the way, how Mr Coleman endeavoureth to preserve, I
will not now say, but leave it to others to judge), therefore, in that
which immediately followeth,—our endeavouring “the reformation of religion
in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline
and government,”—the words “discipline” and “government” must needs have
the same sense thus far, that it is a church discipline and a church
government distinct from the civil power of the magistrate, and distinct
also from doctrine and worship in the church; for we cannot make these
words, “discipline” and “government,” in one and the same article of a
solemn oath and covenant, to suffer two senses differing _toto genere_
(especially considering that the civil government is put by itself in
another article, which is the third), unless we make it to speak so as
none may understand it.
The other argument which I now add is this. In the third part of that
first article we swear that we “shall endeavour to bring the churches of
God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in
religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for
worship and catechising,” where, 1. Church government doth agree
generically with a confession of faith, directory of worship, and
catechising. I mean all these are matters of religion, none of them civil
matters. 2. It is supposed there is such a thing as church government
distinct from civil government, and therefore it is put out of all
question, that so far there shall be an uniformity between the churches of
God in the three kingdoms (and otherwise it were an unswearing of what was
sworn in the first part of that article), but it tieth us to endeavour the
nearest conjunction and uniformity “in a form of church government;” which
were a vain and rash oath, if we were not tied to a church government in
general, and that as a matter of religion. 3. The uniformity in a form of
church government which we swear to endeavour must needs be meant of
corrective government; it being clearly distinguished from the confession
of faith and directory of worship. So that Mr Coleman’s distinction of the
doctrinal part, and of the dispensing of the word and sacraments, cannot
here help him.
From these two arguments (beside all was said before) I conclude that the
covenant doth undeniably suppose, and plainly hold forth this thing as
most necessary and uncontrovertible, that there ought to be a church
government which is both distinct from the civil government, and yet not
merely doctrinal. And if so, what Apollo can reconcile Mr Coleman’s
doctrine with the covenant? And now I go on.
My last reason formerly brought was this: “Will the brother say that the
example of the best reformed churches leadeth his way?” For the covenant
tieth us to a reformation of the government of the church both according
to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches: that as
_regula regulans_; this as _regula regulata_.
The reverend brother replieth: 1. “The best reformed church that ever was
went this way; I mean the church of Israel.”
_Ans._ 1. Is the church of Israel one of the reformed churches which the
covenant speaks of? 2. Was the church of Israel better reformed than the
apostolical churches? Why then calls he it the best reformed church that
ever was? 3. That in the Jewish church there was a church government
distinct from civil government, and church censures distinct from civil
punishments, is the opinion of many who have taken great pains in the
searching of the Jewish antiquities; and it may be he shall hear it ere
long further proved, both from Scripture and from the very Talmudical
writers.
2. “I desire (saith he) the Commissioner to give an instance in the New
Testament of such a distinction (civil and church government) where the
state was Christian.”
_Ans._ I desire him to give an instance in the New Testament of these
three things, and then he will answer himself. 1. Where was the state
Christian? 2. Where had the ministry a doctrinal power in a Christian
state? 3. Where doth the New Testament hold out that a church government
distinct from civil government may be where the state is not Christian,
and yet may not be where the state is Christian? Shall the church’s
liberties be diminished, or rather increased, where the state is
Christian?
In the third and fourth place, the brother tells us of the opinions of
Gualther, Bulhager, Erastus, Aretius. The question is of the examples of
churches, not of the opinions of men. But what of the men? As for that
pestilence that walketh in darkness through London and Westminster,
Liastus’ book against Beza, let him make of it what he can, it shall have
an antidote by and by. In the meanwhile, he may take notice, that, in the
close of the sixth book, Erastus casts down that which he hath built, just
as Bellarmine did, in the close of his five books of justification. But as
for the other three named by the brother, they are ours, not his, in this
present controversy. Gualther(1340) expounds 1 Cor. v. all along of
excommunication, and of the necessity of church discipline; insomuch that
he expounds the very delivering to Satan (the phrase most controverted by
Erastus and his followers) of excommunication, and the not eating with the
scandalous (ver 9-11) he takes also to import excommunication. He thinks
also that ministers shall labour to little purpose except they have a
power of government. Bullinger is most plain for excommunication, as a
spiritual censure ordained by Christ, and so he understands Matt. xviv.
17.
Aretius holds(1341) that God was the author of excommunication in the Old
Testament, and Christ in the New. And now are these three Mr Coleman’s
way? Or doth not his doctrine flatly contradict theirs? Peradventure he
will say, Yet there is no excommunication in the church of Zurich, where
those divines lived, nor any suspension of scandalous sinners from the
sacrament. I answer, This cannot infringe what I hold, that the example of
the best reformed churches maketh for us and against him; for, 1. The book
written by Lavater, another of the Zurich divines, _de Ritibus et
Institutis Ecclesioe Tigurinoe_, tells us of divers things in that church
which will make the brother easily to acknowledge that it is not the best
reformed church, such as festival days, cap. 8, that upon the Lord’s days,
before the third bell, it is published and made known to the people, if
there be any houses, fields, or lands, to be sold, cap. 9. They have no
fasts indicted, cap. 9, nor psalms sung in the church, cap. 10.
Responsories in their Litany at the sacrament, the deacon upon the right
hand saith one thing, the deacon upon the left hand saith another thing,
the pastor a third thing, cap. 13. 2. Yet the church of Zurich hath some
corrective church government besides that which is civil or temporal, for
the same book, cap. 23, tells us, that in their synods, any minister who
is found scandalous or profane in his life, is censured with deposition
from his office, _ab oficio deponitur_. Then follows, _finita censura,
singuli decani, &c._ Here is a synodical censure, which I find also in
Wolphius,(1342) a professor of Zurich, and the book before cited, cap.
24,(1343) tells us of some corrective power committed to pastors and
elders, which elders are distinguished from the magistrates. 3. The Zurich
divines themselves looked upon excommunication as that which was wanting
through the injury of the times; the thing having been so horribly abused
in Popery, and the present licentiousness abounding among people, did
hinder the erecting of that part of the church discipline at that time.
But they still pleaded the thing to be held forth in Scripture, and were
but expecting better times for restoring and settling of excommunication,
which they did approve in Geneva, and in other reformed churches, who had
received it. I give you their own words for the warrant of what I
say.(1344)
I have been the longer upon this point as being the chief objection which
can be made by Mr Coleman concerning that clause in the covenant, “The
example of the best reformed churches.”
He hath only one thing more, which may well pass for a paradox. He will
take an instance, forsooth, from Geneva itself, though presbyterian in
practice. And why? Because in the Geneva Annotations upon Matt. ix. 16, it
said, that “the external discipline is to be fitted to the capacity of the
church.” “This is no Scotland presbytery,” saith the brother. Nay, Sir,
nor yet Geneva presbytery; for it doth not at all concern presbytery. It
is spoken in reference to the choosing of fit and convenient times for
fasting and humiliation,—that as Christ did not, at that time, tie his
disciples to fasting, it being unsuitable to that present time; so other
like circumstances of God’s worship, which are not at all determined to
the word, are to be accommodated to emergent occasions, and to the
church’s condition for the time, which both Scotland and Geneva, and other
reformed churches do.
If I have now more fully and convincingly spoken to that point of the
covenant, let the brother blame himself that put me to it.
The Lord guide his people in a right way, and rebuke the spirit of error
and division, and give us all more of his Spirit, to lead us into all
truth, and into all self-denial, and grant that none of his servants be
found unwilling to have the Lord Jesus Christ to reign over them in all
his ordinances!
THE END.
MALE AUDIS; OR, AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN’S MALE DICIS.
MALE AUDIS;
OR
AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN’S MALE DICIS:
WHEREIN
THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS ERASTIAN DOCTRINE TO THE WORD OF GOD,
TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT, AND TO THE ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT;
ALSO HIS CONTRADICTIONS, TERGIVERSATIONS, HETERODOXIES, CALUMNIES,
AND PERVERTING OF TESTIMONIES,
ARE MADE MORE APPARENT THAN FORMERLY.
TOGETHER WITH
SOME ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR HUSSEY’S PLEA FOR CHRISTIAN MAGISTRACY:
SHOWING,
THAT IN DIVERS OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED PARTICULARS HE HATH MISCARRIED AS
MUCH AS,
AND IN SOME PARTICULARS MORE THAN, MR COLEMAN.
BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,
MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1649.
EDINBURGH:
ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD.
M. OGLE & SON, AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW.
J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON, DUNDEE. G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN.
W. M’COMB, BELFAST.
HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.
1649.
REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH
1844.
PREFACE TO THE READER.
As I did not begin this present controversy, so I do not desire to hold up
the ball of contention, yet having appeared in it (neither alone, nor
without a calling and opportunity offered), I hold it my duty to vindicate
the truth of Christ, the solemn league and covenant, the ordinances of
Parliament, the church of Scotland, and myself. For this end was I born,
and for this end came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the
truth, whereunto I am so much the more encouraged, because it appeareth
already in this debate, that _magna est vis veritatis_,—great is the force
of truth, and so great, that my antagonists, though men of parts, and such
as could do much for the truth, yet, while they have gone about to do
somewhat against the truth, they have mired themselves in foul errors;
yea, so far is in them lieth, have most dangerously shaken and endangered
the authority of magistrates, who are God’s vicegerents, and particularly
the authority of Parliament, and of parliamentary ordinances. They have
stumbled and fallen, and shall not be able to rise but by the
acknowledgment of the truth.
In this following reply, I have not touched much of the argumentative part
in Mr Hussey’s _Plea for Christian Magistracy_, reserving most of it to
another work, unto which this is a _prodromus_ (howbeit much of what he
saith is the same with what I did confute in my _Nihil Respondes_, and his
book, coming forth a month after, takes no notice of that second piece of
mine, but speaketh only to the first). Meanwhile, let him not believe that
his big looking title can, like Gorgon’s head, blockify or stonify
rational men, so as they shall not perceive the want or weakness of
argument. It hath ever been a trick of adversaries to calumniate the way
of God and his servants, as being against authority, but I will, by God’s
assistance, make it appear to any intelligent man, that the reverend
brother hath pleaded very much against magistracy, and so hath fallen
himself into the ditch which he hath digged for others, whilst I withal
escape.(1345)
But, now, what may be the meaning of Mr Coleman’s cabalistical title,
_Male Dicis Maledicis_? Great philologists will tell him that _maledico_
is taken in a good sense as well as in a bad, according to the difference
of matter and circumstances. If any kind of malediction be justifiable, it
is _male dicere maledicis_,—to speak evil to evil speakers, for “as he
loved cursing, so let it come unto him as he delighted not in blessing, so
let it be far from him.” But he doth worse, and his title, with a
transposition of letters, will more fitly reflect upon himself _male dicis
de amicus_. You, Sir, speak evil of your friends, and of those that never
wronged you. For my part, I have not shared with him in evil speaking, nor
rendered revilings for revilings. I am sorry that he is so extremely ill
of hearing, as to take reason to be railing, and good sayings to be evil
sayings. He applieth to himself the Apostle’s words, “Being reviled, we
bless.” But where to find these blessings of his, those unwritten
verities, I know not. I am sure he had spoken more truly if he had said,
“Being not reviled, we do revile.”
For the matter and substance of his reply, there are divers particulars in
it which serve rather to be matter of mirth than of argument, as that a
Parliament parasite cannot be called an abuser of the Parliament, and that
passage, “How can a clause delivered in a postscript, concerning my
opinion of my way, be abusive to the Parliament?” A great privilege either
of postscripts or of his opinions, that they cannot be abusive to the
Parliament. Many passages are full of acrimony, many extravagant, and not
to the point in hand, many void of matter. Concerning such
Lactantius(1346) gives me a good rule, Otiosum est persequi singula,—it is
an idle and unprofitable thing to persecute every particular. And much
more I have in my eye the Apostle’s rule, “Let all things be done to
edifying.” 1 Cor. xiv. 26. I have accordingly endeavoured to avoid such
jangling, and such debates as are unprofitable and unedifying, making
choice of such purposes as may edify, and not abuse the reader.
Peradventure some will think I might have wholly saved myself this labour.
I confess I do not look upon that which I make reply unto, as if it were
like to weigh much with knowing men, yet the Apostle tells me that some
men’s mouths must be stopped, and Jerome tells me(1347) there is nothing
written without skill, which will not find a reader with as little skill
to judge, and some men grow too wise in their own eyes when they pass
unanswered. Besides all this, a vindication and clearing of such things as
I mentioned in the beginning, may, by God’s blessing, anticipate future
and further mistakes. Read therefore and consider, and when thou hast
done, I trust thou shalt not think that I have lost my labour. I pray the
Lord that all our controversies may end in a more cordial union for
prosecuting the ends expressed in the covenant and especially the
reformation of religion, according to the word of God and the example of
the best reformed churches, and more particularly the practical part of
reformation, that the ordinances of Jesus Christ may be kept from
pollution, profaneness and scandals shamed away, and piety commended and
magnified.
CHAPTER I.
THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH STILL CONTRADICT HIMSELF IN THE STATING OF THIS
PRESENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
It was before both denied and yielded by Mr Coleman, that there is a
church government which is distinct from the civil, and yet not merely
doctrinal. He did profess to subscribe heartily to the votes of
Parliament, and yet advised the Parliament to do contrary to their votes,
as I proved in _Nihil Respondes_, p. 3. He answereth now, in his _Male
Dicis_, p. 4, “I deny an institution; I assent to prudence; Where is the
self-contradiction now?” and, p. 5, “The advice looks to _jus divinum_;
the Parliament votes to prudence.” Sir, you have spoken evil for yourself;
you have made the self-contradiction worse. Will you acknowledge your own
words, in your sermon, p. 25, “Lay no more burden of government upon the
shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them; have no
more hand therein than the Holy Ghost clearly gives them. The ministers
have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man,” &c.; “I
fear an ambitious ensnarement,” &c.; and, in your _Re-examination_, p. 14,
“He should have said, I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of
government upon them whom he (this Commissioner) thinks church officers,
then had he spoken true.” Now let the reverend brother take heed to
checkmate, and that three several ways (but let him not grow angry, as bad
players use to do). For, 1. _Eo ipso_ that he denies the institution, by
his principles he denies the prudence; for he that denieth the
institution, and adviseth the Parliament to lay no more burden of
government upon ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them, is
against the settling of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not
instituted. But Mr Coleman denies the institution, and adviseth the
Parliament to lay no more burden of government upon ministers than Christ
hath plainly laid upon them; therefore Mr Coleman is against the settling
of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not instituted. And how to
reconcile this with his denying of the institution and yielding of the
prudence, will require a more reconciling head than Manasseh Ben Israel
Conciliator himself. 2. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
of government upon ministers, because they have other work to do which
will take up the whole man, and because of the fear of an ambitious
ensnarement, is against the laying of any burden of corrective government
upon ministers, so much as in a prudential way. But Mr Coleman adviseth
the Parliament, &c.; therefore the consequence in the proposition is
necessary, unless he will say that it is agreeable to the rules of
prudence to lay upon them more work besides that which will take up the
whole man, or to commit that power unto them which is like to prove an
ambitious ensnarement. 3. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
at all of corrective government upon ministers and other officers joined
with them in elderships, but to keep that power _wholly_ in their own
hands, is against the prudence of the thing, as well as against the
institution of it. But Mr Coleman adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden
at all of corrective government upon these, but to keep that power
_wholly_ in their own hands; therefore the proposition is proved by that
which himself saith, The Parliament votes look to prudence. So that the
Parliament, having voted a power of suspension from the sacrament unto
elderships, for so many scandals as are enumerate in the ordinance (which
power is a part of that which he calls _corrective_), he that is against
this power in elderships is both against the prudence and against the
ordinance of Parliament. The assumption I prove from his _Re-examination_,
p. 14, where, after his denial of the power to those whom we think church
officers, being charged with advising the Parliament to take church
government _wholly_ into their own hands, his answer was, “If you mean the
corrective power, I do so.”
And now, after all this, I must tell the reverend brother that he might
have saved himself much labour had he, in his sermon to the Parliament,
declared himself (as now he doth) that he was only against the _jus
divinum_, but not against their settling of the thing in a parliamentary
and prudential way. Did I not, in my very first examination of his sermon,
p. 32, remove this stumbling block?
And, withal, seeing he professeth to deny the _jus divinum_ of a church
government differing from magistracy, why doth he hold, p. 19, that the
Independents are not so much interested against his principles as the
Presbyterians? Did he imagine that the Independents are not so much for
the _jus divinum_ of a church government and church censures as the
Presbyterians? But, saith he, “The Independents’ church power seems to me
to be but doctrinal.” But is their excommunication doctrinal? and do they
not hold excommunication to be _jure divino_? Either he had little skill
in being persuaded, or some others had great skill in persuading him that
the Independents’ church power is but doctrinal, and that they are not so
much interested against the Erastian principles as the Presbyterians are;
as if, forsooth, the ordinance of excommunication (the thing which the
Erastian way mainly opposeth) and a church government distinct from
magistracy, were not common to them both.
Lastly, If the reverend brother deny the institution of church censures,
but assent to the prudence, why doth he allege the Zurich divines to be so
much for him? _Male Dicis_, p. 23; for it was upon prudential grounds, and
because of the difficulty and (as they conceived) impossibility of the
thing, that they were against it, still acknowledging the scriptural
warrants for excommunication, as I shall show, yea, have showed already;
so that, if Mr Coleman will follow them, he must rather say, “I assent to
an institution; I deny a prudence.”
CHAPTER II.
A CONFUTATION OF THAT WHICH MR COLEMAN HATH SAID AGAINST CHURCH
GOVERNMENT; SHOWING ALSO THAT HIS LAST REPLY IS NOT MORE, BUT LESS
SATISFACTORY THAN THE FORMER, AND FOR THE MOST PART IS BUT A
TERGIVERSATION AND FLEEING FROM ARGUMENTS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, AND FROM
MAKING GOOD HIS OWN ASSERTIONS AND ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE DISTINCTION OF
CIVIL AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
The reverend brother said in his sermon, “I could never yet see how two
coordinate governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in
one state.” To overthrow this general thesis, I brought some instances to
the contrary; such as the governments of a general and an admiral, of a
master and a father, of a captain and a master in a ship. He being thus
put to his vindication, replieth, “The Commissioner acknowledgeth he did
not apply them to the Assembly (I said the General Assembly) and
Parliament; yet that was the controversy in hand,” _Male Dicis_, p. 5.
But, by his favour, that was not the controversy; for he was not speaking
particularly against the distinction of the government of the General
Assembly and of the government of the Parliament (neither had he one
syllable to that purpose), but generally against the distinction of church
government and civil government, and particularly against excommunication;
in all which he excluded presbyteries as well as General Assemblies.
Wherefore he doth now recede not only from defending his thesis, but from
applying it against the power of presbyteries. And so far we are agreed.
2. I having confuted his argument grounded on Psal. xxxiii. 15; Prov.
xxvii. 19, he shifteth the vindication of it, and still tells me he
grounded no argument on those places, but spake “by way of allusion,”
_Male Dicis_, p. 6. Now let the reader judge. His words to the Parliament
were these: “Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why I may
not (God fashions men’s hearts alike; and as in water face answers face,
so the heart of man to man), I ingenuously profess I have a heart that
knows better how to be governed than govern; I fear an ambitious
ensnarement,” &c. This argument, there largely prosecuted, hath no other
ground but the parenthesis using the words (though not quoting the places)
of Scripture. And now, forsooth, he hath served the Parliament well, when,
being put to make good the sole confirmation of his argument, he tells it
was but an allusion. But this is not all. I confuted the whole argument
drawn from his own heart to the hearts of others, and gave several
answers: but neither before, nor now, hath he offered to make good his
argument.
3. The reverend brother cited 1 Cor. x. 33, to prove that all government
is either a heathenish government, or a Jewish government, or a church
government. This I denied: “Because the government of generals, admirals,
mayors, sheriffs, is neither a Jewish government, nor a church government,
nor a heathenish government.” What saith he to this? “I deny it; a Jewish
general is a Jewish government,” &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 6. Deny it? No,
Sir, you must prove (because you are the affirmer) that a Christian
general, a Christian admiral, are church governments. For I deny it. You
tell us, p. 7, you are persuaded it will trouble the whole world to bound
civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the one from the other. You shall
have them bounded and distinguished ere long, and the world not troubled
neither. Meanwhile you have not made out your assertion from 1 Cor. x. 33.