Chapter 73

MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY’S ERRORS IN DIVINITY.

Mr Hussey all along calls for divinity schools: I confess himself hath much need of them, that he may be better grounded in his divinity; and that if he will plead any more for Christian magistracy, he may not involve himself into such dangerous heterodoxies as have fallen from his pen in this short tractate. I instance in these:—

First, In his epistle to the Parliament he hath divers passages against synodical votes; he will have no putting to the vote: “For votes (saith he, p. 6) are of no other use but to gather parties, and ought nowhere to be used but by those that have the power of the sword.” And, p. 3, he will have the business of assemblies to be only doctrinal, and “by dispute to find out truth. Their disputes ought to end in a brotherly accord, as in Acts xv., much disputing, but all ended in accord, no putting to the vote.” And, p. 5, he will have things carried “with strength of argument and unanimous consent of the whole clergy.” Behold how he joineth issue with the remonstrants against the contra-remonstrants, to introduce not only an academical, but a sceptical and Pyrrhonian dubitation and uncertainty, so that there shall never be an end of controversy, nor any settlement of truth and of the ordinances of Jesus Christ, so long as there shall be but one tenacious disputer to hold up the ball of contention. One egg is not liker another than Mr Hussey’s tenet is like that of the Arminians, for which see the Synod of Dort, sess. 25.(1356) It was the ninth condition which the Arminians required in a lawful and well-constituted synod, that there might be no decision of the controverted articles, but only such an accommodation as both sides might agree to. And, generally, they hold that synods ought not to meet for decision, or determination, but for examining, disputing, discussing; so their _Examen Censurae_, cap. 25; and their _Vindiciae_, lib. 2, cap. 6, p. 131, 133.

Secondly, In that same epistle to the Parliament, p. 4, he hath this passage: “Will-worship is unlawful, I mean in matters that are essential to God’s worship, which are matters of duty; as for circumstantials of time and place, except the Sabbath, which are matters of liberty, in these the commonwealth may vote, &c.; and this is your Christian liberty, that in matters of liberty ye make rules and laws to yourselves, not crossing the ends that you are tied to in duty.” And is the Sabbath only a circumstantial of time contradistinct 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 God’s worship, why was the argument of will-worship so much tossed, not only between Prelates and Nonconformists, 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 divert passages of Apocrypha to the congregations, 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 towards the east, to stand up at the epistles and gospels, &c.; yea, what ceremonies, Jewish, popish, heathenish, may they not impose, provided 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 anything in religion, _præter verbum_, so that it appear not to them to be _contra verbum_; anything they may add to the word, or do beside the word, so that the thing cannot be proved contrary to the word.

Thirdly, Mr Hussey, ibid., p. 4, 5, saith, That the Parliament may require such as they receive for preachers of truth, “to send out able men to supply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or disallowance of the people,” where, in the first part of that which he saith, there is either a heterodoxy or a contradiction. A heterodoxy, if he mean that ministers are to be sent out without ordination: a contradiction, if he mean that they must be ordained; for then he gives classes a work which is not merely doctrinal. But most strange it is, that he so far departeth from Protestant divines in point of the church’s liberty in choosing ministers. He tells us, p. 14, that Mr Herle, “for want of skill and theological disputations,” hath granted to people a right to choose their minister. Mr Herle’s skill, both logical and theological, is greater than it seems he can well judge of; neither can this bold arrogant censure of his derogate from Mr Herle’s, but from his own reputation. For the matter itself, it is one, and not the least, of the controversies between the Papists and Protestants, what right the church hath in the vocation of ministers: read Bellarmine, _de Cleric._, and those that write against him, and see whether it be not so. The Helvetic Confession tells us that the right choosing of ministers is by the consent of the church, and the Belgic Confession saith, “We believe that the ministers, seniors and deacons, ought to be called to those their functions, and by the lawful elections of the church to be advanced into those rooms.” See both these in the _Harmony of Confessions_, sect. 11. I might here, if it were requisite, bring a heap of testimonies from Protestant writers; the least thing which they can admit of is, that a minister be not obtruded _renitente ecclesia. Factum valet, fieri non debet._ It may be helped after it is done, without making null or void the ministry; but in a well-constituted church there ought to be no intrusion into the ministry, the church’s consent is requisite; for which also I might bring both scripture and antiquity, but that is not my present business. One thing I must needs put Mr Hussey in mind of, that when the prelates did intrude ministers, without any regard to the disallowance of the people, it was cried out against as an oppression and usurpation, and we are often warned by Mr Prynne, by Mr Coleman, and by myself, to cast away the prelates’ usurpation with themselves. But who lords it now over the Lord’s inheritance, the Presbyterians or the Erastians? Nay, he who will have ministers put in churches “without any regard to the allowance or disallowance of people,” falls far short of divers prelatical men, who did much commend the ancient primitive form of calling ministers, not without the church’s consent. See Dr Field, _Of the Church_, lib. 5, cap. 54; Bilson, _de Gubern. Eccl._, cap. 15, p. 417; the author of _The History of Episcopacy_, part 2, p. 360.

Fourthly, Mr Hussey, _Epist._, p. 7, saith, That upon further consideration he found “the minister charged only with preaching and baptising.” The like he hath afterwards, p. 39, “Let any man prove that a minister hath any more to do from Christ than to teach and baptise.” And again, p. 44, he propounds this query, “Whether Christ gave any more government (he should have said any more to do, for preaching and baptising are not acts of government) than is contained in preaching and baptising,” and he holds the negative. If only preaching and baptising, then not praying and reading in the congregation, ministering the Lord’s supper, visiting the sick and particular families.

Fifthly, He holdeth, p. 20, That a heathen magistrate is unlawful, “and for his government, if sin be lawful, it is lawful.” A gross heterodoxy. The Apostle exhorteth to be subject even to heathen magistrates, Rom. xiii., for there were no other at that time, and to pray for them, 1 Tim. ii.; so that by Mr Hussey’s divinity, the Apostle would have men to be subject unto, and to pray for an unlawful government. It is an anabaptistical tenet, that an heathen magistrate is not from God, which Gerhard, _de Magistrate Politico_, p. 498, 499, fully confutes.

Sixthly, He saith of Christ, p. 40, “He doth nothing as Mediator which he doth not as God or as man.” It is a dangerous mistake, for take the work of mediation itself, he neither doth it as God, nor as man, but as God-man.

Seventhly, He saith, p. 35, “Nothing can be said of Christ as second person in Trinity, in opposition to Mediator, but in opposition to man there may.” So that he will not admit of this opposition. Christ, as the Second Person in the Trinity, is equal and consubstantial to the Father, but, as Mediator, he is not equal to his Father, but less than his Father, and subject and subordinate to his Father—a distinction used by our divines against the Anti-Trinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not admitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence mire himself in Socinianism; for Christ, as Mediator, is the Father’s servant, Isa. xlii. 1; and the Father is greater than he, John xiv. 28; and as the head of the man is Christ, so the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. xi. 3. If, therefore, it cannot be said of Christ, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, that his Father is not greater than he, and that he is not subordinate to God as his head, then farewell Anti-Socinianism. I dare boldly say, it is impossible to confute the Socinians, or to assert the eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the Second Person of the Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something be denied of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, which must be affirmed of him as he is Mediator.

Eighthly, He saith, p. 36, That Christ, “by his mediation, hath obtained from the Father that he shall not judge any man according to rigour, but as they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of judgment from the wicked is in and for Christ, which otherwise the justice of God would not allow.” Then Christ did thus far make satisfaction to the justice of God in the behalf of the wicked, and die for them, that judgment might be deferred from them, and thus far perform acts of mediation for the savages and Mohammedans, and for them that never heard the gospel, that by such mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they shall be judged not according to rigour, but by the gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath taken away all their sins against the law, so that all men shall now go upon a new score, and none shall be condemned or judged by the law, but by the gospel only; for if Christ have not taken away their sins against the law, the justice of God will judge them according to the rigour of the law. Must not every jot of the law be fulfilled? And is there not a necessity that every one undergo the curse and rigour of the law, or else that the Mediator hath undergone it for them?

Ninthly, He propounds this query, p. 44: “Whether ministers have any right to those privileges which are given to the church more than another Christian,” and he holds the negative. Now the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, are privileges given to the church, that is, for the church’s good: “For all things are yours (saith the Apostle), whether Paul, or Apollos,” &c., 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22. Therefore, by Mr Hussey’s divinity, any other Christian hath as much right to administer word, sacraments, keys, as the minister.

Come on now to Mr Coleman’s errors in divinity, not to repeat what was expressed in my _Nihil Respondes_, but to take off the _Male Dicis_ in the main points.

Tenthly, 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, p. 25, after him. I said this tenet leadeth to a blasphemous heresy. For the better understanding whereof let it be remembered what I did promise in my _Nihil Respondes_, p. 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, p. 45, concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural Son of God, the image of the invisible God, Col. i. 15, and, p. 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 to speak of God _essentially_; and that if something may be given to Christ as God, then something may be given to God, and then God is not absolutely perfect, &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 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 civil, is given to Christ as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning I spake of Christ as the Second Person in the 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 than in the premises; 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 premises which infer the conclusion. But this by the way. I speak to his proposition, “That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God.” These words “as God,” either he understands οὐσιωδῶς, _essentially_, or ἐπιστατικῶς, _personally_; that is, either in regard of the nature and essence of God, which is common to the Son of God with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one; or in regard of the person of the Word, as Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity, and personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former sense, then he must lay aside his whole argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all against my thesis, which affirmed that an universal dominion and kingdom over all things is given to Christ, not as he is Mediator (in which capacity he is only King of the church), but as he is the eternal Son of God. In opposing of which assertion, as the reverend brother was before _nihil respondens_, so now he is twice nought. But if in the other sense he understands his proposition (which I must needs suppose he doth, it being in opposition to what I said), then I still aver his proposition will infer a blasphemous heresy, as I proved before by a clear demonstration: That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. But life, glory, &c., is given to Christ; therefore Christ hath not life, glory, &c., as God. The reverend brother saith, “I acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the major is mine own, and the minor is the very Scripture.” Yet he denies the conclusion, and clears himself by this simile, “That which was given this poor man he had not before. But a shilling was given this poor man; therefore he had not a shilling before: where both propositions are true, yet the conclusion is false (saith he), contrary to the axiom, _Ex veris nil nisi verum_.” You are extremely out, Sir: your syllogism of the poor man is _fallacia ab amphibolia_. The major of it is ambiguous, dubious, and fallacious, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you acknowledge the major of my argument to be your own, and so not fallacious in your opinion. You acknowledge the minor to be Scripture. You have not found four terms in my premises, 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 incontrovertible maxim in logic, _Ex veris nil nisi verum_; or, as Kekerman hath it, _Ex veris præemissis falsam conclusionem colligi est impossibile_,(1357)—It is impossible that a false conclusion should be gathered from true premises. 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 and dominion over all; yet, as he is the Second Person in the 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 Father’s gift, as he is the eternal Son of God or Second Person in the Trinity. But Mr Coleman holds the former; therefore Mr Coleman holds the latter. The consequence in the proposition is proved from John xvii. 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 he is the eternal Son of God, and as Mediator. The conclusion which follows is heretical; for whereas the Nicene Creed said of Christ, in regard of his eternal generation, that he is _Deus de Deo, Lumen de lumine_,—God of God, Light of light, Mr Coleman’s argument will infer that he is not only _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 Son. For if Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, hath not glory by virtue of his Father’s gift, then he hath it not by virtue of the eternal generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally of himself.

As for the other branch of Mr Coleman’s argument, tending to prove that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, cannot be given, which he endeavours to vindicate, p. 14, 15, I answer these two things:

_First_, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me; for I did from the beginning expound these words, Eph. i. 22, “And gave him to be the head over all things to the church,” in this sense, That Christ as Mediator is given only to the church, to be her head, but he that is given as Mediator to the church is _over all_. So that the giving of Christ there spoken of is as Mediator, and he is given to the church only, which I cleared by the Syriac, “And him who is over all he gave to be the head to the church.” But his being _over all_, there spoken of, if understood of glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator (yea, in regard of the exaltation of his human nature), and this helpeth not Mr Coleman, who intends to prove from that place that all government, even civil, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a kingdom and government over all, so he is over all, as he is the eternal Son of God or Second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.

_Secondly_, The question which the reverend brother falls upon, concerning the personal inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from anything which I said, more than God’s giving of his Son to us will infer a personal inhabitation of the Son of God in us. That which I said was to this intent, That both the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are given, not as God essentially; that is, in respect of the Godhead itself, or as they are one in nature with the Father (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy Ghost which is given, could not be distinguished), but the Son is given as the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Holy Ghost is given as the Holy Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Son. Whether he be given to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations only, is another question, which hath nothing to do with the present argument, and therefore I will not be led out of my way.

Eleventhly, The eleventh heterodoxy is this: “I see no absurdity to hold that every man in authority is either Christ’s vicegerent, or the devil’s.” _Male Dicis_, p. 16. Here I make this inference: Heathen and infidel magistrates, either, 1. They are not men in authority; or, 2. They are Christ’s vicegerents; or, 3. They are the devil’s, _Male Dicis._ If he say they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the apostle Paul, who calls them higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1, and men in authority, 1 Tim.