Thomas Coleman (1598–1674)

Astute Theologian and Member of the Westminster Assembly

Today, many Christians are turning back to the puritans to, “walk in the old paths,” of God’s word, and to continue to proclaim old truth that glorifies Jesus Christ. There is no new theology. In our electronic age, more and more people are looking to add electronic books (ePubs, mobi and PDF formats) to their library – books from the Reformers and Puritans – in order to become a “digital puritan” themselves. Take a moment to visit Puritan Publications (click the banner below) to find the biggest selection of rare puritan works updated in modern English in both print form and in multiple electronic forms. There are new books published every month. All proceeds go to support A Puritan’s Mind.

His Works:

  1. A brotherly examination re-examined (1646) by Thomas Coleman
  2. Gods unusuall answer to a solemne fast (1644) by Thomas Coleman
  3. Hopes deferred and dashed (1645) by Thomas Coleman
  4. Huls pillar of providence erected (1644) by Thomas Coleman
  5. Male dicis maledicis. Or A brief reply to Nihil respondens (1646) by Thomas Coleman
  6. The Christians course and complaint (1643) by Thomas Coleman
  7. The hearts ingagement (1643) by Thomas Coleman

 

Biography of Thomas Coleman:

Thomas Coleman (1598–1674) was MINISTER OF God’s WORD AT BLYTON, IN LINCOLNSHIRE, AND A MEMBER OF THE ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES AT WESTMINSTER.

Thomas COLEMAN was born in Oxfordshire. Wood says, that seemingly he was born within the city of Oxford, where several persons of his name and time have lived. And Neal says, that he was born at Oxford. He received his education in the ancient and famous University of Oxford. He made his first entry into Magdalen-Hall, in the beginning of the year 1615, in the seventeenth year of his age. He took the degrees in Arts, and in due time he received holy orders, and entered upon the ministerial work.

The Father of lights, the great author of every good and perfect gift, had conferred upon him distinguished genius and talents for learning the Hebrew language. For ” No advantages of education, no favourable combination of circumstances, produce talents, where the Father of spirits dropped not the seeds of them in the souls which he made.” (Dr Erskine, Disc. viii. 1 Chron. xxix. 12.) The Father of spirits having dropped the precious seeds of singular talents for Oriental learning in Mr Coleman, these talents were roused into exertion, unfolded, and greatly improved, by his education, and a favourable combination of circumstances, under Divine Providence. This plantation of the Lord was early and carefully watered and cultivated. And, by the close application of his vigorous mind to study, he became so complete a master of the Hebrew language, that he was commonly called Rabbi Coleman. His learning shed a peculiar lustre round his name. The powers of his mind were well cultivated by a liberal education.—Afterward, he was made Rector of Blyton, in Lincolnshire. At the beginning of the civil war, in 1642, being persecuted by the cavaliers, or King’s party, he was obliged to leave his Rectory of Blyton, and retire to London. Upon his arrival there, he was preferred to the Rectory of St. Peter’s Church in Cornhill. And in 1 643, he became a member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. Mr Wood says, ” that he was chiefly called to sit in the Assembly for his knowledge in the Hebrew tongue; and that he behaved modestly and learnedly, maintaining among them the tenets of Erastus.” It is certain, that Mr Coleman maintained very strenuously the tenets of Erastus in the Assembly, and was one of the chief patrons of this scheme.(Baillie’s Letters,, vol. ii. p. 195. Neal’s Hist. Purit. vol. iii, under Erastians.)

In order that every reader may have just conceptions of this subject, it may be necessary here to state what the sentiments of Erastus were respecting church-government. He maintained, That the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles had prescribed no particular form of discipline for the Christian church in after ages, but had left the keys in the hands of the civil magistrate, who had the sole power of punishing transgressors, and of appointing such particular forms of church-government from time to time, as were most subservient to the peace and welfare of the commonwealth. The pastoral office, in his view, was only persuasive, as a professor of the sciences over his students, without any power of the keys annexed to it. He maintained, that the Lord’s Supper and other ordinances of the gospel, were to be free and open to all. That the minister might dissuade the vicious and unqualified from the communion, but might not refuse it, nor inflict any kind of censure; the punishment of all offences, either of a civil or religious nature, being reserved to the civil magistrate.—The learned Dr Lightfoot was also a great patron of this scheme, in concurrence with Mr Coleman, in the Assembly of Divines. And some of the greatest names in the House of Commons appeared keenly for it. The several parties, in this famous Assembly, of Presbyterians, Independents, and Erastians, earnestly demanded that they should all make a very strict inquiry into the constitution of the primitive Christian Church, in the days of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. That church being considered as founded upon the model of the Jewish synagogues, this investigation gave to Dr Lightfoot, Mr Coleman, Mr Selden, and other eminent masters of Jewish antiquities, an opportunity of displaying their superior learning, by strange interpretations of some parts of the Holy Scriptures.

When committees were chosen to prepare materials for a new form of discipline and church-government, the Independents agreed with the Presbyterians, that there was a certain form of church-government laid down in the New Testament, which was of divine institution. But when they came to the questions, What was that government? and, Was it binding in all ages of the church? both the Erastians and the Independents divided against the Presbyterians. The proposition was, “That the Scripture holds forth, that many particular congregations may, and by divine institution ought to be under one Presbyterial government.” Mr Neal says, that the debate lasted thirty days; and that the Erastians did not except against the Presbyterial government as a political institution, proper to be established by the civil magistrate, but they were against the claim of a divine right (Neal’s Hist. Purit. vol. iii. under Erastians.). And Mr Coleman was so very zealous upon this head, that he keenly declaimed against the Divine Right, not only in the Assembly, but also in the pulpit, apprehending that Presbytery would prove as arbitrary and tyrannical as Prelacy, if it came in with a divine claim. He therefore proposed, that the civil magistrate should have the sole power of the keys, in the mean time, until the nation should be at peace, or in a more settled state. The Independents opposed the proposition of the Divine Right of Presbytery, by advancing a contrary divine right of their own scheme. Fifteen days they stated themselves as opponents; and fifteen days they appeared in a defensive manner. The chief inquiries, in this grand debate, were, respecting the constitution and form of the first church at Jerusalem; the subordination of synods, and of lay-elders. Much learning was displayed on both sides; but the main pillars of the Presbyterian government were voted to be of divine appointment by a very great majority. The Independents (Neal’s Hist. Purit. vol. iii. linger Erastians.) entered their dissent in writing, and complained of unkindly usage in the Assembly. The Assembly replied, that they were not conscious of having done them any injustice. When the Erastians saw how affairs were managed in the Assembly, they reserved themselves for the House of Commons, where they were certain, that they would be readily joined both by their own party, and by all the patrons of the Independents. Accordingly, the clause of divine right was lost in the House of Commons, to the grief and disappointment both of the Scottish Commissioners, and of their English friends in the Assembly. And the Assembly’s proposition was made to stand thus, “That it is lawful and agreeable to the Word of God, that the church be governed by Congregational, Classical, and Synodical Assemblies.”* It is not strange, that the clause of divine right was lost in the House of Commons, if Mr Baillie writes correctly; for he says that “The most of the House of Commons are downright Erastians; they are like to create us much more woe than all the sectaries of England.” (Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii. p. 96.)

The Erastians endeavoured to maintain their principles, by contending strenuously, that the Jewish church and state were all one. That they knew no distinction of ecclesiastical and civil laws, nor causes; for the church of the Jews was their commonwealth, and their commonwealth was their church, and the government of church and state among them was the very same. And consequently, that in the Jewish church, there was no church-government distinct from the civil government. Mr Coleman says, “I am sure the best reformed church that ever was went this way, I mean the church of Israel, which had no distinction of church government and civil government.” (Mr Coleman’s Brotherly Examination Re-examined, p. 16.) In opposition to this opinion of Mr Coleman, and of other Erastians, the learned, laborious, and pious, Mr Gillespie, with many, other able divines, maintained, 1. That the Jewish church was formally distinct from the Jewish state. 2. That there was an ecclesiastical Sanhedrim and government distinct from the civil. 3. That there was an ecclesiastical excommunication, distinct from civil punishments. 4. That there was also in the Jewish church a public confession or declaration of repentance, and thereupon an admission again of the offender to fellowship with the church in the holy things. 5. That there was a suspension of the profane person from the temple and passover. (Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, book i. chap. 2. Readers who wish to have a clear view of the Erastian controversy, in that period, and to see an able confutation of Erastian principles, respecting churchgovernment, may consult, with interest, this learned, elaborate, and masterly performance, by Mr Gillespie.) Mr Gillespie, in tracing the rise, growth, decay, and reviving, of Erastianism, says, That it has not the honour of being descended from honest parents. The father of it is the old serpent; it’s mother is the enmity of our nature against the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the midwife, who brought this unhappy brood into the light of the world, was Thomas Erastus, Doctor of Medicine, at Heidelberg. (As Beza, de Excomm. & Presb. contra Erast. Ursinus, Judicium de disciplina Eccl. et Excommunicatioiie. Casp. Broch) The Erastian error being born, the breasts which gave it suck were profaneness and selfinterest; it’s strong food, when advanced in growth, was arbitrary government; and it’s careful tutor was Arminianism. But, nevertheless, it afterward fell into a deadly decay, the Reformed churches refusing to receive and entertain it, and so leaving it exposed to hunger and cold, to shame and nakedness; Erastus himself making some concessions, respecting the ecclesiastical censure of profane persons; and several very eminent divines making their appearance with great courage and force of solid argument against it.

When Erastianism is said to have been at the gates of death, Mr Coleman endeavoured, with all his abilities and learning, to raise it up again. Mr Gillespie says, that though Mr Coleman was the first man, he was not the only man, who appeared in the Erastian controversy in England. He appeared publicly in this controversy, in a sermon which he preached to the House of Commons, from Job xi. 20. in Margaret’s Westminster, July 30th, 1645, at the monthly Fast. It is observable, that Mr Coleman was not thanked for this sermon, according to custom, but only ordered to print it. The order runs thus: “Ordered by the Commons assembled in Parliament, That Mr Coleman be injoined to print his sermon he preached before the House of Commons the last Fast, as near as he can as he preached it. And Sir John Wray is appointed to give him notice of this Order.” Mr Coleman, in his epistle dedicatory to the House of Commons, says, “There was never a sermon preached on these public Fasts, that was received with such contrary affections, and censures, as this; some approving above commendation, others disliking below detestation.” He brought forth in this sermon some things which produced much speculation, and engaged him in a warm debate respecting the Erastian controversy, with the celebrated Mr Gillespie, who was one of the Commissioners from the Church of Scotland to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster.

Mr Coleman in this sermon says, “All eyes are upon government, they look upon it, as the only help. If any where, here let wisdom be used. To prescribe is above me, only let me offer two or three rules, which may either be helpful to the work, or useful to the workmen.

1. Establish as few things by Divine Right, as can well be. Hold out the practice, but not the ground: it will gather more, nay all, that hold it not unlawful, men differently principled may meet in one practice. It may be will be of larger extent than it must be. This (the Divine Right) was the only thing, that hindered union in the Assembly. Two parties came biased, the one with a National determination, the other with a Congregational engagement. The reverend Commissioners from Scotland were for the Divine Right of the Presbyterial. The Independents for the Congregational government. How should either move, where should they both meet? Here was the great bar, which if you can avoid, you may do much.

2. Let all precepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear Scriptures.—I could never yet see, how two co-ordinate governments exempt from superiority and inferiority can be in one state, and in Scripture no such thing is found, that I know of. That place, 1 Cor. v. takes not hoid on my conscience for excommunication, and I admire, that Mat. xviii. should upon any;, yet these two are the common places on which are erected the chiefest acts of ruling. And when I see not an institution, nor any one act of government in the whole Bible performed, how can it be evinced, that a Ruling Elder is an instituted officer? Let the Scripture speak expressly, and institutions appear institutions, and all must bow.

3. Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of Ministers- than Christ hath plainly laid upon them• — The Ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man, might I measure others by myself.—ft was the Icing of Sodom’s speech to Abraham, Give me the persons, take thou the goods; so say I, Give us doctrine, take you the government. As is said, Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request, in the behalf of the ministry, give us two things, and we shall do well;—learning and a competency.

4. A Christian Magistrate, as a Christian Magistrate, is a governor in the Church.—Chrkx. has placed governments in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. Of other governments, beside magistracy, I find no institution; of them I do, Rom. xiii. 12, I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator. Eph, i. 22, 2^. I desire all to consider it.—To rob the kingdom of Christ of the magistrate, and his governing power, I cannot excuse, no not from a kind of sacrilege, if the magistrate be his.”

These are Mr Coleman’s tour rules for promoting unity, and settling controversies respecting church government. The celebrated Mr Gillespie, in his Brotherly Examination of these rules, says, That Mr Coleman’s cure is worse than the disease, and that instead of making any agreement, he was likely to have his hand against every man, and every man’s hand against him. Mr Gillespie proceeds, after this remark, to examine the above-mentioned rules, in their order, in the following manner.

1. Establish as few things by Divine Right, as can noell be. Which is by interpretation, as little fine gold, and as much dross, as can well be. The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, Psal. xii. 6. What you take from the Word of God is fine gold tried hi the fire. But a holy thing of man’s devising is the dross of silver. Can he not be content to have the dross purged from the silver, except the silver itself be cast away? The very contrary rule is more sure and safe, which I prove thus. If it be a sin to diminish, or take any thing from the Word of God, so that it is forbidden under pain of taking away a man’s part out of the book of life, out of the holy city: then as many things are to be established by Divine Right, as can well be. But it is a sin to diminish, or take any thing from the Word of God, so that it is forbidden under pain of taking away a man’s part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city. Therefore, as many things are to be established by Divine Right, as can well be. The question is not now, whether this or that form of church government be by Divine Right; but whether a church government be by Divine Right? Has Jesus Christ so revealed his will in his word, that there should be church censures, and that those should be dispensed by church officers? Mr Coleman is for the negative.—The Divine Right is said to be the only thing ‘which hindered union in the Assembly. Mr Gillespie says, If it was so, how shall Mr Coleman make himself blameless, who made union in the Assembly yet more difficult, because he came biased a third way, with the Erastian tenets? He asks, Where the Independents and we should meet? I answer, in holding a church-government by Divine Right, that is, that the pastors and elders ought to suspend or excommunicate, according to the degree of the offence, scandalous sinners. Who can tell, but the purging of the church from scandals, and keeping the ordinances pure, when it shall be actually seen to be the great thing which is carefully attended to on both sides, may make union between us and the Independents more easily than many persons imagine. Respecting his exception against us, who are Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, I thank God, it is but such, yea not so much as the Arminians objected against the foreign divines who came to the Synod of Dort. They complained, that those divines were pre-engaged, and biased, respecting the judgment of those churches from which they came: and therefore they did not help but hinder union in that Assembly. And might not the Arians have thus objected to Alexander, who was engaged against them before he came to the Council of Nice? Might not the Nestorians have made the same objection to Cyril, because he was under an engagement against them, before he came to the Council of Ephesus? —It is no fault to be engaged for the truth, but against the truth. It is not blame-worthy, but praise-worthy, to hold fast our attainments. Notwithstanding, we have also from the beginning professed, That we are most willing to hear and learn from the word of God, what needs farther to be reformed in the Church of Scotland.

2. Let all precepts, held out as divine institutions^ have clear Scriptures—let the Scripture speak expressly. Mr Gillespie says, The Scripture speaks in that manner, which seemed fittest to the wisdom of God. that is, so as it must cost us much searching of the Scripture, as men search fdr hidden treasure, before we find out what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God respecting the government of his church. Will any divine deny, that it is a divine truth, which by necessary consequence is drawn from Scripture, as well as what in express words and syllables is written in it? Are not several articles of our profession, as baptism of infants, certainly proved from Scripture, though it make no express mention thereof in words?—He says, / could never yet see haw two co-ordinate governments exempt from superiority and inferiority>, can be in one state. I suppose he has seen the co-ordinate governments of a general, and of an admiral; or if we should come lower, the governments of parents over their children, and masters over their servants, though it often fall out, that he who is. subject to one man as his master, is subject to another man as his father. In one ship, there may be two co-ordinate governments, the captain governing the soldiers, and the master governing the mariners. In these, and in such like cases, you have two co-ordinate governments, when the one governor is not subordinate to the other. After other remarks here, Mr Gillespie adds, “But the reverend brother might well have spared this. It is not the independency of the church-government upon the civil government, which he intended to speak against. It is the very thing itself, a church-government, as is manifest by his other two rules.”

Then he comes to his third rule, Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of Ministers, than Christ has plainly laid upon them. He means none at all, as is manifest not only by his fourth rule, under which he says, That he finds no institution of other governments beside magistracy, but also by the next words here, The Ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man.—You see his words tend to the taking away of all church-government out of the hands of church-officers.—Respecting Mr Coleman’s observation on the king of Sodom’s speech to Abraham, Gen. xiv 21.—learning and a competency, Mr Gillespie very ingeniously remarks: This calls to mind a story which Clemens Alexandrinus tells us. When one had painted Helena with much gold, Apelles, looking upon the picture, said, Friend, when you could not make her fair, you have made her rich. Learning and competency enrich. The Jesuites have enough of both. But government and discipline; the removal of scandals, and the preservation of the ordinances from pollution, make the church externally fair: beautiful as Tirzah, and comely as Jerusalem. He had spoken more for the honour of God, and for the power of godliness, if he had said in behalf of the ministry, It were better for us to want competency and helps to learning, than to partake with other men’s sins, by admitting the scandalous and profane to the Lord’s table.—

Mr Coleman, under his fourth rule, says, Of other governments, beside magistracy, I find no mstitution; of them J do. Mr Gillespie says, I am sorry that he sought no better, else he had found more. Subjection and obedience are commanded, as due, not only to civil, but also to spiritual governors, to those who are over us in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5:12. so 1 Tim. 5:17. Heb. 13:7-17. And what understands he by him who rules, Rom. xii. 8? If the judgment of Gualther and of Bullmger has any weight with him, as I suppose it has, they do not there exclude, but take in, under that word, the ruling officers of the church.*

This debate, between Mr Coleman and Mr Gillespie, was carried on in writing, by several pamphlets, to a great extent. Beside what Mr Gillespie advanced on the subject, in his sermon from Mai. iii. 2. before the House of Lords, 27th Aug. 1645, he added to that sermon, “A Brotherly Examination of some passages of Mr Coleman s Sermon from Job xi. 20.” Both were printed. Upon the publication of these, Mr Coleman published, “A Brotherly Examination Re-examined” This was followed by ” Nihil Respondes, Thou answerest nothing,” by Mr Gillespie. Mr Coleman published A Brief Reply (Mr. Gillespie’s Brotherly Examination of some passages of Mr Coleman’s Sermon, from Job xi. 20. where the reader may find moreon the subject.) Mr Gillespie’s Nihil Respondes, which is entitled, “Ma~ ledicis Maledicis, Thou Indeed Speakest Amiss.” Mr Gillespie published An Answer to Mr Coleman’s Maledicis, which is entitled, “Male Audis, Thou Hearest Amiss.”—I have seen some other pamphlets on the Erastian controversy, on both sides, which were written at that time, and have a particular reference to this controversy, as it was carried on by Mr Coleman and Mr GilIispie. As Mr Hussey’s Plea for Christian Magistracy, on Mr Coleman’s side; and A Brief View of Mr Coleman’s New Model of Church-government, by an anonymous author, on Mr Gillespie’s side. (Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Book ii. chap. i. p. 168.)

Mr Coleman engaged also in a public debate, respecting the Erastian controversy, in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, against the following proposition: Jesus Christ, as King and Head of his church, hath appointed a government in the church, in the hands of church-officers, distinct from the civil government. He argued some days against this proposition, having full liberty both to argue and to reply as much as he pleased. But he was visited with sickness, at that time, and could not proceed in the debate. Under his sickness, he caused intimation to be made to the Assembly, that he wished them to lay aside that proposition for some time, that if God should be pleased to give him health again, he might resume his debate. The Assembly complied with his request; but the Lord, who has the hearts of all flesh in his hand, and all events at his disposal, was pleased to remove him by death, before he ,could accomplish his designs in this, and in some other particulars. It is said, that he intended to translate and to publish in English the book of Erastus against excommunication.a Mr Neal says, that Mr Lightfoot entered his dissent respecting the above proposition, with whom Mr Coleman would have joined if he had not fallen sick at this juncture and died. (Neal’s Hist. vol. iii. chap. viii. 1646.) Mr Coleman was also much against Prelacy. He sufficiently raises his testimony, in all his writings, against the ambitious tyrannical prelacy of those times, and the gross corruption which abounded. He preached several times to the Parliament, and closely applied his doctrine to the sins of the times; the then prevailing evils. In one of his sermons to the House of Commons, he says:—

“Our formalities and government, in the whole hierarchy, are become a fretting gangrene, a spreading leprosy, an insupportable tyranny. Up with it, up with it to the bottom, root and branch, hip and thigh: destroy these Amalekites, and let their place be no more found. I mean not the persons, but the pride, and power, and offices, of the whole rabble.” (Serm. from Jer. viii. 20. p. 24. b. c )—” What kind of men were ordinarily seated in our Cathedrals? In a great part of late they are become the nests of idle drones, and the roosting places of superstitious formalities.” ( Ibid. p. 39)” And, “Let popery find no favour, because it is treasonable; prelacy as little, because it is tyrannical: but establish God’s truth and ways.” (Ibid. p. 64.)

A zealous historian, speaking in a scornful manner, says, “This was rare stuff for the blades at Westminster, and pleased them admirably well.” And speaking of those divines who preached before the Parliament, the same author says, “Another of these brawlers, who seldom thought of a bishop, or the king’s party, but with indignation, was Mr Thomas Coleman.”—Blessed are \ ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, jor my sake. I suppose that those persons who had felt the iron rod of the prelates, at that time in England, would readily allow, that there was certainly too much truth in Mr Coleman’s remarks.

Wood says, that he was a grand covenanter. It is certain, that he was eminently zealous for the covenant, and preached a sermon, which has been published, at the public entering into it. In this sermon, he says, “You of our brethren of Scotland, come you and enter into this sure covenant. Lay the foundation of such an eternal league and peace, that the sun shall never see broken: all your countrymen, your kingdom are not here. Let your forwardness to this work tell us, what they would do, if they were.”

During the grand debate in the Assembly at Westminster respecting church-government, he was attacked with sickness, and his complaint rapidly increasing, he died in a few days, and the whole Assembly paid the last tribute of respect to his memory by attending his funeral in a body, on the 30th of March, 1647.

Mr Coleman was of Erastian principles respecting church-government; but he is generally allowed to have been a very learned and pious divine. Fuller says, that he was ” a modest and learned divine, equally averse to Presbytery and Prelacy.”

Mr Coleman has written and published;

1. The Christian’s Course and Complaint, both in the pursuit of Happiness desired, and for Advantages slipped in that pursuit: a Sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons, from Jer. viii. 20. on the day of the Monthly Fast, Aug. 30th, 1643, at Margaret’s Church, Westminster. 4to. pp. 71, with an Epistle Dedicatory to the Honourable House of Commons, consisting of four pages, closely printed, under the date of Sept. 1 1th, 1643. London, 1643. At the end of this sermon is added, “A Thanksgiving unto God taken out of the Form of Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments used in the Church of Scotland, after their deliverance from the tyranny of the Frenchmen, by the English: with prayers made for the continuation of peace between the realms of England and Scotland. Printed at Edinburgh, by Thomas Bassandine, in the year of our Lord, 1575.” A truly valuable and pious piece of curiosity.

2. The Heart’s Engagement: a Sermon preached from Jer. xxx. 21, last clause of the verse, at Margaret’s Church, Westminster, at the public entering into the Covenant, Sept. 29th, 1643. 4to. London, 1643. Glasgow, 1741, and 1799, in a Collection of Sermons and Speeches at taking the Covenant.

3. God’s Unusual Answer to a Solemn Fast: a Sermon preached from Psal. lxv. 5. before both Houses of Parliament, at an extraordinary Fast, Sept. 12th, 1644. 4to. pp. 30. London, 1644.

4. Hopes Deferred and Dashed: a Sermon preached from Job xi. 20, to the Honourable House of Commons, Vol. I. K k in Margaret’s Church, Westminster, July 30th, 1645, the day of the Monthly Fast. 4to. pp. 35. London, 1645.

5. A Brotherly Examination Re-examined: or, a clear Justification of those Passages in a Sermon, against which Mr Gillespie did both preach and write. 4to. London, 1646. To this piece is added, A short Discovery of some Tenets which intrench upon the Honour and Power of Parliaments.

6. Maledicis Maledicis: or, A Brief Reply to Mr Gillespie’s Nihil Respondes. Also,

7. The Brief View Briefly Viewed. Being Animadversions upon a nameless author, in a book, called, A Brief View of Mr Coleman’s New Model. 4to. pp. 39. London, 1646.

Bible Verse:

“I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless,” (Gen. 17:1).

New Releases

advertisement

APM Newsletter

advertisement
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!