A86003:33
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.
To the next Instance from 2 Cor. 2. 6. (which is coincident with the former) a punishment or censure inflicted by many. It is only a reprehension, saith he, [Greek or Hebrew], which by all the places in the New ⟨p. 12⟩Testament, •an amount no higher then to an objurgation, and so it Doctrinal. Answ. 1. He made it even now an act of the whole Church jointly, and of every particular person. Why did he not clear himself in this, How the whole Church, Men, Women, Children, and all did doctrinally reprehend him? 2. If the Objurgation must be restricted, to whom? Not to a single Minister (yet every single Minister hath power of Doctrinal Objurgation) but to the Presbytery, it was an act of those [Greek or Hebrew] I spake of; and this is a ground for that distinction between Ministerial and Presbyterial admonition which Master Coleman, pag. 22. doth not admit. 3. If it were granted that [Greek or Hebrew] in this Text amounteth to no more but an Objurgation. Yet our Argument stands good; for the Apostle having in his first Epistle required the Corinthians, to put away from among them that wicked person, which they did accordingly resolve to do (which makes the Apostle commend their obedience, 2 Cor. 2. 9.) No doubt either the Offender was at this time actually excommunicated and cast out of the Church, or (as others think) they were about to Excommunicate him, if the Apostle had not by his second Epistle prevented them, and taken them off with this Sufficit; Such a degree of censure is enough, the party is penitent, go no higher. 4 When the Reverend Brother appealeth to all the places in the New Testament, he may take notice that the word [Greek or Hebrew] is no where found in the New Testament, except in this very Text. And if his meaning be concerning the Verb [Greek or Hebrew], he may find it used to express a Coercive power, as in Christs rebuking of the winds and waves, Matth. 8. 26. Mark 4. 39. His rebuking of the Fever. Luke 4. 39. His rebuking of the Devil (which was not a Doctrinal, but a Coercive rebuke)