A86003:65
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.
Come on now to Mr. Colemans errors in Divinity, not to repeat what was expressed in my Nihil Respondes, but to take off the Maledicis in the main points.
Come on now to Mr. Colemans errours in Divinity, not to repeat what was expressed in my Nihil Respondes, but to take off the Maledicis in the maine points.
The tenth, Heterodoxy shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not as the eternal Son of God. Into this ditch did Mr. Coleman first fall, and then Mr. Hussey, pag. 25. after him. I said this Tenet leadeth to a blasphemous Heresy. For the better understanding whereof let it be remembered what I did premise in my Nihil Respondes, pag. 11. in reply to his Proposition, That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, pag. 45. concerning the Headship and Dignity of Christ, as the natural Son of God, the Image of the invisible God, Colossians, 1. 15. and pag. 43. of the dominion of Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God. This being premised, &c. Mr. Coleman without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and plainly premise, begins ⟨p. 31⟩to speak of God essentially, and that if something ma• be given to Christ as God, then something may be given to God, and then God is not absolutely perfect, &c Maledicis, pag. 13. 14. Thus he turneth over to the Essence and Nature of God, what I spake of the second Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God. Was not the Question between him and me, Whether the Kingdom and Dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God? This is the point which he did argue against, because it takes off his Argument first brought to prove that all Government even civill is given to Christ, as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning I spake of Christ as the second person in Trinity, or the eternal Son of God. Thus therefore the case stands; The Reverend Brother to prove that an Universal Sovereignty and Government over all things is given to Christ, as he is Mediator; and to confute my Assertion, that it is given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, doth frame this Argument against me, That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. But here dignity is given to Christ. Therefore not here to be taken as God. Where there is more in the conclusion then in the Premisses, for the conclusion which naturally follows had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dignity as God. It seems he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premisses which infer the conclusion. But this by the way. I speak to his Proposition;