Satan at Noon, Animadversion 4
Animadver. 4.
To weaken the teſtimony of John Grip the Dr prints pag. 42. a letter from Mr D. Blagrave, to the Commiſſioners, conſiſting of theſe two parts. Firſt, I dare not condemn the innocent, Secondly, I do not remember I ſaid ſo to Mr Grip.
Anſ. We confeſſe, there was a letter ſent from that Gentleman, but the teſtimony of this letter was indirect, and the letter was refuſed by the joint conſent of the Commiſſioners, becauſe Mr Blagrave was twice ſummoned by their warrant, and did not appear: ſome ſay he would not, others think he durſt not.
The Dr ſaith, that Mr Blagrave being detained about earneſt buſineſſe at London, could not appear according to ſummons, and therefore wrote this letter. And yet in all that letter there is not ſo much as one civil hint that he gives of his taking notice, of any ſuch ſummons at all. No, no, his letter was nor an intended anſwer to the ſummons, there were other weighty motives for it.
Upon this account we might have ſpared the readers paines, and our own, paſſing by this letter in ſilence. But becauſe a copy of it is granted out in favour to the Dr, and is now travelled farther then where either Mr Blagrave or the Dr are known, (for where they are, we fear it not) and ſo may raiſe ſome prejudice amongſt ſome, who are willing to lay hold upon a bulruſh, therefore we judge it as a duty incumbent upon us, to take liberty of propoſing a few queſtions to Mr Blagraves conſcience.
Firſt, Doth Mr Blagrave think in his heart that the Dr is innocent? doth not his conſcience tell him that he heard the Dr aſſert, that Jeſus Chriſt was not GOD? and doth this man call this innocencie? if this be innocencie, then we confeſſe we are to ſeek what is blaſphemy, or what can be guilt: doe not Mr Trapham and Mr Tickhill depoſe it? nay, doe not the Dr, and his own brother confeſſe it? and yet Mr Blagrave the then Chaireman ſaith, the Dr is innocent. We deſire to know in which of the Drs worlds he finds, that blaſphemy againſt the Lord Jeſus is innocence. Yet further, when Mr Trapham told Mr Blagrave of the Drs denying Chriſt to be God, and he returned this faint anſwer, ſc. then we muſt take another courſe with him, then, even in the ſame breath, the Dr replied to Mr Blagraves head, But Chriſt is not Jehovah; and is this innocence? Oh the patience of God! Beyond all this, Mr Blagrave being told in the town Hall at Reding, that the Dr ſhould ſay before him, that Chriſt was not Jehovah; Mr Blagrave anſwered, yea, but he doth not deny Chriſt to be GOD though; as if the Lord Chriſt might be God, though he be not*Jehovah our righteouſneſſe, Jer. 23.6. if he had not bin the firſt, viz. Jeh…vah, he could never hav… bin the laſt, viz. our righteouſneſſe. Jehovah, (as the Socinians ſay, that Chriſt may have the worſhip of God, though he be not God by nature) and is this innocence too?
This laſt was depoſed before the Commiſſioners, by Mr Stevens, an underſtanding Chriſtian, who being juſtly offended with Mr Blagraves countenancing the Dr in his blaſphemies, told him of it to his face, and from him received the fore-mentioned anſwer, about ſeven moneths ſince.
Secondly, In the letter he ſaith, he doth not remember that he told John Grip, the Dr ſhould ſay Chriſt was but a type, a ſhadow, man, and not God.
Anſ. We affirm, that upon the ſhewing the printed paſſage of the letter to John Grip, he replied, But I do remember it very well, and he will, if called thereto, depoſe it in Mr Blagraves preſence; and we can ſafely ſay of this man, that we believe he deſires to get, and keep a good conſcience.
We do foreſee, that Mr Blagrave will be unſatisfied for our ſpeaking ſo much.
Our anſwer is, that we are unſatisfied ſometimes in our conſciences, for ſpeaking ſo little.
As to the article it ſelf of Chriſts being a type,
We entreat the reader to obſerve the fulneſſe of the evidence, depoſing that the Dr ſaid, that Chriſt was a type, and but a type. Now, we ceaſe to wonder, that one of his choiſe ones ſhould ſpeak thus, to knowing perſons, and reputed godly, who were on purpoſe ſpeaking of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, viz. I fear many make an idoll of Jeſus Chriſt, as though truſting in the Lord Jeſus crucified, without us, were idolatry. And another of his diſciples, who ſpeaking before of the preſent conteſt, concerning Chriſts righteouſneſſe, ſaid thus, what need I to contend and wrangle about that which I my ſelf am, which I have eſſentially in me. Nay the Dr himſelf delivered this in the pulpit, long ſince his pretended converſe with the Angels, and his viſions of the eternall world, (viz.) whoſoever did attain to a particular faith, theſe ſigns ſhall follow, they ſhall ſpeak with new tongues, they ſhall lay hands on the ſick, God will bring them to glory, and God the Father will deliver up to them the keyes of his everlaſting Godhead.
To conclude,
This never enough accurſed doctrine of a typicall Chriſt, did ſpread like a gangrene in Calvins time; a little after in England, by Henry Nicholai, born in Amſterdam, an ignorant man, but a crafty hypocrite, and one that had a kind of deceiving violence, in his ſmooth language of love: ſince that, in New-England, by Gortyn and his diſciples; and then again in England very lately, Mr Rutherford who is good at ſurveys, and viewing, gives a moſt ſhrewd gueſſe, that the tokens of this ſoul-plague are to be ſeen upon the books of Mr Saltmarſh, &c: and now at this day this plague-mark is viſible to every eye, and creeping about many hearts. Is it not a ſad thing, that perſons ſhould take in ſuch notions of Chriſt, that do altogether deſtroy Chriſt? that blaſpheme his perſon, reproach his bloud, deny his purchaſe, and that make his infinite love and grace to poor ſinners, to ſignifie juſt nothing? in which notions a man cannot be godly while he lives, and muſt be damned when he dies, for the riſe, progreſſe, growth, and continuance of found godlineſſe flowes from the right knowledge of Jeſus Chriſt.
Do we not ſee theſe figure-makers, and makers of types, which God never made, which never came into his heart, what ſhadowy, empty creatures they are? the Socinians and Familiſts have nothing for the ſoul reall in this world, their light is darkneſſe, their ſublimated notions froth, their words bubbles, their holineſſe mere varniſh, their auſterity, Phariſaiſme, their faſting and prayer (when they do it) a device to entrap ſouls, their publick demureneſſe, private looſneſſe, their comfort, a deluſion.
What they ſhall have in the next world (in caſe of finall impenitence, which the Lord of mercy forbid) is reall indeed, but what is it? but a ſence of wrath, and guilt of ſin, even againſt this now blaſphemed Jeſus Chriſt, a worm of conſcience, a lake of fire, the gnawings of heart, which are really ſo grievous that no heart can think or gueſſe; and all this without remedy, without eaſe, even for ever and ever.