A86003:56
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.
Secondly, In that same Epistle to the Parliament, pag. 4. he hath this passage; Will-worship is unlawful, I mean in matters that are essential to Gods Worship, which are matters of duty, as for circumstantials of time and place (except the Sabbath) which are matters of liberty, in these the Common-wealth may Vote, &c, and this is your christian liberty, that in matters of liberty ye make Rules and Laws to your selves, not crossing the ends that you are tied to in duty. And is the Sabbath only a circumstantial of time contra-distinct from matters of duty? It seems he will cry down not only the Jus divinum of Church censures with the Erastians, but the Jus divinum of the Sabbath with the Canterburians. And if Will-worship be unlawful only in the essentials of Gods Worship, why was the Argument of Will-worship so much tossed, not only between Prelates and Non-Conformists, but between Papists and Protestants, even in reference to Ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr. Hussey here engaged himself to hold it free and lawful to the Christian Magistrate, yea to private Christians (for he calls it Christian liberty, not Parliamentary liberty: now Christian liberty belongs to all sorts of Christians) to make Laws to themselves for taking the Sacrament anniversarily on Christmas, Good-Friday, and Easter, or to appoint a perpetual Monthly Fast, or Thanksgiving: yea another Parliament may (if so it should seem good to them) impose again the Surplice and Cross in Baptism, Fonts, Railing of Communion Tables, the reading of divers passages of Apocrypha to the Congregation, Doxologies, Anthems, Responsories, &c. as heretofore they were used: or they may appoint all and every one to sit in the Church with their faces toward the East, to stand up at the Epistles and Gospels, &c. yea what Ceremonies, Jewish, Popish, Heathenish, may they not impose, provided ⟨p. 27⟩they only hold the foundation, and keep to those essentials which he calls matters of duty: by restraining the unlawfulness of Will-worship to the essentials, he leaves men free to do any thing in Religion, pr•ter verbum, so that it appear not to them to be c•ntra verbum; any thing they may add to the Word, or do beside the Word, so that the thing cannot be proved contrary to the Word.
Secondly, In that same Epistle to the Parliament, pag. 4. he hath this passage; Will-worship is unlawfull, I meane in matters that are essentiall to Gods Worship, which are matters of duty, as for circumstantials of time and place (except the Sabbath) which are matters of liberty, in these the Common-wealth may Vote, &c, and this is your christian liberty, that in matters of liberty yee make Rules and Lawes to your selves, not crossing the ends that you are tyed to in duty. And is the Sabbath onely a circumstantiall of time contra-distinct from matters of duty? It seemes he will cry downe not onely the Jus divinum of Churchcensures with the Erastians, but the Jus divinum of the Sabbath with the Canterburians. And if Will-worship be unlawfull onely in the essentialls of Gods Worship, why was the Argument of Will-worship so much tossed, not onely between Prelates and Non-Conformists, but between Papists and Protestants, even in reference to Ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr. Hussey here ingaged himselfe to hold it free and lawfull to the Christian Magistrate, yea to private Christians (for he calls it Christian liberty, not Parliamentary liberty: now Christian liberty belongs to all sorts of Christians) to make Lawes to themselves for taking the Sacrament anniversarily on Christmasse, Good-Friday, and Easter, or to appoint a perpetuall Monethly Fast, or Thanksgiving: yea another Parliament may (if so it should seeme good to them) impose againe the Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme, Fonts, Railing of Communion Tables, the reading of divers passages of Apocrypha to the Congregation, Doxologies, Anthems, Responsories, &c. as heretofore they were used: or they may appoint all and every one to sit in the Church with their faces toward the East, to stand up at the Epistles and Gospels, &c. yea what Ceremonies, Jewish, Popish, Heathenish, may they not impose, provided