The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 33
MALE AUDIS;
OR
AN ANSWER TO MR COLEMAN'S MALE DICIS:
WHEREIN
THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS ERASTIAN DOCTRINE TO THE WORD OF G.o.d,
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 G.o.d'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 t.i.tle 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 G.o.d and his servants, as being against authority, but I will, by G.o.d's a.s.sistance, 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 t.i.tle, _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 circ.u.mstances. 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 t.i.tle, 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 pa.s.sage, "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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.s unanswered. Besides all this, a vindication and clearing of such things as I mentioned in the beginning, may, by G.o.d's blessing, antic.i.p.ate 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 G.o.d 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 inst.i.tution; I a.s.sent 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 inst.i.tution, by his principles he denies the prudence; for he that denieth the inst.i.tution, 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 inst.i.tuted. But Mr Coleman denies the inst.i.tution, 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 inst.i.tuted. And how to reconcile this with his denying of the inst.i.tution and yielding of the prudence, will require a more reconciling head than Mana.s.seh 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 inst.i.tution 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 a.s.sumption 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 inst.i.tution of church censures, but a.s.sent 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 a.s.sent to an inst.i.tution; 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 a.s.sERTIONS 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 a.s.sembly (I said the General a.s.sembly) 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.semblies.
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. x.x.xiii. 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 (G.o.d 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.