Satan at Noon, Article 8-9
The eighth and ninth Articles of the firſt charge.
Firſt, That Chriſt was not God.
Secondly, That Christ was not Jehovah.
Adde to theſe the fifth article of the laſt Charge. (viz.)
That one ſpeaking to him of the glorious perſons in Trinity: he replyed, perſons in Trinity, there is no ſuch thing, and again there is no ſuch thing, as perſons in Trinity.
The Drs anſwer to theſe are as followeth.
That Chriſt is not God, that Chriſt is not Jehovah.
I do acknowledge that ſuch expreſſions were uttered by me, but I hope the bare expreſſions of ſuch*H…bemus confitentem, It had bin far better ſaid, ſuch horrid diabolicall blaſphemies, then ſuch negations, this is very improper, and ſo mincing, what Chriſtian heart can bear it? negations do not make me come within the guilt of the act, for it muſt be known what words preceeded ſuch expreſſions and what followed, to ſay in preaching there is no God doth not make the preacher guilty of atheiſme, if the words going before be but annexed (the fool hath ſaid in his heart there is no God, ſo do but joyn theſe words with the15What former? you ſhould have ſaid with the latter, this is put in as a miſerable wretched ſhift, ſay that ſuch a blaſphemer is an adulterer, yet joyn theſe words with it. (viz.) he goes a whoring after his own inventions, this is not culpable. former, Chriſt is not God the Father, Chriſt is not Jehovah, Jehovah taken ſtrictly for the perſon of the Father, the firſt perſon of the glorious Trinity, I ſay add but theſe words and there is nothing blaſphemous, or culpable in ſuch expreſſions.
Though I do acknowledge that ſuch expreſſions fell from me (viz.) that Chriſt is not God, that Chriſt is not Jehovah, yet I never avowed, or maintained ſuch propoſitions, they were only uttered by way of*Falſe, they were the points diſputed on. diſpute and that upon this occaſion, Mr Daniel Blagrave then being chair-man of the Committee demanded of Mr Tickhill, what blaſphemy was, he anſwered an evill ſpeaking againſt God the16Untruth, ſo thick a man may feel it, read the proof. Father,*Who heard you reply ſo? neither the chairman, nor your brother, nor Mrs Pocock, a ſtudied untruth. I replyed a lame definition of blaſphemy had Mr Tickhill ſaid evill ſpeaking againſt God, which is a word implying the Trinity in unity, there had been no occaſion given of conteſt, for the ground of the expreſſions aroſe from the weakneſſe of his definition of blaſphemy, in that he ſaid blaſphemy was evill ſpeaking againſt God the Father, to which I replyed, his definition of blaſphemy doth not reach to that for which he accuſeth me, for what he chargeth me with is not*What is this but a deliberate conſulting of a whole ſeries of untruthes? blaſphemy againſt God the Father, but againſt Chriſt God the Son, I have uttered no evill ſpeaking againſt God the Son but ſeemingly to my accuſer in ſaying that his imputative righteouſneſſe would prove a ſapleſſe righteouſneſſe, to all thoſe that had not the fiery deity in the center of their ſouls, burning up their luſts and corruptions. Mr Tickhill then replyed to that Committee, pray take notice that the Dr denyeth Chriſt to be God, which I prove out of John the 1.1.Who can make ſenſe of this ſtuffe? the Dr wants a good memory, read the proof. To which I replyed Chriſt is not God the Father but God the Son, Chriſt is Jehovah, and ſo called the Lord our righteouſneſſe ſaid Mr Tickhill, to which I replyed Chriſt is not Jehovah, if you take Jehovah for the perſonality of the Father, this is the truth as the whole Committee of Berks then preſent can teſtify, and I was then by their vote cleared of all the unworthy aſperſions and diſmiſſed, and17Untruth, the buſineſs diſmiſſed, but you were never diſcharged. ſince upon proof of witneſſes diſmiſſed, and that after a full hearing by the Committee of plundered Miniſters.
I humbly conceive that if the former act did expreſſely adjudge and condemn evill ſpeaking againſt Chriſt, yet my delivering ſuch expreſſions in an ex tempore diſpute, (viz.) that Chriſt was not God, or Jehovah, did not make me obnoxious to the guilt or penalty of that act, becauſe pag. 980, and 981 they only ſhall be condemned as guilty who ſhall avowedly profeſſe, maintain, or publiſh in words, or writing ſuch and ſuch execrable opinions, &c. Which I never did, nay I profeſſe avowedly the contrary, and declare in the ſincerity of my heart, that the thought never entred into my ſoul, to deny the Godhead or deity of Chriſt, and I have avowed, maintained, and publiſhed by preaching that Chriſt is God, out of John the firſt and twelfth, The word was made fleſh, from whence I did maintain, and publiſh that Chriſt was God coequall, coeternall, and coeſſentiall with the Father, contrary to all thoſe blaſphemous and execrable opinions which deny Chriſt to be God, ſo that now I hope the mere uttering of ſuch expreſſions by way of diſpute, before an underſtanding, and judicious Committee doth not make me a tranſgreſſour, according to the true ſenſ… and meaning of this act.
Anſ. 2. Concerning the perſons in Trinity.
I do here profeſſe, and avow from the ſincerity of my heart, that I believe the Trinity of perſons, as an article of my faith, viz. That there are three perſons diſtinct from each other, the perſon of the Father, the perſon of the Son, the perſon of the holy Ghoſt; yet not ſo as to prejudice the unity in eſſence, and ſo I believe the unity, as not to confound the Trinity of perſons.
I18See the firſt animadverſion, where it is affirmed by a judicious and pious perſon, as upon oath, the Dr ſaid, that God in Chriſt, and Chriſt in Saints, is the Trinity in unity and unity in Trinity aſſerted from John 17. never uttered any ſuch expreſſions in that way, as to give any juſt ground of ſuſpicion of my denying the Trinity, But I remember about four years ſince before the Committee of Berks, Mr Fowler, or Mr Gilbert I remember not which deſired the Committe to give them liberty to ask me two or three queſtions, amongſt the reſt they ask me whether there were three perſons in the deity, I anſwered them, I believed the Trinity as it is recorded. 1 Joh. 5.7. There are three that bare record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghoſt. Thus you ſee I believe the Trinity, but do you believe the Trinity of perſons ſaid they? I replyed I find not the word perſons in the text, but to put you out of doubt, I do not ſtumble at the word perſon, and this afterward I told to the above mentioned Mr Grip in a private conference ſome yeares ſince, to whom I affirmed that I found no ſuch expreſſions as perſons of Trinity, in the Scripture, and that the word perſon being a ſchole term was*And why difficult, it being the most apt, plain ſignificant term that is, perſona denote… only ſubſtantiam primam intelligentem, foreign, any ſubſtantiam ſingularem, whether living or dead; the fathers Greek and Latine agreed to uſe the word perſon, as ſignifiing an underſt…nding ſubſiſtent. There is no term ſo ſafe, ſo full. Three properties, is very improper and dangerous. Three qualities, abſurd and more dangerous. Three manifeſtations, Familiſticall and helliſh. Three perſons, moſt ſuitable, ſpecially when we adde infinite, divine, a perſon in all authours generally denoting a ſubſtance living, intelligent. very difficult, to be apprehended, by common capacities, but I never ſpake this to prejudice the true notion of the perſons in the ſacred Trinity, which I do cordially believe, but only to ſhew, that ordinary Chriſtians ſhould not be too curious, in prying into the deep myſtery of the three perſons in the Trinity, but rather content themſelves, with what the Scripture plainly affirms of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt, as diſtinct, and yet one. But to conclude this anſwer, pray conſider what hard meaſure it is, thus to pick out a broken ſentence out of a long diſcourſe, and ſo to accuſe one without relating the circumſtance which might ſerve to clear, what otherwiſe may ſeem very ſtrange to prejudiced perſons.
The proofs of theſe Articles.
The aforeſaid Mr John Tickhill of Abingdon.
This Deponent ſaith, that he heard the Dr deliver before the Committee of this County at Reding, that Chriſt was not God, and that he was not Jehovah, and being croſſe examined, he further ſaith, the Dr did endeavour in diſpute with great ſeriouſneſſe to maintain, and defend as his judgement that Chriſt was not God, and that he was not Jehovah, and that there was no ſuch expreſſion of the Father mentioned in his, this Deponents definition of blaſphemy, as is mentioned in the Drs anſwer, but ſaith that his definition was, that19Obſerve the Deponents definition of blaſphemy, and judge whether the Dr did not ſtudy an untruth. blaſphemy was an evill ſpeaking againſt God, derogating from his glory either in his name, nature, word or works, and that the Drs immediate words thereupon were,20Let the magiſtrate hearken, ruling in the fear of the Lord, and let the reader hearken and be aſtoniſhed at it, and grieve. what can be more wickedly aſſerted by the Dr, and more punctually proved by any Deponent? Hark! he anſwereth, blaſphemy is an evill ſpeaking againſt God, and in his paper chargeth me with blaſphemy againſt Chriſt;*That (as if) is the breath… of the bottomleſſe pit. as if Chriſt were God, hereupon we began a hot diſpute about the Godhead of Chriſt, the Deponent asked the Dr, if Chriſt were God, who did deny it, and put the Deponent upon proof of it, whereupon he cited that Scripture. John the firſt, In the beginning was the word, the word was God. To which the Dr replyed, he is21he is called God, ſo the Arrians, of the founder of whom Arrius, the godly Emperour Conſtantine ſaid, that he was foreign. Epiphan. lib. 2. Tom. 2. Haereſ. 69. a wicked interpreter, the picture of the Divell. called God, but he is not Jehovah, then the Deponent replyed, he is Jehovah, which the Dr likewiſe put him to prove, then he cited that Scripture, his name ſhall be called Jehovah our righteouſneſſe, Jer. 23.6. and (as he remembers) the Dr did diſallow of that proof, as being out of the Old Teſtament, then the Deponent cited that Scripture. Rev. 1. He that was, is, and is to come, as being of the ſame purpoſe with Jehovah.
Thomas Trapham Eſq one of the Committee ſworn and examined, depoſeth.
That to his remembrance, the word Father was not mentioned, in Mr Tickhills definition of blaſphemy, and he ſaith, the Dr did then deny*Did Dr Pordage ſpeak in the ſincerity of his heart, (as he pretends in his anſwer to theſe articles, and others) that ſuch a thought never entred into his ſoul? let the conſciencious judge. Chriſt to be God, which he this Deponent acquainted Mr Blagrave with, to which Mr Blagrave ſaid, if he deny Chriſt to be God, we muſt take a further courſe with him, then the Dr anſwered,*Why was there not a courſe taken with him, when he denied Chriſt to be Jehovah? Chriſt is not Jehovah, and when Mr Tickhill had confuted him in that argument, then he ſaid, he was not God the Father.
The aforeſaid Suſanna Grip.
This Deponent further ſaith, that the Dr came into her kitchin at another time, and as ſhe thinks he then came from the Committee, and the Dr then ſaid, whereas Miniſters ſpeak of perſons in Trinity, there is no ſuch thing, there are three that bear record in heaven, but there is no ſuch thing as perſons in Trinity, and the Deponent ſaith that theſe words were ſpoken by the Dr, about two or three years ſince, but whether the maid, or any body elſe, or who was then preſent, ſhe doth not remember, and ſhe further ſaith, that theſe expreſſions were delivered without any further explanation, as ſhe remembers.
Witneſſes examined in behalf of the Dr.
Mr Francis Pordage Miniſter of Stanford Dingley, and brother to the Dr ſworn, and examined.
This Deponent ſaith that theſe words (viz.) that Chriſt was not God, and that Chriſt was not Jehovah, were delivered before the Committee of Reding, in a hot diſpute, and, that in the ſame words the Dr did expreſſe thoſe words, that Chriſt was not God, with this limitation (viz.) that Chriſt was not God the Father, and that the diſpute aroſe upon a definition of blaſphemy which Mr Tickhill gave to Mr Blagrave, (viz.) that it was againſt God, to which the Dr replyed, he ſaith it is againſt God, and *Obſerve this teſtimony from his own witneſſe even the Drs brothr.he chargeth me for ſpeaking againſt Chriſt, and that the Dr did then declare to Mr Blagrave, that Chriſt was God, but this Deponent doth acknowledge that there was ſo much diſtance of time, at leaſt between the Drs denyall of Chriſt to be God, and his correcting of it afterwards, as required Mr Tickhill to prove him to be God, and to be Jehovah, and he further ſaith, he did not hear Mr Tickhill ſpeak any thing of God the22See what a man this Dr then is, as upon premeditation to deliver in ſuch an untruth, and ſince to print it, and to cry out upon the Commiſſioners as Pilates and perſecutors. Father, in that diſpute.
And this Deponent being asked by the Dr, whether frequently in that diſpute, when the Dr ſpake of denying Chriſt to be God, he did not alwaies ſpeak in relation to God the Father.
To this he anſwereth, his brother did ſay he ſpake it in relation to God the Father, but he cannot ſay frequently, or alwaies.
And he further ſaith, that the Dr did in a ſermon in Laurence Church, clear himſelf concerning the Trinity of perſons, and that Chriſt was God, and did aſſert it as his avowed judgement, and he further ſaith, the Dr did make his limitation concerning the deity of Chriſt, after Mr Tickhill had cited many Scriptures, to prove the deity of Chriſt, and being asked by the Dr whether he underſtood him to be confuted, or miſtaken, he ſaith miſtaken.
The aforeſaid Mary Pocock further depoſeth.
That ſhe was before the Commitee of Berkes, when ſhe heard the Dr diſpute with Mr Tickhill, concerning Chriſts being God, in which diſpute ſhe heard the Dr ſay, that Chriſt was not God the Father, but ſhe did not hear him deny but that he was God the Son, neither then, nor any other time, but owning him to be perfect God, and perfect man, and ſhe further ſaith, that ſhe heard the Dr expreſſe that ſentence (that Chriſt was not God) with this limitation (viz.) that he was not God the Father.
And being asked by the Dr whether ſhe did not hear him deny in that diſpute, that he held Chriſt was not God. She anſwereth ſhe did apprehend him ſo, ſo far as ſhe was ſatisfied with it.
And being further asked by the Commiſſioners whether in that diſpute, ſhe did not hear the Dr deny Chriſt to be God.
She anſwereth, ſhe did hear him deny Chriſt to be God the Father.
And ſhe being further asked whether the Dr did bring in that expreſſion of God the Father, after many ſcriptures, cited by Mr Tickhill to prove Chriſt to be God.
She anſwereth Scriptures Mr Tickhill did bring but ſhe is not able to ſay it was before the Dr did expreſſe God the Father.
And being further asked whether the words of God the Father were not ſpoken by the Dr after Mr Blagrave told him if he held ſuch opinions, they muſt proceed againſt him.
To this ſhe ſaith, Mr Blagrave put ſome queſtions to him, but what they were ſhe cannot remember.
And now we come to the ſecond charge of Articles exhibited againſt the Dr, which for brevity ſake I ſhall not diſſect particularly, but (being moſt to one purpoſe) ſet them down together, with his anſwer to them, and Depoſitions thereupon, which are as followeth.
Articles againſt Dr Pordage, Parſon of Bradfield.
1. Mrs Lewin of Hampſted Norris being with child, and near the time of travel, ſent for Dr Pordages mother to be her Midwife, but he would not ſuffer her to go, ſaying they would not be guilty of ſuch a beaſt-like life, meaning Mrs Lewins being with child by her husband.
2. Dr Pordage coming to the houſe of Mr Lewin, in his diſcourſe with Mrs Lewin, blamed her for having children by her husband, and argued with her of the unlawfulneſſe of having children by her husband.
3. In his diſcourſes with Mr Lewin concerning the ſame ſubject, indeavoured to maintain the unlawfulneſſe of their having children, and ſaid that Adam was made Male and Female in himſelf, and had he not fallen he had brought forth children himſelf: and ſeemed to maintain the ſame by ſcripture, and other wayes.
4. In his diſcourſes with Mr Lewin which was about the time that one Everard was with him at his houſe at Bradfield, who was generally reputed to be a Con…urer▪ he asked Mr Lewin whether he would no… … afraid, if he ſhould ſee his own picture or ſhape, intimating that he himſelf had uſed to ſee his.
The ſaid Dr Pordage hath had for ſome weeks together in his houſe the ſame Everard, and one Tawney, who ſtiled himſelf King of the Jews, who had been qu…ſtioned (as is generally reported) for holding dangerous …nd unſound opinions, as that there is no hell, and the like.
My anſwer to the ſecond articles exhibited againſt me, is as followeth.
As to the four firſt, I know not how or what poſitively and directly to anſwer to them, till I ſee them firſt, proved by oath, and that from ſuch perſons who are without juſt exceptions, after which I ſhall be capable to return a more full and compleat anſwer.
Neither do I ſee that ſeemingly to maintain and argue by way of diſpute onelyonly, the unlawfulneſſe of Mrs Lewins having children by her husband, for the ſifting forth of truth from errour, could it be proved that I did ſo, could argue or evince my ignorance and inſufficiency for the miniſtry; for this, though it were evinced to be my crime, cannot in juſtice and equity be referred to that head, but to ſcandal and hereſy; except ignorance and inſufficiency be reſolved into the boundleſſe liberty of the wills of the Judges, that what they judge and deem ignorant and inſufficient, muſt be ignorant and inſufficient, whether ignorance and inſufficiencie be really in ſuch a ſubject or not.
That I gave entertainment to one Everard in my houſe, reputed a conjurer, and to one Tawney, who is reported to hold unſound opinions.
As to the firſt part, I confeſſe that one Everard about four years ſince, was received into my houſe at Bradfield, for the ſpace of about three weeks and no longer, and that after this manner.Falſe, he was there before oftentimes. He came in harveſt time, with a new pair of harveſt gloves on his hands, to ſhew his willingneſſe and readineſſe to work, and asked to ſpeak with me, and told me, that if I pleaſed to imploy him in harveſt work, he came to offer his ſervice: hereupon I entertained him as a workman. And thus you ſee the manner of his coming, and the cauſe of his entertainment.
Whereas it was ſaid he was generally reputed a Conjurer.
I never heard the leaſt intimation from any, that he was ever ſuſpected to be a conjurer, till after his departure from my family; if he was a conjurer before, it was more then I knew, or had heard of: but after his departure, I confeſſe there aroſe a generall report up and down the countrey, that he was a Conjurer, but from that time to this I have never ſeen him, nor known what is become of him.
After his abſence I do further affirm, that I feared and was ſtrongly inclined to believe, that according to the generall rumour, he was a conjurer; hereupon I was in a great ſtreight in my own ſpirit, whether I ſhould proſecute him or not: my zeal to Gods glory, and my obedience to the commands of God, that ſaith,†Not a word true, read the note upon his proteſtation. ſuffer not a witch to live, giving me ſome impulſions to do it, but after ſerious debate and conſideration within my ſelf? I reſolved this caſe, or ſcruple of conſcience thus, That my own perſwaſions and jealouſies, though they had ſome ground of probability, yet being not certain, afforded me not ſufficient ground of proſecuting him as a conjurer, or of ſwearing poſitively he was ſuch; now I leave it to your ſerious conſiderations whether this tenderneſſe of conſcience, keeping me from proſecuting of him, or ſwearing againſt him, for fear of that heinous ſin of perjury, makes me either ignorant or inſufficient for the miniſtry.
To the ſecond part of the fifth article, which concernes my entertainment of Tawney, reputed as tis there expreſſed, to be one that holds unſound opinions.
I anſwer thus, It is well known that as I invite none, ſo I turn away none that come to viſit me, be their principles in matter of doctrine, worſhip, and diſcipline, different from mine; I will briefly ſhew you my grounds and ends. My grounds are theſe, I look upon it as my duty, according to the Goſpel of Chriſt, to entertain all ſtrangers, that be in want and neceſſity, profeſſing the name of Chriſt.
If enemies hunge…, we are to feed them, if they are naked, we muſt cloath them, and as for ſtrangers, we are to lodge and entertain them Heb. 13.2. As in the practiſe of this I break no law of God, ſo no law of man: and you may remember in the 37. article of Government, it is expreſſed, That all ſuch as profeſſe faith in God by Jeſus Chriſt, though differing in judgement from the doctrine, worſhip, and diſcipline, publickly held forth, ſo as they abuſe not this liberty to the civil injury of others, nor to the actuall diſturbance of the publick peace, ſhall be protected, and then ſurely their hungry bellies may be fed, their bodies clothed, their perſons lodged, and their wants ſupplied.
And further, my ends are theſe, which are pure and Evangelicall, that I may prove all things, and hold faſt that which is good, that I may t…y the ſpirits, becauſe many falſe ſpirits are gone forth into the world. Now how are they to be proved and tried? not by*Who ſaith they are? but they are to be ſuppreſſed: who calls the Mag ſtrates weapons carnall, but the carnall? carnall weapons, as by penalties, mulcts, impriſonments, and other externall puniſhments, but by convincing of them with ſound doctrine, Chriſtian diſcourſe, and ſpirituall arguments, and by the example of a good converſation, and thus Gods glory, and the good of others, are my onelyonly ends, in giving entertainment to all ſtrangers, that come in civilitie to viſit me.
Now the cauſe of many1We never heard of any but thoſe mentioned in the next animad. ſtrangers coming to me as gueſts, from all quarters of this land, ariſeth from thoſe lying printed pamphlets, that have ſcarce a word of truth in them, theſe draw all ſeeking inquiring minds to viſit me, for divers ends beſt known unto themſelves. Let it be but proved that I have given entertainment to any common*Why did not you put in blaſphemers, ranters, anti-labbatarians, ſuch as ſtay at home, and skim the pot, or ly in bed, and meet no where on the Lords day? ſwearers, to open drunkards, Sabbath-breakers, or to any known profane perſons, and I ſhall judge my ſelf obnoxious to your cenſure: but all that I give entertainment to, appear cloathed under ſome ſhew of godlineſſe or other, but if they have not the power, it will be their own miſery.
In a word, the ſtrengh of this article doth but amount to thus much, that as2Mark the compariſon, there is pride, and non ſence in it. Chriſt was ſuppoſed and accounted a friend of Publicanes and ſinners, ſo am I reputed a friend to all people that profeſſe Religion, and walk orderly be their opinions in matter of doctrine or diſcipline, never ſo much differing from my own, or thoſe commonly received. Yet this doth not argue my ignorance and inſufficiency for the Miniſtry; but if in it any thing be culpable, it is to be referred to the head of ſcandall and hereſy. But here being no law of prohibition, I cannot ſee any tranſgreſſion in it againſt the law either of God or man.
But to conclude, theſe articles being matter of fact, till I ſee them proved, and each article in juſtice and equity referred to his own proper place, or head, either of ſcandall or hereſy, I cannot give a more direct, or poſitive anſwer to them.
The proofs hereupon are,
John Lewin of Hampſted Norris Clark, ſworn, and examined.
To the*Be pleaſed to read and conſider the following animad. firſt and ſecond articles he cannot depoſe.
To the third he ſaith, that about three years ſince the Dr and he had ſome diſcourſe about ſome principles of religion, the Dr did urge that place in Geneſis, (that he made them male and female) but whether he meant Adam ſingly, or what mentall reſervation he had, the Deponent knoweth not, and further to this article cannot depoſe.
To the fourth, he ſaith, that about the time mentioned in the article, the Deponent met the Dr in London, and in diſcourſe with him, the Dr asked the Deponent, if it would not be terrible to ſee apparitions, but did intimate nothing that he uſed to ſee any himſelf.
Anne the wife of the aforeſaid John Lewin ſworn, and examined.
To the firſt article, this Deponent can ſay nothing.
To the ſecond, ſhe ſaith, that the Dr told her when ſhe had two children (a boy and a girle) ſhe had enough, one for her husband, another for her ſelf. To which the Deponent anſwered, (as it ſhall pleaſe God,) then the Dr replied, piff, it is as your ſelves will, but ſaith that the Dr did never perſwade her to live from her husband.
To the third article, ſhe heard the Dr and her husband in diſcourſe to the purport of that article, but what the words were, ſhe cannot depoſe.