Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy…

7. The Reverend Brother having brought an odious Argument against me, which did conclude, the Magistrate to manage his Office for and under the Devil, if not for and under Christ. I show his Syllogism to have four terms, and therefore worthy to be exploded. I get now two Replies.

7. The Reverend Brother having brought an odious Argument against me, which did conclude, the Magistrate to manage his Office for and under the Divel, if not for and under Christ. I shew his Syllogism to have four terms, and therefore worthy to be exploded. I get now two Replies.

First, This is an error (if one) in Logic, not Divinity; is it ⟨p. 10⟩an error in Divinity to make a Syllogism with four terms? Male dicis, pag. 15. See now if he be a fit man to call others to School, who puts an If in this business. If one; Who did ever doubt of it? And if it be an error in Divinity to be Fallacious, and to deceive, then it is an error in Divinity to make a Syllogism with four terms, yea, as foul an error as can be.

First, This is an errour (if one) in Logick, not Divinity; is it ⟨p. 10⟩an errour in Divinity to make a Syllogism with four terms? Male dicis, pag. 15. See now if he be a fit man to call others to School, who puts an If in this businesse. If one; Who did ever doubt of it? And if it be an errour in Divinity to be Fallacious, and to deceive, then it is an errour in Divinity to make a Syllogism with four terms, yea, as foul an errour as can be.

Secondly, He admitteth not my distinction▪ of those words under Christ, and for Christ. I said the Christian Magistrate is under Christ, and for Christ, that is, he is serviceable to Christ: But he is not under Christ, nor for Christ, as Christs Vicegerent vice Christi, in Christs stead as Christ is Mediator. The Reverend Brother saith, He foresaw that this would be said (the greater fault it was to make his Argument so unclear and undistinct) but he rejecteth the distinction, as being distinctio sine differentia. If a Magistrate, saith he, be thru far a servant of Christ as Mediator, that he is to do his work, to take part with him, to be for his glory; then he doth it vice Christi: He addes the simile of a servant: Hence it follows, by the Reverend Brothers Principles, That the Kings Cook, because he doth work and service for the King, therefore he doth it vice Regis, and as the Kings Vicegerent: Likewise, that a servant who obeyeth his Masters Wife, and executeth her commands, because it is his Masters will, and for his Masters honour, doth therefore obey his Masters Wife vice Domini, as his Masters Vicegerent; and by consequence, That the duty of obedience to the Wife, doth originally belong to the Husband; for the capacity of a Vicegerent, which he hath by his Vicegerentship, is primarily the capacity of him whose Vicegerent he is. These and the like absurd consequences will unavoidably follow, upon the Reverent Brothers Argumentation, That he who doth Christ service, doth it vice Christi, as Christs Vicegerent; and that to be a mans Vicegerent, and to do a mans work or service (which I made two different things) are all one. But further observe his Tergiversation. I had Pag. 13. proved my distinction out of these words of his own. 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. I asked therefore, quâ fide he could confound in his