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

In the next place the Reverend Brother makes short work of my five Arguments, to prove the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the solemn League and Covenant. They were too hot for him to be much touched upon, All is but this much, saith he, The Covenant mentioneth and supposeth a distinct Church-Government. It is hard when Arguments are neither repeated nor answered. He repeats a Point which was proved (and but a part of that) but not the proofs. And so he answereth (rather to the conclusion then to the Arguments) these two things. First, saith he, the expressions in the Covenant are according to the general apprehensions of the times, which took such a thing for granted; yet I believe Master Gillespie cannot make such a supposition obligatory. Now you yield Sir what before you eagerly contended against, viz. That the Covenant doth suppose a Church-Government. Remember your Simile of the Jury sworn to enquire into the felony of a Prisoner, which Oath doth not suppose the Prisoner to be guilty of felony, but he is to be tried, Guilty or not Guilty. We are now so far agreed, that the Covenant doth suppose a Church-Government distinct from the civill Government, and yet not merely Doctrinal, for that was the point which I proved, and which here he yields. As for the obligation of an Oath sworn upon such supposition, I answer. 1. It is more then supposed, the words and expressions of the Covenant do plainly hold out the thing as I proved, and as the Reverend Brother seems here to yield. 2. That which an Oath doth necessarily suppose, if the Oath be lawful, and the thing supposed lawful, is without all controversy obligatory. Now the Reverend B•other doth acknowledge both the Covenant it self, ⟨p. 21⟩to be a lawful Oath, and that which the Covenant supposeth, namely a Church-Government distinct from the Civill Government, and yet not merely Doctrinal to be a lawful thing, for he professeth to yield it (though not Jure divino, yet) in prudence, which he cannot do, if he make the thing unlawful. 3. That which an Oath doth suppose is sometimes supposed Vi materiae, or consequentiae, that is, the words of the Oath do necessarily imply such a thing, though it be not intended by the swearer; and here I will tell Master Coleman one Story of Alexander for another.

In the next place the Reverend Brother makes short work of my five Arguments, to prove the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the solemne League and Covenant. They were too hot for him to be much touched upon, All is but this much, saith he, The Covenant mentioneth and supposeth a distinct Church-Government. It is hard when Arguments are neither repeated nor answered. He repeats a Point which was proved (and but a part of that) but not the proofes. And so he answereth (rather to the conclusion then to the Arguments) these two things. First, saith he, the expressions in the Covenant are according to the generall apprehensions of the times, which tooke such a thing for granted; yet I beleeve Master Gillespie cannot make such a supposition obligatory. Now you yeeld Sir what before you eagerly contended against, viz. That the Covenant doth suppose a Church-Government. Remember your Simile of the Jury sworne to enquire into the felony of a Prisoner, which Oath doth not suppose the Prisoner to be guilty of felony, but he is to be tried, Guilty or not Guilty. We are now so farre agreed, that the Covenant doth suppose a Church-Government distinct from the civill Government, and yet not meerly Doctrinall, for that was the point which I proved, and which here he yeelds. As for the obligation of an Oath sworne upon such supposition, I answer. 1. It is more then supposed, the words and expressions of the Covenant doe plainly hold out the thing as I proved, and as the Reverend Brother seemes here to yeeld. 2. That which an Oath doth necessarily suppose, if the Oath be lawfull, and the thing supposed lawfull, is without all controversie obligatory. Now the Reverend Bother doth acknowledge both the Covenant it selfe,