The Works of Mr. George Gillespie (Vol. 1 of 2)

by George Gillespie

THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.

Mr Coleman, p. 13, acknowledgeth, that to assert anything contrary to the solemn league and covenant, is a great fault in any, in himself more than in divers others, if made out; he having, for his own part, taken it with the first, and not only so, but having administered it to divers others. Yes; and take this one circumstance more: In his sermon upon Jer. xxx. 21, at the taking of the covenant, Sept. 29, 1643, he answereth this objection against the extirpation of Prelacy: “But what if the exorbitances be purged away, may not I, notwithstanding my oath, admit of a regulated Prelacy?” For satisfaction to this objection he answereth thus: “First, We swear not against a government that is not; Secondly, We swear against the evils of every government, and doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of necessity be retained as absolutely necessary; Thirdly, Taking away the exorbitances, the remaining will be a new government and no Prelacy.” Let the brother now deal ingenuously. What did he understand by those materials of Prelacy absolutely necessary to be retained? [pg 3-025] Did he understand the dispensing of the word and sacraments, which is common to all pastors? Or did he understand the privileges of Parliament? Were either of those two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of these, was this the way to satisfy that scruple concerning the extirpation of Prelacy? Again, What was that new government which he promised them after the taking away of the exorbitances of the old? Was it the minister's doctrinal part? That is no new thing in England. Was it the Parliament's assuming of the corrective part of church government, as he improperly distinguisheth, wholly and solely into their own hands, excluding the ministry from having any hand therein? This were a new government, I confess. But, sure, he could not, in any reason, intend this as a satisfaction to the scruples of such as desired a regulated Prelacy, whose scruples he then spoke to, for this had been the way to dissuade them from, not to persuade them to, the covenant.

But I go along with his Re-examination. P. 14, He explaineth himself and me thus: “He should have said that I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon them whom he, this Commissioner, thinks church officers, then had he spoken true.” I thank him for his explanation. And, I pray, who were the church officers whom I said he excluded from church government? Were they not pastors and ruling elders? And doth not himself think these to be church officers? Yes; of the ministers he thinks so, but of ruling elders he seems to doubt, except they be magistrates. Well, but excluding those church officers from church government he takes with the charge. Why seeks he a knot in the rush? But now how doth he explain himself? He will have the Parliament to be church officers (of which before), and such church officers as shall take the corrective part of church government wholly into their own hands; yet not to dispense the word and sacraments, but to leave the doctrinal part to the ministry, and their power to be merely doctrinal, as he saith, p. 11. Thus you have his explanation. But doth this solve the violating of the covenant? Nay, it makes it more apparent; for the government of the church, which the first article of the covenant speaks of, is distinguished from the doctrinal part: “That we shall endeavour the [pg 3-026] reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government.” So that, excluding pastors and ruling elders from the corrective part of government, and from all power which is not merely doctrinal, he thereby excludeth them from that discipline and government which the covenant speaks of as one special part of the reformation of religion. Come on to the reasons.

I had given four reasons; he takes notice but of three. This is the second time he hath told three for four, yet even these three will do the business.

1. “The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it.” Here the brother addeth these words following as mine, which are not mine: “Therefore he that finds no church government breaks his covenant.” His reply is, “We must reform it according to the word of God, if that hold out none, here is no tailing.” He addeth a simile of a jury sworn to inquire into the felony of an accused person, but finds not guilty; and of three men taking an oath to deliver in their opinions of church government (where, by the way, he lets fall that I hold the national synod to be above all courts in the kingdom; which, if he means of ecclesiastical courts, why did he speak so generally? If he mean, above all or any civil courts, it is a gross calumny.) But now, if this be the sense which he gives of that first article in the covenant, then, 1. All that is in the second article might have been put into the first article: for instance, we might, in Mr Coleman's sense, have sworn “to endeavour the reformation of Prelacy, and even of Popery itself, according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed churches;” that is, taking an oath to deliver in our opinions of these things according to the word of God, and to inquire into the evils of church government by archbishops, bishops, deans, &c., whether guilty or not guilty. I strengthened my argument by the different nature of the first and second article. I said, “The second article is of things to be extirpated, but this of things to be preserved and reformed.” Why did he not take the strength of my argument and make a reply? 2. By the same principle of his we are not tied by the first article of our covenant to have any, either doctrine or worship, but only to search the Scriptures whether the word hold out any; for doctrine, [pg 3-027] worship, discipline and government, go hand in hand in the covenant. 3. His own simile hath this much in it against him. If a jury, sworn to inquire into the felony of an accused person, should, after such an oath, not only find the person not guilty, but further take upon them to maintain that there is no such thing as felony, surely this were inconsistent with their oath, so he that swears to endeavour the reformation of religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, and yet will not only dislike this or that form of government, but also hold that there is no such thing as church government, he holds that which cannot agree with his oath. 4. This answer of Mr Coleman, leaving it free to debate whether there be such as church government, being his only answer to my first argument from the covenant, must needs suppose that the government mentioned in the covenant, the reformation whereof we have sworn to endeavour, is understood even by himself of church officers' power of corrective government, it being the corrective part only, and not the doctrinal part, which he casts upon an uncertainty whether the world hold out any such thing.

2. “Church government as mentioned in the covenant is a spiritual, not a civil thing. The matters of religion are put together,—doctrine, worship, discipline and government. The privileges of Parliament come after in the third article.” The reverend brother replies, “What if it be? therefore the Parliament is not to meddle with it, and why?” And here he runs out against me, as if I held that the Parliament is not to meddle with religion, an assertion which I abominate. Princes and magistrates' putting off themselves all care of the matters of religion, was one of the great causes of the church's mischief, and of popish and prelatical tyranny. But is this just and fair, Sir, to give out for my opinion that for which you are not able to show the least colour or shadow of consequence from any thing that ever I said? That which was to be replied unto was, Whether do not the materials of the first article of the covenant differ from the materials of the third article of the covenant? or whether are they the same? Whether doth the privilege of Parliament belong to the first article of the covenant? Whether is that government mentioned in the first article a civil thing [pg 3-028] or a spiritual? If civil, why is discipline and government ranked with doctrine and worship, and all these mentioned as parts of the reformation of religion? If spiritual, then why doth the brother make it “civil or temporal?” p. 11. To all this nothing is answered, but, “What if it be?” Then is my argument granted.

And to put it yet further out of question, I add other two arguments from that same first article of the covenant. One is this: In the first part of that first article we swear all of us to endeavour “the preservation of the reformed religion in the church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,” where all know that the words “discipline” and “government” (especially being mentioned as two of the principal things in which the reformed religion in that church doth consist) signify church government and church discipline distinct both from doctrine and worship (which, by the way, how Mr Coleman endeavoureth to preserve, I will not now say, but leave it to others to judge), therefore, in that which immediately followeth,—our endeavouring “the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,”—the words “discipline” and “government” must needs have the same sense thus far, that it is a church discipline and a church government distinct from the civil power of the magistrate, and distinct also from doctrine and worship in the church; for we cannot make these words, “discipline” and “government,” in one and the same article of a solemn oath and covenant, to suffer two senses differing toto genere (especially considering that the civil government is put by itself in another article, which is the third), unless we make it to speak so as none may understand it.

The other argument which I now add is this. In the third part of that first article we swear that we “shall endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government, directory for worship and catechising,” where, 1. Church government doth agree generically with a confession of faith, directory of worship, and catechising. I mean all these are matters of religion, none of them civil matters. 2. It is supposed there is such a thing as church government distinct from civil government, and therefore [pg 3-029] it is put out of all question, that so far there shall be an uniformity between the churches of God in the three kingdoms (and otherwise it were an unswearing of what was sworn in the first part of that article), but it tieth us to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity “in a form of church government;” which were a vain and rash oath, if we were not tied to a church government in general, and that as a matter of religion. 3. The uniformity in a form of church government which we swear to endeavour must needs be meant of corrective government; it being clearly distinguished from the confession of faith and directory of worship. So that Mr Coleman's distinction of the doctrinal part, and of the dispensing of the word and sacraments, cannot here help him.

From these two arguments (beside all was said before) I conclude that the covenant doth undeniably suppose, and plainly hold forth this thing as most necessary and uncontrovertible, that there ought to be a church government which is both distinct from the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal. And if so, what Apollo can reconcile Mr Coleman's doctrine with the covenant? And now I go on.

My last reason formerly brought was this: “Will the brother say that the example of the best reformed churches leadeth his way?” For the covenant tieth us to a reformation of the government of the church both according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches: that as regula regulans; this as regula regulata.