Chapter IX (2)

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_?