A86003:37
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 last instance from Rev. 2. 14, 15, […] the Reverend Brother answers that he had striven to find out how Church-censures might be there grounded, but was constrained to let it alone. But what is it in his opinion which is there blamed in the Angels of those Churches? Doth he imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for their holding fast of his Name and of the true Faith, did not so much as doctrinally or ministerially oppose the foul errors of the Balaamites and of Jezebel? No doubt but this was done: but Christ reproves them because such scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the Church, and were not cast out. I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam: and vers. 20. Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel. And why was the very having or suffering them in the Church a fault, if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the Church? Which casting out could not be by banishment, but by excommunication. It did not belong to the Angel to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos: but he might and ought to have cast them out of the Church in Pergamos.
To the last instance from Rev. 2. 14, 15, 〈…〉 the Reverend Brother answers that he had striven to find out how Church-censures might be there grounded, but was constrained to let it alone. But what is it in his opinion which is there blamed in the Angels of those Churches? Doth he imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for their holding fast of his Name and of the true Faith, did not so much as doctrinally or ministerially oppose the foul errours of the Balaamites and of Jezebel? No doubt but this was done: but Christ reproves them because such scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the Church, and were not cast out. I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam: and vers. 20. Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel. And why was the very having or suffering them in the Church a fault, if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the Church? Which casting out could not be by banishment, but by excommunication. It did not belong to the Angell to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos: but he might and ought to have cast them out of the Church in Pergamos.