Part 31 (1/2)
Page 10, He digresseth to other objections of his own framing, instead of taking off what I had said.
HIS ABUSING OF THE SCRIPTURES.
Mr Coleman did ground an argument upon Psal. x.x.xiii. 15; Prov. xxvii. 29, which cannot stand with the intent of the Holy Ghost, because contrary to other scriptures and to the truth, as I proved, p. 38. He answereth, in his _Re-examination_, that my sense may stand, and his may stand too. But if my sense may stand, which is contrary to his, then his argument had no sure ground for it; yea, that which I said was to prove that his consequence, drawn from those scriptures, did contradict both the apostle Paul's doctrine and his own profession, which still lieth upon him since it is not answered.
Page 14, He citeth 1 Cor. x. 32, ”Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of G.o.d,” to prove that all government is either a Jewish government, or a church government, or a heathenish government, and that _there is no third._ Yes, Sir, yourself hath given a third (for you have told three), but _transeat c.u.m caeteris erroribus_. To the matter. This is a perverting of scripture to prove an untruth; for the government of generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, is neither a Jewish government nor a church government, nor a heathenish government. Neither doth the Apostle speak anything of government in that place. He maketh a distribution of all men who are in danger to be scandalised-not of governments; and if he had applied the place rightly to the Parliament of England, he had said, They are either of the Jews, or of the Gentiles, or of the church of G.o.d: and this needeth not an answer. But when he saith, ”The English Parliament is either a Jewish government, or a church government, or a heathenish government,” I answer, It is none of these, but it is a civil government.
Page 15, Declaring his opinion of church government he citeth Rom. xiii.
4, ”To execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” to prove that the punitive part belongs to the Christian magistrate. But what is this to the punitive part which is in controversy,-spiritual censures, suspension from the sacraments, deposition from the ministry, excommunication? The punitive part spoken of, Rom. xiii., belongeth to all civil magistrates, whether Christian or infidel.
Page 18. He maketh this reply to 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. xvii.; Heb. xiii.
7, 17: ”Why, man, I have found these an hundred and an hundred times twice told, and yet am I as I was.” Why, Sir, was the argument so ridiculous? I had brought those places to prove another government (and, if you will, the inst.i.tution of another government) beside magistracy, which he said he did not find in Scripture. Here are some who are no civil magistrates set over the Thessalonians in the Lord, 1 Thess. v. 12; Paul writeth to Timothy of elders that rule well, 1 Tim. v. 17; the churches of the Hebrews had some rulers who had spoken to them the word of G.o.d, Heb. xiii.
7; rulers that watched for their souls as they that must give an account, ver. 17. Now let the reverend brother speak out, What can he answer? Were these rulers civil magistrates? Did the civil magistrate speak to them the word of G.o.d? If these rulers were not magistrates but ministers, I ask next. Is it a matter of indifferency, and no inst.i.tution, to have a ministry in a church or not? I hope, though he do not acknowledge ruling elders _jure divino_, yet he will acknowledge that the ministers of the word are _jure divino_; yet these were some of the rulers mentioned in the scriptures quoted. Let him loose the knot, and laugh when he hath done.
Page 19, 20, He laboureth to prove from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that Christ hath placed civil government in his church; and whereas it is said, that though it were granted that civil governments are meant in that place, yet it proves not that Christ hath placed them in the church. He replieth, ”I am sure the Commissioner will not stand to this: he that placed governors was the same that placed teachers.” But his a.s.surance deceiveth him; for upon supposition that civil governments are there meant (which is his sense), I deny it, and he doth but _petere principium_. G.o.d placed civil governments, Christ placed teachers; G.o.d placed all whom Christ placed, but Christ did not place all whom G.o.d placed. Next, whereas it was said, that governments in that place cannot be meant of Christian magistrates, because at that time the church had no Christian magistrates, he replieth, That Paul speaks of governments that the church had not, because in the enumeration, ver. 29, 30, he omits none but _helps_ and _governments_. I answer, The reason of that omission is not because these two were not then in being (for G.o.d had set them as well as the rest in the church, ver.
28), but to make ruling elders and deacons contented with their station, though they be not prophets, teachers, &c. Thirdly, I asked, How comes civil government into the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual administrations? His reply is nothing but an affirmation, that Christian magistracy is an ecclesiastical administration, and a query whether working of miracles and gifts of healings be ecclesiastical. _Ans._ Hence followeth, 1. That if the magistrate cease to be Christian he loseth his administration; 2. That though a worker of miracles cease to be Christian, yet it is a question whether he may not still work miracles. Lastly, Where I objected that he puts magistracy behind ministry, he makes no answer, but only that he may do this as well as my rule puts the n.o.bility of Scotland behind the ministry. No, Sir, we put but ruling elders behind ministers in the order of their administrations because the Apostle doth so. It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the n.o.bility, or to n.o.bles to be ruling elders: there are but some so, and many otherwise.
That of placing deacons before elders, 1 Cor. xii. 28, is no great matter; sure the Apostle, Rom. xii., placeth elders before deacons.
HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY.
1. Page 21, He admitteth no church government distinct from civil, except that which is merely doctrinal; and, p. 14, he adviseth the Parliament to take the corrective power wholly into their own hands, and exempteth nothing of ecclesiastical power from their hands but the dispensing of the word and sacraments. Hence it followeth that there ought to be neither suspension from the sacrament, nor excommunication, nor ordination, nor deposition of ministers, nor receiving of appeals, except all these things be done by the civil magistrate. If he say the magistrate gives leave to do these things, I answer, 1. So doth he give leave to preach the word and minister the sacraments in his dominions. 2. Why doth he then, in his sermon, and doth still, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, advise the Parliament to lay no burden of corrective government upon ministers, but keep it wholly in their own hands? It must needs be far contrary to his mind that the magistrate gives leave to do the things above mentioned, they being most of them corrective, and all of them more than doctrinal.
3. He gives no more power to ministers in church government than in civil government; for, p. 11, he ascribeth to them a ministerial, doctrinal and declarative power, both in civil and ecclesiastical government.
2. Page 11, 14, He holds that the corrective or punitive part of church government is civil or temporal, and is wholly to be kept in the magistrate's own hands; and, in his sermon, p. 25, he told us he sees not in the whole Bible any one act of that church government in controversy performed. All which how erroneous it is appeareth easily from 1 Cor. v.
13, ”Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (which Mr Prynne himself, in his _Vindication_, p. 2, acknowledged to be a warrant for excommunication); 2 Cor. ii. 6, There is a ”punishment,” or censure, ”inflicted of many;” 1 Tim. v. 19, ”Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” Where acts of church government or censures were neglected it is extremely blamed; Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. Was not all this corrective? yet not civil or temporal.
3. Page 9, Whereas I had said, That without church government ministers shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution, he replieth, That he understands neither this keeping of themselves from pollution, nor what this pollution of the ordinances is. I am sorry for it, that any minister of the gospel is found unclear in such a point. I will not give my own, but scriptural answers to both. The former is answered, 1 Tim. v.
22, Be not ”partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.” It is sin to dispense ordinances to the unworthy, whether ordination, or communion in the sacrament. For the other, the pollution of ordinances is the Scripture language. I hope he means not to quarrel at the Holy Ghost's language: Ezek. xxii. 26, ”Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane;”
Mal. i. 7, ”Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar;” ver. 12, ”Ye have profaned it;” Matt. xxi. 13, ”Ye have made it a den of thieves;” Matt.
vii. 6, ”Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet.”
4. Page 11, Whereas I had objected to him, that he excludeth ruling elders as well as ministers from government, he answers, That ruling elders are either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister (which, as he thinks, the Independents own, but not I), or they are the Christian magistrate; and so he saith he doth not exclude them. Mark here, he excludeth all ruling elders from a share in church government who are not either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister, or else the Christian magistrate; and so, upon the matter, he holdeth that ruling elders are to have no hand in church government. Those ruling elders which are in the votes of the a.s.sembly, and in the reformed churches, have neither the power of civil magistracy (_qua_ elders, and many of them not at all, being no magistrates), nor yet are they the same, for office and ordination, with the minister; for their office, and, consequently, their ordination to that office, is distinct from that of the minister among all that I know. And so, excluding all ruling elders from government who are neither magistrates, nor the same with ministers, he must needs take upon him that which I charged him with.
5. Page 21, Where he makes reply to what I said against his argument from Eph. i. 19-21, he saith, He will blow away all my discourse with this clear demonstration, ”That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d, and Christ as G.o.d cannot be given. But this place (Eph. i. 19-21) speaketh both of dignity given to Christ, and of Christ as a gift given; therefore Christ cannot be here understood as G.o.d.” This is in opposition to what I said, p. 45, concerning the heads.h.i.+p and dignity of Christ, as the natural son of G.o.d, ”the image of the invisible G.o.d,” Col. i. 15; and, p. 43, of the dominion of Christ, as he is the ”eternal Son of G.o.d.” This being premised, the brother's demonstration is so strong as to blow himself into a blasphemous heresy. I will take the proposition from himself, and the a.s.sumption from Scripture, thus: That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. But all power in heaven and in earth is given to Christ, Matt.
xxviii. 18; life is given to Christ, John v. 26; authority to execute judgment is given to Christ, ver. 27; all things are given into Christ's hands, John iii. 35; the Father hath given him power over all flesh, John xvii. 2; He hath given him glory, John xvii. 22: therefore, by Mr Coleman's principles, Christ hath neither life, nor glory, nor authority to execute judgment, nor power over all flesh, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, consubstantial with the Father, but only as he is Mediator, G.o.d and man. As for the giving of Christ as G.o.d, what if I argue thus? If Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, or Second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity, could not be given, then the incarnation itself, or the sending of the Son of G.o.d to take on our flesh, cannot be called a giving of a gift to us. But this were impious to say; therefore, again, if Christ, as he is the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, could not be given, then the Holy Ghost, as the Third Person, cannot be given (for they are co-essential; and that which were a dishonour to G.o.d the Son were a dishonour to G.o.d the Holy Ghost); but to say that the Holy Ghost cannot be given as the Third Person, were to say that he cannot be given as the Holy Ghost. And what will he then say to all those scriptures that speak of the giving of the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 8; Rom. v. 5; 1 John iv. 13, &c.?
Finally, As Mr Coleman's demonstration hath blown away itself, so it could not hurt me were it solid and good (as it is not); for he should have taken notice, that, in my examination, I did not restrict the dignity given to Christ, Eph. i. 21, nor the giving of Christ, ver. 22, to the Divine nature only. Nay, I told, p. 44, 46, that these words of the Apostle hold true even of the human nature of Christ.
6. Page 21, He concludeth with a syllogism, which he calleth the scope of my discourse (I know not by what logic, the proposition being forged by himself, and contrary to my discourse); thus it is:-