Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	church_n	government_n	worship_n	3,428	5	7.3798	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86003	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.	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1646 (1646)	Wing G754; Thomason E317_16; ESTC R200545	44,904	65

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 His second Answer is this In my way saith he the Governments Civill and Ecclesiasticall are in the subject matter clearly distinct When the Parliament handles matters of Warre it is a Military Court when businesse of State it is a Civill Court when matters of Religion it is an Ecclesiasticall Court If this hold good then it will follow 1. That the Parliament when they deliberate about matters of Warre or matters of Religion are not at least formally and properly a Civill Court else how makes he these so clearly distinct 2. That Ministers may be called Civill Officers for consider his words in his Re-examination pag 11. I doe not exclude Mininisters neither from Ecclesiasticall nor Civill Government in a Ministeriall way doctrinally and declaratively Compare this with his present Answer it will amount to thus much That different denominations being taken from the different subject matter Ministers when they handle Doctrinally matters of Religion are Ecclesiasticall Ministers and when they handle Doctrinally matters of Civill Government which himselfe alloweth them to doe they are Civill Ministers But now to apply his Answer to the Argument How doth all this salve the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the Covenant If he had examined my Arguments he had found that most of them proove from the Covenant a Church-Government distinct from Civill Government Suctjective as well as Objective that is another Government besides Magistracy different Agents as well as different Acts different hands as well as handling of different matters I know the Christian Magistrate may and ought to have a great influence into matters of Religion and whatsoever is due to him by the Word of God or by the Doctrine either of the Antient or Reformed Churches I doe not infringe but doe maintaine and strengthen it But the point in hand is That the Covenant doth undeniably suppose and clearly hold forth a Government in the Church distinct from Magistracy which is proved by these Arguments which as they are not yet answered so I will briefly apply them to the proofe of that point which now Master Coleman sticks at 1. The Church Government mentioned in the Covenant is as distinct from the Priviledges of Parliament as the first Article of the Covenant is distinct from the third Article 2. The Church-Government in the first Article of the Covenant the Reformation wherof we are to endeavour differeth from Church-Government by Archbishops Bishops c. mentioned in the second Article as much as a thing to be reformed differeth from a thing to be extirpated so that the church-Church-Government formerly used in the Church of England is looked upon two waies in the Covenant either qua church-Church-Government and so we sweare to endeavour the Reformation of it which I hope was not meant of reforming that part of the Priviledges of Parliament whereby they meddle with Religion in a Parliamentary way Or qua church-Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. and so we sweare to endeavour the extirpation of it This difference betweene the first and second Articles between Reformation and Extirpation proveth that the Covenant doth suppose that the Church-Government formerly used in the Church of England in so far as it was a Church-Government is not eatenus to be abolished but in so far as it was a corrupt Church-Government that is Prelaticall 3. Church-Government in the Covenant is matched with Doctrine Worship and Catechising Now these are subjectively different from Civill Government for the Civill Magistrate doth not act doctrinally nor catechistically neither can he dispence the Word and Sacraments as Master Coleman acknowledgeth 4. In the first part of the first Article of the Covenant concerning The preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government It is uncontroverted that Discipline and Government are Ecclesiasticall and subjectively different from Civill Government that is though divers who have a hand in the Civill Government are ruling Elders yet it is as true that divers Members of Parliament and inferiour Civill Courts are not Church Officers● and of the Ministery none are Civill Governours which makes the two Governments clearly distinct subjective Now the second part of that Article concerning the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government cannot so farre differ from the first part of that Article in the sense of the words Discipline and Government as that the same words in the same Article of the same Covenant should signifie things differing t●to genere which will follow unlesse Discipline and Government in the second branch and forme of church-Church-Government in the third branch be understood of the power of Church Officers and not of the Magistrate 5. We did sweare to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches Now the Word of God holds forth another Government besides Magistracy for Master Coleman himselfe hath acknowledged that he findes in the New Testament Ministers to be Rulers yea instituted Rulers And the example of the best Reformed Churches without all doubt leadeth us to an Ecclesiasticall Government different from Magistracy Neither hath the Reverend Brother so much as once adventured to alledge the contrary except of the Church of Israel which as it heterogeneous being none of the Reformed Churches mentioned in the Covenant so it shall be discussed in due place From all which reasons I conclude that the wit of man cannot reconcile Master Colemans Doctrine with the Covenant I adde 6. A confutation of him out of himselfe thus No

ministeriall conviction it is not necessary that there be two or three witnesses If a scandalous sin be certainly known to a Minister though the thing be not certified by two or three witnesses yet a Minister upon certain knowledge had of the fact may both beleeve it and ministerially convince the offender But there may not be a Consistoriall proceeding without two or three witnesses 2. Since he appealeth to the following verses let vers 22. decide it Lay hands suddenly on no man To whom the laying on of hands or ordination did belong to them also it did belong to receive an accusation against an Elder But to the Presbytery did belong the laying on of hands or ordination 1 Tim. 4. 14. Ergo to the Presbytery did belong the receiving of an accusation against an Elder And so it was not the act of a single Minister as ministeriall conviction is To the last instance from Rev. 2. 14 15 〈…〉 the Reverend Brother answers that he had striven to find out how Church-censures might be there grounded but was constrained to let it alone But what is it in his opinion which is there blamed in the Angels of those Churches Doth he imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for their holding fast of his Name and of the true Faith did not so much as doctrinally or ministerially oppose the foul errours of the Balaamites and of Jezebel No doubt but this was done but Christ reproves them because such scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the Church and were not cast out I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam and vers. 20. Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel And why was the very having or suffering them in the Church a fault if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the Church Which casting out could not be by banishment but by excommunication It did not belong to the Angell to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos but he might and ought to have cast them out of the Church in Pergamos 9. Master Coleman hath another passage against the distinction of Church-censures and Civill punishments But what are Ecclesiasticall Censures saith he let us take a taste is deposition from the Ministery This Kings have done c. Maledicis p. 7. Now similia l●bra lactucis But for all that the taste is vitiated and doth not put a difference between things that are different Deposition is sometimes taken improperly for expulsion as Balsamon in Conc. Nicae● Can. 19. doth observe And so the Christian Magistrate may remove or put away Ministers when they deserve to be put away that is by a coercive power to restrain them imprison or banish them and in case of capitall crimes punish them with capitall punishments King James having once heard a Dispute in Saint Andrews about the deposition of Ministers was convinced that it doth not belong to the Civill Magistrate Yet said he I can depose a Ministers head from his shoulders Which was better Divinity then this of Master Coleman If we take deposition properly as it is more then the expelling sequestring or removing of a Minister from this or that place and comprehendeth that which the Councel of An●yra Can. 18. cals {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The honour of Presbytership to be taken away or a privation of that Presbyteratus the order of a Presbyter and that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the authority and power of dispensing the Word Sacraments and Discipline which was given in Ordination so none have power to depose who have not power to ordain It belongeth not to the Magistrate either to make or unmake Ministers Therefore in the ancient Church the Bishops had power of the deposition as well as of the ordination of Presbyters yet they were bound up that they might not depose either Presbyter or Deacon without the concurrence of a Presbytery or Synod in the businesse Mark of the Synod not of the Magistrate As for the Testimonies brought by Master Coleman he doth both here and in diverse other places name his Authors without quoting the places It seems he hath either found the words cited by others but durst not trust the quotations or else hath found somewhat in those places which might make against him However all that he can cite of that kinde concerning deposition of Ministers by Emperors i● meant of a coercive expulsion not of that which we call properly Deposition And to this purpose let him take the Observation of * a great Antiquary And withall he may take notice that Protestant Writers do disclaime the Magistrates power of deposing Ministers and hold that deposition is a part of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction Ministers being alwayes punishable as other Members of the Common-wealth according to the Law of the Land for any offence committed against Law CHAP. 3. That Master Colemans and Master Husseys opposing of Church-Government neither is nor can be reconciled with the solemne League and Covenant MAster Colemans Doctrine was by me charged to be a violation of the solemne League and Covenant This he acknowledged in his Re-examination page 13. 17. to be a very grievous charge and a greater fault in him then in divers others if made out and he desired seriously yea challenged it by the right of a Christian and by the right of a Minister that I should prosecute this charge whereupon I did in my Nihil Respondes prosecute it so farre that by five strong Arguments I did demonstrate the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the Covenant About a Moneth afterward comes out Master Husseys Booke wherein the charge it selfe before desired to be prosecuted is declined expresly by Master Coleman in the few lines by him prefixed which are ranked together with the Errata in which he desires that the argumentative part may be so prosecuted as that the charge of Covenant-breaking may be laid aside which if it be taken up he lets me know before-hand it shall be esteemed by them a Nihil Respondes It is also declined by Mr. Hussey page 15. The Argument of the Covenant is too low to be thought on in this Discourse we are now in an higher region then the words of the Covenant c. A Tenent lookt upon by the reformed Churches as proper to those that are inspired with the Ghost of Arminius for the Remonstrants both at and after the Synod of Dort did cry downe the Obligation of all Nationall Covenants Oaths c. in matters of religion under the colour of taking the Scripture onely for a rule Well we see the charge declined as nothing but this is not all almost two moneths after my proofe of the charge Mr. Coleman comes out with his Maledicis and declines both the charge it selfe which he calls An impertinent charge pag. 22. and my five Arguments too without so much as taking notice of them or offering replies