The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 35
Sixthly, He saith of Christ, p. 40, "He doth nothing as Mediator which he doth not as G.o.d or as man." It is a dangerous mistake, for take the work of mediation itself, he neither doth it as G.o.d, nor as man, but as G.o.d-man.
Seventhly, He saith, p. 35, "Nothing can be said of Christ as second person in Trinity, in opposition to Mediator, but in opposition to man there may." So that he will not admit of this opposition. Christ, as the Second Person in the Trinity, is equal and consubstantial to the Father, but, as Mediator, he is not equal to his Father, but less than his Father, and subject and subordinate to his Father-a distinction used by our divines against the Anti-Trinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not admitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence mire himself in Socinianism; for Christ, as Mediator, is the Father's servant, Isa. xlii.
1; and the Father is greater than he, John xiv. 28; and as the head of the man is Christ, so the head of Christ is G.o.d, 1 Cor. xi. 3. If, therefore, it cannot be said of Christ, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, that his Father is not greater than he, and that he is not subordinate to G.o.d as his head, then farewell Anti-Socinianism. I dare boldly say, it is impossible to confute the Socinians, or to a.s.sert the eternal G.o.dhead of Jesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the Second Person of the Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something be denied of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, which must be affirmed of him as he is Mediator.
Eighthly, He saith, p. 36, That Christ, "by his mediation, hath obtained from the Father that he shall not judge any man according to rigour, but as they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of judgment from the wicked is in and for Christ, which otherwise the justice of G.o.d would not allow."
Then Christ did thus far make satisfaction to the justice of G.o.d in the behalf of the wicked, and die for them, that judgment might be deferred from them, and thus far perform acts of mediation for the savages and Mohammedans, and for them that never heard the gospel, that by such mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they shall be judged not according to rigour, but by the gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath taken away all their sins against the law, so that all men shall now go upon a new score, and none shall be condemned or judged by the law, but by the gospel only; for if Christ have not taken away their sins against the law, the justice of G.o.d will judge them according to the rigour of the law. Must not every jot of the law be fulfilled? And is there not a necessity that every one undergo the curse and rigour of the law, or else that the Mediator hath undergone it for them?
Ninthly, He propounds this query, p. 44: "Whether ministers have any right to those privileges which are given to the church more than another Christian," and he holds the negative. Now the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, are privileges given to the church, that is, for the church's good: "For all things are yours (saith the Apostle), whether Paul, or Apollos," &c., 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22. Therefore, by Mr Hussey's divinity, any other Christian hath as much right to administer word, sacraments, keys, as the minister.
Come on now to Mr Coleman's errors in divinity, not to repeat what was expressed in my _Nihil Respondes_, but to take off the _Male Dicis_ in the main points.
Tenthly, The tenth heterodoxy shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not as the eternal Son of G.o.d. Into this ditch did Mr Coleman first fall, and then Mr Hussey, p. 25, after him. I said this tenet leadeth to a blasphemous heresy. For the better understanding whereof let it be remembered what I did promise in my _Nihil Respondes_, p. 11, in reply to his proposition, "That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, p. 45, concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural Son of G.o.d, the image of the invisible G.o.d, Col. i. 15, and, p. 43, of the dominion of Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. This being premised," &c. Mr Coleman, without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and plainly premise, begins to speak of G.o.d _essentially_; and that if something may be given to Christ as G.o.d, then something may be given to G.o.d, and then G.o.d is not absolutely perfect, &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 13, 14.
Thus he turneth over to the essence and nature of G.o.d what I spake of the Second Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. Was not the question between him and me, Whether the kingdom and dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. This is the point which he did argue against, because it takes off his argument first brought to prove that all government, even civil, is given to Christ as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning I spake of Christ as the Second Person in the Trinity, or the eternal Son of G.o.d. Thus therefore the case stands: The reverend brother, to prove that an universal sovereignty and government over all things is given to Christ as he is Mediator, and to confute my a.s.sertion that it is given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, doth frame this argument against me, "That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. But here dignity is given to Christ; therefore not here to be taken as G.o.d;" where there is more in the conclusion than in the premises; for the conclusion which naturally follows had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dignity as G.o.d. It seems he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premises which infer the conclusion. But this by the way. I speak to his proposition, "That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d." These words "as G.o.d," either he understands ??s??d??, _essentially_, or ?p?stat????, _personally_; that is, either in regard of the nature and essence of G.o.d, which is common to the Son of G.o.d with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one; or in regard of the person of the Word, as Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity, and personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former sense, then he must lay aside his whole argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all against my thesis, which affirmed that an universal dominion and kingdom over all things is given to Christ, not as he is Mediator (in which capacity he is only King of the church), but as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. In opposing of which a.s.sertion, as the reverend brother was before _nihil respondens_, so now he is twice nought.
But if in the other sense he understands his proposition (which I must needs suppose he doth, it being in opposition to what I said), then I still aver his proposition will infer a blasphemous heresy, as I proved before by a clear demonstration: That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. But life, glory, &c., is given to Christ; therefore Christ hath not life, glory, &c., as G.o.d. The reverend brother saith, "I acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the major is mine own, and the minor is the very Scripture." Yet he denies the conclusion, and clears himself by this simile, "That which was given this poor man he had not before. But a shilling was given this poor man; therefore he had not a shilling before: where both propositions are true, yet the conclusion is false (saith he), contrary to the axiom, _Ex veris nil nisi verum_." You are extremely out, Sir: your syllogism of the poor man is _fallacia ab amphibolia_. The major of it is ambiguous, dubious, and fallacious, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you acknowledge the major of my argument to be your own, and so not fallacious in your opinion. You acknowledge the minor to be Scripture. You have not found four terms in my premises, nor charged my major or minor with the least fault in matter or form, and yet, forsooth, you deny the conclusion, and do not admit that incontrovertible maxim in logic, _Ex veris nil nisi verum_; or, as Kekerman hath it, _Ex veris praeemissis falsam conclusionem colligi est impossibile_,(1357)-It is impossible that a false conclusion should be gathered from true premises. Now let us hear what he would say against my conclusion;-it is concerning the sense of the word _hath_: "For _hath_ (saith he) by me is used for receiving or having by virtue of the gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally." You are still out, Sir. I take it just as you take it. For though the Son of G.o.d, as G.o.d essentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of G.o.d, which is common to all Three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of himself a kingdom and dominion over all; yet, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the kingdom and dominion over all not of himself, but by virtue of the gift of his Father. So that the reverend brother is still _nihil respondens_, and therefore he shall be concluded in this syllogism: He who holds that whatsoever is given to Christ he hath it not by virtue of the gift, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d or Second Person in the Trinity, but only as Mediator,-he holds, by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by virtue of his Father's gift, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d or Second Person in the Trinity. But Mr Coleman holds the former; therefore Mr Coleman holds the latter. The consequence in the proposition is proved from John xvii.
22, "The glory which thou gavest me." The a.s.sumption he will own, or else quit his argument against my distinction of the double kingdom given to Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, and as Mediator. The conclusion which follows is heretical; for whereas the Nicene Creed said of Christ, in regard of his eternal generation, that he is _Deus de Deo, Lumen de lumine_,-G.o.d of G.o.d, Light of light, Mr Coleman's argument will infer that he is not only _ex seipso Deus_, but _ex seipso Filius_; and so deny the eternal generation of the Son of G.o.d, and the communication of the G.o.dhead, and the sovereignty, glory, and attributes thereof, from the Father to the Son. For if Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, hath not glory by virtue of his Father's gift, then he hath it not by virtue of the eternal generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally of himself.
As for the other branch of Mr Coleman's argument, tending to prove that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, cannot be given, which he endeavours to vindicate, p. 14, 15, I answer these two things:
_First_, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me; for I did from the beginning expound these words, Eph. i. 22, "And gave him to be the head over all things to the church," in this sense, That Christ as Mediator is given only to the church, to be her head, but he that is given as Mediator to the church is _over all_. So that the giving of Christ there spoken of is as Mediator, and he is given to the church only, which I cleared by the Syriac, "And him who is over all he gave to be the head to the church." But his being _over all_, there spoken of, if understood of glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator (yea, in regard of the exaltation of his human nature), and this helpeth not Mr Coleman, who intends to prove from that place that all government, even civil, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a kingdom and government over all, so he is over all, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d or Second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.
_Secondly_, The question which the reverend brother falls upon, concerning the personal inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from anything which I said, more than G.o.d's giving of his Son to us will infer a personal inhabitation of the Son of G.o.d in us. That which I said was to this intent, That both the Son of G.o.d and the Holy Ghost are given, not as G.o.d essentially; that is, in respect of the G.o.dhead itself, or as they are one in nature with the Father (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy Ghost which is given, could not be distinguished), but the Son is given as the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Holy Ghost is given as the Holy Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Son. Whether he be given to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations only, is another question, which hath nothing to do with the present argument, and therefore I will not be led out of my way.
Eleventhly, The eleventh heterodoxy is this: "I see no absurdity to hold that every man in authority is either Christ's vicegerent, or the devil's." _Male Dicis_, p. 16. Here I make this inference: Heathen and infidel magistrates, either, 1. They are not men in authority; or, 2. They are Christ's vicegerents; or, 3. They are the devil's, _Male Dicis._ If he say they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the apostle Paul, who calls them higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1, and men in authority, 1 Tim.
ii. 2, speaking in reference even to the magistrates of that time, who were infidels. If he say they are Christ's vicegerents, then, 1. He must say, that Christ, as Mediator, reigns without the church, and is a king to those to whom he is neither priest nor prophet. 2. He must find a commission given by Christ to the infidel magistrate. 3. Whom in authority will he make to be the devil's vicegerents if infidel magistrates be Christ's vicegerents? If he say that they are the devil's vicegerents, then it follows, 1. That they who resist the devil's vicegerent resist the ordinance of G.o.d; for they that resist an infidel magistrate, and do not submit to his lawful authority (which his infidelity takes not away), is said, Rom. xiii. 2, to resist the ordinance of G.o.d. 2. That the apostle Paul bade pray for the devil's vicegerent, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. The reverend brother doth but more and more wind himself into a labyrinth of errors, while he endeavours to take away the distinction of the twofold kingdom, and the twofold vicegerentship of G.o.d and of Christ.
Twelfthly, The twelfth heterodoxy followeth: "Now it is true that Christ, being G.o.d as well as man, hath of himself originally, as G.o.d, whatsoever he hath by virtue of gift as Mediator," _Male Dicis_, p. 13. Now subsume Christ hath, by virtue of gift, as Mediator, the priestly office; therefore, by Mr Coleman's principles, Christ hath of himself originally, as G.o.d, the priestly office. And if Christ hath it of himself originally as G.o.d, then the Father and the Holy Ghost hath it also; so that by his doctrine the Father and the Holy Ghost shall be the priests of the church as well as Christ, for Christ hath nothing of himself originally as G.o.d which the Father and the Holy Ghost have not likewise.
Thirteenthly, The thirteenth and last error concerneth the office of deacons. Not only a widow but a deacon is denied to be a church officer, or to have any warrant from Scripture. "I hold not a widow a church officer (saith he); no more do I a deacon; both having a like foundation in Scripture, which is truly none at all," _Male Dicis,_ p. 9. If this was his opinion formerly, why did he not in so main a point enter his dissent from the votes of the a.s.sembly concerning deacons, together with his reasons? Well, his opinion is so now, whereby he runneth contrary not only to the reformed churches (which it seems weigh not much in his balance), but to the plain Scripture, which speaks of the office of a deacon, 1 Tim.
iii. 10; and this could be no civil office, but an ecclesiastical office, for the deacons were chosen by the church, were ordained with prayer and laying on of hands, and their charge was to take special care of the poor; all which is clear, Acts vi. If he had given us the grounds of his opinion he should have heard more against it.
CHAPTER V.
THE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY, REPUGNANT ALSO, IN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT.
1. Mr Coleman, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, makes the Parliament to be church governors and church officers to the whole kingdom. It was an argument used against the prelates, that ecclesiastical and civil government, spiritual and secular administrations, are inconsistent in the same persons, either of which requireth the whole man. It was another exception against the prelate, that he a.s.sumed the power of church government and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole diocese, which was much more than he could discharge. How will Mr Coleman avoid the involving the Parliament into prelatical guiltiness by his principles, which we avoid by ours?
2. The prelates sought great things for themselves rather than to purge the church of scandals. What other thing was it when Mr Coleman, in his third rule, instead of exhorting to the purging the church, called only for learning and competency, and told it out, that this will "get us an able ministry, and procure us honour enough." Mr Hussey, in his Epistle to myself, tells me, that our attending on reading, exhortation and doctrine (without government) will obtain the magistrate's love, "more honour, more maintenance:" something for shame he behoved to add of the punishing of sin (yet he will not have the minister called from his study to be troubled or to take any pains in discipline), but behold the love of the magistrate; more honour and more maintenance, are strong ingredients in the Erastian electuary.
3. Mr Hussey will have ministers placed "without any regard to the allowance or disallowance of the people," _Epist. to the Parliament._ This is prelatical, or rather more than prelatical.
4. The prelates were great enemies to ruling elders: so are Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey, who acknowledge no warrant from the word of G.o.d for that calling, nor admit of any ruling elders who are not magistrates,-a distinction which was used by Saravia and Bilson in reference to the Jewish elders, and by Bishop Hall in reference to the elders of the ancient church who were not preaching elders, _a.s.sert. of Episcop. by Divine Right_, p. 208, 209, 221,-and now, forsooth, Mr Hussey, in his _Epistle to the Parliament_, doth earnestly beseech them to "set up cla.s.ses, consisting only of ministers, whose work should be only to preach the word," &c. Such cla.s.ses, I dare say, the prelates themselves will admit of. Sure the Scottish prelates, when they were at their highest, yielded as much.
Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that ruling elders and a church government distinct from the civil government, in the times of persecution and under pagan magistrates, can be no warrant for the like where the state is Christian. This plea for Christian magistracy was Bishop Whitgift's plea against the ruling elders, _Answer to the Admon._, p. 114.
6. Mr Hussey, p. 22, saith, That granting the incestuous Corinthian to be excommunicated, "the decree was Paul's and not the Corinthians'," and that it no way appertained to them under the notion of a church. This is Saravia's answer to Beza, _de Tripl. Epist. Genere_, p. 42, 43, yea, the Papists' answer to Protestant writers, by which they would hold up the authority and sole jurisdiction of the prelates, as the apostles'
successors, to excommunicate.
They do not more agree with the prelatical principles than they differ from the votes and ordinances of Parliament, which is the other point that I have here undertaken to discover; and I shall do it by the particular instances following:-
First, The ordinance of the Lords and Commons a.s.sembled in Parliament, for the calling of an a.s.sembly of divines, beginneth thus: "Whereas, among the infinite blessings of Almighty G.o.d upon this nation, none is, or can be, more dear unto us than the purity of our religion, and for that as yet many things remain in the liturgy, discipline, and government of the church, which do necessarily require a farther and more perfect reformation than as yet hath been attained: and whereas it hath been declared and resolved, by the Lords and Commons a.s.sembled in Parliament, that the present church government, by archbishops, bishops, &c., is evil and justly offensive, &c.; and that, therefore, they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in the church as may be most agreeable to G.o.d's holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the church at home, and nearer agreement with the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches abroad." After it was resolved and voted in both the honourable houses of Parliament, and sent as one of the propositions to the treaty at Uxbridge, "That many particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government." Now, therefore, what can be more contrary to the votes and ordinances of Parliament than that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that there ought to be no ecclesiastical government beside civil magistracy, except we please to take preaching and baptism under the name of government, as if, forsooth, the Parliament had meant, by presbyterial government, Parliamentary government; or as if, by the purity of religion in point of the discipline of government of the church, they had intended nothing but their civil rights and privileges; or as if the wise and honourable Houses had understood themselves no better than to intend that for a nearer agreement with the church of Scotland and other reformed churches, which is the widest difference from them, to wit, the Erastian way.
Secondly, In the same ordinance of Parliament for the calling of an a.s.sembly of divines, it is ordained that the a.s.sembly, after conferring and treating among themselves touching the liturgy, discipline, and government of the church, or vindication and clearing of the doctrine of the same, shall deliver their opinions or advices of or touching the matters aforesaid to both or either of the houses of Parliament, yet Mr Hussey, _Epist. to the Parliament_, p. 36, will not have cla.s.ses to put anything to the vote, but to hold on the disputes till all end in accord, and in unanimous consent of the whole clergy. But how can the a.s.sembly, after disputes, express their sense, and deliver their opinions and advice to the Parliament, as they are required, except they do it by putting to the vote? Mr Coleman himself hath consented, yea, sometime called to put things to the vote; and as for cla.s.ses, will any man imagine, that when both houses of Parliament did vote "that many particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government," their meaning was, that the cla.s.sical presbytery shall only schoolwise dispute, and put nothing to the vote; or that the cla.s.sical presbytery shall in common dispense the word and sacraments to many congregations, and that either the cla.s.sical presbytery shall go to the several congregations successively, or the many congregations come to the cla.s.sical presbytery, for preaching and baptising? I admire what opinion Mr Hussey can have of the Parliamentary vote concerning presbyterial government.
Thirdly, Mr Hussey, _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 4, 5, will have ministers placed "without any regard to the allowance and disallowance of the people," yet the ordinance of Parliament, for giving power to cla.s.sical presbyteries to ordain ministers, doth appoint that he who is examined and approved by the presbytery shall be "sent to the church or other place where he is to serve (if it may be done with safety and conveniency), there to preach three several days, and to converse with the people, that they may have trial of his gifts for their edification, and may have time and leisure to inquire into, and the better to know his life and conversation," after which the ordinance appointeth public notice to be given, and a day set to the congregation to put in what exceptions they have against him.
Fourthly, Mr Hussey in that _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 5, saith, "Oh that this honourable court would hasten to set up cla.s.ses consisting only of ministers whose work should be only to preach the word, and weekly meet in schools of divinity!" Here is a double contradiction to the ordinances of Parliament, for in the directions of the Lords and Commons for choosing of ruling elders, and speedy settling of presbyterial government, it is appointed that ruling elders shall be members both of cla.s.ses and synodical a.s.semblies, together with the ministers of the word. Again, the ordinance about suspension of scandalous persons from the sacrament appointeth other work to cla.s.ses, beside preaching and disputing, namely, the receiving and judging of appeals from the congregational eldership. Mr Coleman, in _Male Dicis_, p. 12, professeth that he excludeth ruling elders from church government, yet he can hardly be ignorant that as the Parliament hath voted "that many particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government," so their votes do commit that government to pastors and ruling elders jointly.
I will not here repeat the particulars wherein I showed in my _Nihil Respondes_ that Mr Coleman hath abused the honourable houses of Parliament, unto which particulars he hath answered as good as nothing.
The honourable houses, in their wisdom, will soon observe whether such men, whose avouched tenets are so flatly repugnant to the parliamentary votes and ordinances, are like to be good pleaders for Christian magistracy.
CHAPTER VI.
MR COLEMAN'S WRONGING OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Mr Coleman ends his _Male Dicis_ with a resentment of accusations charged upon him by a stranger, a commissioner from another church. The lot of strangers were very hard, if, when they are falsely accused to authority, they may not answer for themselves. He may remember the first accusation was made by himself, when in his sermon to the Parliament, he did flatly impute to the commissioners from the church of Scotland a great part of the fault of hindering union in the a.s.sembly of Divines, as having come bia.s.sed with a national determination; his doctrine also at that time being such, as did not only reflect upon the government of the church of Scotland, but tend to the subversion of the covenant in one princ.i.p.al point, without which there can be small or no hopes of attaining the other ends of the covenant. Since that time he did in his _Re-examination_, and now again in his _Male Dicis_, fall foully upon the church of Scotland, not only by gross mistakes and misrepresentations of our way, but by most groundless aspersions and most uncharitable and unjust calumnies. I am sure I am not so much a stranger to this doctrine as he is to the church of Scotland, of which notwithstanding he boldly speaks his pleasure in divers particulars, which he will never be able to make good.
First, He hath aspersed that church in the point of promiscuous communicating. This I confuted in my _Nihil Respondes_: and told him both of the order of the church and practice of conscientious ministers to the contrary. Now what replieth he?
"_First_, This refining work, I think, is not one year old in Scotland, or much more. I was lately informed that in Edinburgh it is begun: whether anywhere else I know not," _Male Dicis_, p. 20. Are not these now good grounds of censuring and aspersing a reformed church (whose name hath been as precious ointment among other churches abroad), "I think; I was informed; whether it be otherwise I know not?" He will sit in Cornhill, and tell the world what he imagines or hears of the church of Scotland, and that, forsooth, must be taken for a truth. Yet there was both rules and practice in the church of Scotland for debarring ignorant and scandalous persons from the sacrament before he was born, though all was put out of course under the prelates.
"_Secondly_ (saith the reverend brother), It is not a very effectual sin-censuring and church-refining government, under which, after fourscore years' constant practice, divers thousands in the kingdom, and some hundreds in one particular parish, because of ignorance and scandal, are yet unfit to communicate," _Male Dicis_, p. 20. _Ans._ 1. It is notoriously false that there hath been fourscore years' constant practice of presbyterial government in Scotland; for the prelates there were above thirty years' standing. 2. "Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day, or shall a nation be born at once?" saith the prophet, Isa. lxvi. 8.
It is no easy matter to get a whole nation purged of ignorant and scandalous persons. 3. He may take notice that the apostle Paul, almost in all his epistles, maketh mention of scandalous persons among those to whom he wrote, warning them not to have fellowship with such, to note them, to avoid them. If the apostolic churches were not free of such, what great marvel if we be not? 4. Before he objected promiscuous communicating. This being cleared to be a calumny, now he objecteth that there are such as are unfit to communicate. But while he thus seeketh a quarrel against church government, he doth upon the matter quarrel the preaching of the gospel itself; for he that imputeth it as a fault to the church government that there are still divers thousands who, by reason of ignorance or scandal, are unfit to communicate, doth, by consequence, yea, much more, impute it as a fault to the preaching of the gospel in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Sweden, Poland,-that in all these, and other reformed churches, after fourscore years' constant preaching of the gospel (which is appointed of G.o.d to turn unconverted and unregenerate persons from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to G.o.d), there are not only divers thousands, but divers millions, who, by reason of ignorance or scandal, are yet unfit to communicate. If the word do not open the eyes of the ignorant, and convert the scandalous, what marvel that church government cannot do it? Church government is not an illuminating and regenerating ordinance as the word is. But this church government can and will do, yea, hath done, where it is duly executed: It is a most blessed means for keeping the ordinances from visible and known pollution, which doth very much honour G.o.d, shame sin, and commend piety; it putteth a visible difference between the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean, the silver and the dross; and may well be, therefore, called a church-refining ordinance.
Secondly, The second calumny was this, "I myself (said he) did hear the presbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of the city." I answered him in his own language, "It is at the best a most uncharitable slander:" and told him there is no banishment in Scotland but by the civil magistrate; and that he ought to have inquired and informed himself better.
Now he doth neither adhere to his calumny, or offer to make it good, nor yet quit it, or confess he was mistaken, but propoundeth three new queries (_Male Dicis_, p. 21), still forgetting his own rule of keeping to the laws of disputation and matter in hand. For the particular in hand he only saith thus much, "I did make inquiry, and from the presbytery itself I received information, but not satisfaction." He tells not what information he received. If he will say that he received information that the banishment was by the magistrate, how could he then report that it was by the presbytery. If he say that the information he had from the presbytery gave him any ground for the report which he hath made, let him speak it out, and the world shall know the untruth of it. He may remember, withal, that by his principles an accusation may not be received against an elder (much less against an eldership), in reference either to the judgment of charity, or to ministerial conviction, except under two or three witnesses. If, therefore, he would have his accusation believed, let him find two or three witnesses.
Thirdly, Whereas I had rectified a great mistake of the reverend brother when I told him, "It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the n.o.bility, or to n.o.bles to be ruling elders; there are but some so, and many otherwise," he is not pleased to be rectified in this, but replieth, "I say, first, It is continually so; secondly, The king's commissioner in the General a.s.sembly, is his presence accidental?" _Male Dicis_, p. 10.
See now here whether he understandeth what he saith, or whereof he affirmeth. That which he saith is continually so, is almost continually otherwise; that is, there are continually some ruling elders who are not n.o.bles, and there are continually some n.o.bles who are not ruling elders.
So that, if anything be accidental, this is accidental, that an elder be of the n.o.bility, or n.o.bles be elders; they are neither n.o.bles _qua_ elders, nor elders _qua_ n.o.bles. It is no less accidental that the king's commissioner be present in the General a.s.sembly; for there have been General a.s.semblies in Scotland, both before the erection and since the last casting out of Prelacy, in which there was no commissioner from the king. And when the king sends a commissioner, it is accidental that he be of the n.o.bility; for the king hath sent commissioners to General a.s.semblies who were not of the n.o.bility.
Fourthly, A fourth injury, not to be pa.s.sed in silence, is this: Mr Coleman hath endeavoured to make the world believe that the commissioners from the church of Scotland came to the a.s.sembly bia.s.sed with something advent.i.tious from without, which he calls a national determination, and that we are not permitted by those that sent us to receive any further light from the word of G.o.d. I shall say no more of the bias, because, as I told him before, the standers by see well enough which way the bias runs.
But most strange it is, that after I had confuted his calumny, not only from our paper first presented to the grand committee, but from the General a.s.sembly's own letter to the a.s.sembly of Divines, showing that they had ordered the laying aside of some particular customs in the church of Scotland, for the nearer uniformity with the church of England, so much endeared unto them, yet he still adhereth to his former calumny (_Male Dicis_, p. 20), without taking notice of the evidence which I had given to the contrary. And not content with this, he still quarrelleth with my allegation of certain parallel examples, which are by him so far disesteemed, that he hath not stuck to pa.s.s the very same censure upon the foreign divines who came to the Synod of Dort which the Arminians did. The same he saith of Alexander's coming to the Council of Nice, and of Cyril's coming to the Council of Ephesus; all these, I say, he still involveth under the same censure with us; for whereas he had alleged that I justified the bias, this I denied, and called for his proof. His reply now is thus: "Is not the allegation of the examples of the like doing a justification of the act done?" _Male Dicis_, p. 20. This reply can have no other sense but this, That I justified the thing which he thinks our bias, because I justified those other divines who (as he holds) came also bia.s.sed in like manner. I am persuaded this one particular, his joining with the Arminians in their exceptions against the Synod of Dort, would make all the reformed churches, if they could all speak to him _uno ore_, to cry _Male audis_. And I am as firmly persuaded that the confession which I have extorted from him in this place, that he knoweth no advent.i.tious engagements those divines had, makes him irreconcileably to contradict himself; for he made them but just now bia.s.sed in the same manner as he thinks us, and made my allegation of their examples to be a justification of the bias charged by him upon us: as, therefore, he doth must uncharitably and untruly judge us to be bia.s.sed with advent.i.tious engagements, so doth he judge of them. Neither can he a.s.soil them while he condemneth us; for the articles concerning predestination, the death of Christ, grace, free will, and perseverance, were determined before the Synod of Dort by most (if not by all) of those reformed churches who sent commissioners thither, as much as presbyterial government was determined in the church of Scotland before the reverend a.s.sembly of Divines was called. And this pre-engagement and predetermination of those reformed churches was the main objection of the Arminians against the foreign divines who came to the Synod of Dort. To conclude this point, Mr Coleman himself, in his _Re-examination_, p. 7, avoucheth roundly, that the foreign divines came to Dort, not as divines, by dispute and disquisition to find out truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as erroneous.
CHAPTER VII.