A86003:48
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.
When Alexander was coming against a Town to destroy it, he met Anaximenes, who (as he understood) came to make intercession and supplication for sparing the Town, Alexander preventeth him with an Oath, that he would not do that thing which Anaximenes should make petition for, whereupon Anaximenes made Petition that he would destroy the Town, Alexander found himself bound by the plain words of his Oath to do what he intended, and so did forbear. And to add a divine Story to an humane, Joshua, and the Princes of Israel did swear to the Gibeonites upon a supposition that was not true, yet they found themselves tied by their Oath. So he that sweareth to his own hurt must not change, the Oath being otherwise lawful, Psal. 15. 4. yet that self hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his Oath was not intended in swearing. Sometimes again, that which is supposed and implied in an Oath lieth also in the thoughts and intention of those that swear. Now where those two are co-incident; that is, where the thing supposed in an Oath is both implied necessarily in the words of the Oath, and is also according to the apprehensions of those that swear (which is the case here in the Covenant, and is acknowledged by the Reverend Brother) I should think it most strange how any Divine can have the least doubt concerning the obligation of such a thing, except he conceive the thing it self to be unlawful.
When Alexander was comming against a Towne to destroy it, he met Anaximenes, who (as he understood) came to make intercession and supplication for sparing the Towne, Alexander preventeth him with an Oath, that he would not doe that thing which Anaximenes should make petition for, whereupon Anaximenes made Petition that he would destroy the Towne, Alexander found himselfe bound by the plaine words of his Oath to doe what he intended, and so did forbeare. And to adde a divine Story to an humane, Joshua, and the Princes of Israel did sweare to the Gibeonites upon a supposition that was not true, yet they found themselves tyed by their Oath. So he that sweareth to his owne hurt must not change, the Oath being otherwise lawfull, Psal. 15. 4. yet that selfe hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his Oath was not intended in swearing. Sometimes againe, that which is supposed and implyed in an Oath lyeth also in the thoughts and intention of those that sweare. Now where those two are co-incident; that is, where the thing supposed in an Oath is both implyed necessarily in the words of the Oath, and is also according to the apprehensions of those that sweare (which is the case here in the Covenant, and is acknowledged by the Reverend Brother) I should thinke it most strange how any Divine can have the least doubt concerning the obligation of such a thing, except he conceive the thing it selfe to be unlawfull.