A86003:68
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.
You have not found four terms in my Premisses, nor charged my Major or Minor with the least fault in matter or form, and yet forsooth you deny the Conclusion, and do not admit that uncontrovertible Maxim in Logic, Ex veris nil 1nisi••rum, or as Kekerman hath it. Ex veris praemiss•s fal••• conclusionem colligi est impossibile; It is impossible that a false Conclusion s••uid be gathered from true Premisses. Now let us hear what he would say against my Conclusion; it is concerning the sense of the word hath, For hath, saith he, by me is used for receiving or having by virtue of the gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally. You are still out Sir; I take it just as you take it; for though the Son of God, as God essentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of God, which is common to all three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of himself a Kingdom ⟨p. 33⟩and Dominion over all, yet as he is the second Person in Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the Kingdom and Dominion over all, not of himself, but by virtue of the gift of his Father. So that the Reverend Brother is still Nihil Respondens, and therefore he shall be concluded in this Syllogism. He who holds that whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not by virtue of the gift, as he is the eternal Son of God, or second Person in the Trinity, but only as Mediator; he holds by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by virtue of his Fathers gift, as he is the eternal Son of God, or second Person in the Trinity. But Master Coleman holds the former, Ergo, Master Coleman holds the latter. The consequence in the Proposition is proved from Joh. 7. 22. The glory which thou gavest me. The assumption he will own, or else quit his argument against my distinction of the double Kingdom given to Christ, as the eternal Son of God, and as Mediator. The conclusion which follows is heretical; for whereas the Nicene Creed said that Christ in regard of his eternal generation, that he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, God of God, Light of Light; Master Colemans argument will infe••e that he is not onely ex seipso Deus, but ex seipso filius; and so deny the eternal generation of the Son of God, and the communication of the Godhead, and the Sovereignty, Glory, and Attributes thereof, from the Father to the Sonne.