A86003:104
Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy…
Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy of his Erastian doctrine to the word of God, to the solemn League and Covenant, and to the ordinances of Parliament: also his contradictions, tergiversations, heterodoxies, calumnies, and perverting of testimonies, are made more apparent then formerly. Together with some animadversions upon Master Hussey his Plea for Christian magistracy: showing, that in divers of the afore mentioned particulars he hath miscarried as much, and in some particulars more then Mr Coleman. / By George Gillespie, minister at Edinburgh. Published by authority.Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy of his Erastian doctrine to the word of God, to the solemne League and Covenant, and to the ordinances of Parliament: also his contradictions, tergiversations, heterodoxies, calumnies, and perverting of testimonies, are made more apparent then formerly. Together with some animadversions upon Master Hussey his Plea for Christian magistracy: shewing, that in divers of the afore mentioned particulars he hath miscarried as much, and in some particulars more then Mr Coleman. / By George Gillespie, minister at Edinbrugh. Published by authority.
London: printed for Robert Bostocke, 1646
No title page in the transcription: set from the catalogue record.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
First, In his Epistle pag. 8. he offereth it to be examined whether I was not beside my Text, Mal. 3. 2. when I pressed from it Reformation by Ecclesiastical Discipline? whether that refiners fire and fullers soap, doth not point at another, and a nearer operation upon the souls and spirits of men by the Blood, Word, Spirit, and Grace of Christ? and whether such handling of a similitude in a Text be to preach the mind of God, or mens own fancy? It is no discontent to me but I shall rejoice in it, that men of piety and judgement examine my Doctrine by the Word of God, and hold fast what they find agreeable to the Scriptures, and no more. But i• this brotherly, or fair, or conscionable dealing, to offer my Sermon to be examined under such a notion, when he hath not only said nothing, to confute any of my Doctrines, as not arising from my Text, or any of my applications, as not arising from my Doctrines; but hath also untruly represented my Sermon, as coming short of, or not expressing ⟨p. 48⟩that which indeed it hath most principally and most expressly in it? That of Reformation was but a part of my Sermon: and that of Church-censures against scandalous sinners was but the least part of that part. And why should not the fullers soap in the House of God, take off those spots in our feasts? Why should not the refiners fire purge away the wicked of the Earth like dross, so David calls them? That Reformation is one part of the holy Ghosts intendment in that Text, is Gualther's opinion as well as mine, yet he thinks Gualther his own. Nay, I proved it from comparing Scripture with Scripture, which is the best way that I know to clear Scripture. Why did he not answer my proofs? But beside all that I said of Reformation, had I not other three Doctrines out of that Text, comprehending all that which Master Hussey hinteth as omitted by me and yet intended in the text? Dare he say that I did not take in purgation by the Word? (though I confess he doth not well prove it from the words which he citeth, Is not my word an hammer? but it is proved by the words which he citeth not▪ Is not my word like as a fire?) Did I not expressly say that Christ is to us as a refiners fire and as fullers soap, three ways, by reformation, by tribulation, by mortification? Did I not handle the last two as well as the first?