Satan at Noon, Animadversion 8
Animad. 8.
He tells the world thus, we had an opening of the eternall world, by a divine tranſportation into the glory of the majeſty, and we heard unutterable words and myſteries. and we daily dy to our ſelf ownments, it is our deſire to put ſome Queries to this Seraphick man: to clear the truth.
Firſt, Dr pray tell us whom do you mean under theſe high viſions, and ſuch a degree of perfection from the enjoyment of them? for pitty do not deſign to cheat your reader at a diſtance, who never heard of you, but by your book.
Tell him who you mean by we and us, if you will not, then we muſt, thus, Father *Theſe names th…y have given themſelves in a myſticall ſenſe, and there is we believe ſome myſtery of wickedneſſe in it.Abraham formerly called John Pordage, one, Deborah formerly Mary the quondam wife of John, two, Mary Flavell the woman of them both, three, we know no more unleſſe it be Eliezer the Steward of the family called Francis, and Suſan: Day, as for Rahab formerly Mary Pocock ſhe denies it, Mr Bromley did firſt ſcruple. and then*If it had not been ſo, he would quick…y have ſaid it: the country conceives his ſilence to be a conceſſion. deny his oath, being demanded to teſtifie of Mrs Blagraves viſion in her morning coat, Mary Allen ſaith nothing, John Bolt is a pitifull ignoramus fit to be the Drs ſervant and witneſſe, here is all the number that we know of, they ſhall proceed no further, their folly is made manifeſt: bleſſed be God.
Secondly, Why did you very often neglect your people upon the Lords Day, ſomet…mes five or ſix weeks together, did not you apparen…ly mind your own tithes, more then their poor ſouls? and when you were in the pulpit, why did you uſe ſuch uncouth, canting, unedifiing language? one of the inhabitants depoſed that you preached like John Tawney.
Thirdly, Why did you (when you thought you might ſafely do it) ſpeak ſo ſleightly of the Lord Jeſus? nay, have not you wickedly (if not in ſome degree Satanically out of your Satanicall pride, from your Satanicall viſions) reproached the bloud of the Lord Chriſt God bleſſed for ever? are theſe the effect of your viſions, and your tranſporting into the eternall world? Oh villany of all villainies!
Fourthly, What mean you by ſaying p…g. 35. that many from out-places were quickened by your miniſtry and ſtrengthened? do you mean your witneſſes? The Lord convert them, or whom do you mean, name one, name but one of thoſe many, this is not only vain boaſting, but wicked, that may be in a truth, but this is in a ly, The Lord be mercifull to that country.
Fifthly, What mean you by ſuffering under your noſe the child Hannah to call Mrs Flavell Aunt? the child was not ſo wiſe as to know her own Father, and you were not ſo honeſt as to let her know her own Mother.
Sixthly, What did you mean to ſuffer Mrs Flavell to live in the practiſe of ſuch known untruths as theſe for many years? viz. that Hannah was not her child, that ſhe was the child of a dear friend of hers, that ſhe was entruſted by the mother to look to it, and this againſt your knowledge have you a diſpenſation for this lewd practiſe?
Seventhly, Nay Dr tell us what did you call the child? did not you ſay Mrs Flavell was her Aunt? you pretend poorly in your book a law ſuit, as a reaſon why ſhe concealed her name nine years together, pray tell us why Widow Fruin ſhould be ſo unſafe? was dead Mr Fruin any more lyable to a law ſuit then dead Mr Flavell? it ſmells above ground.
Pray tell us one thing you are beſt able to anſwer; and we will put it to you in your own language. ſc. were not you Mr Frewins figurative ſimilitude?
Eighthly, Why did you in ſuch an unſeemly manner for any man, but in you very ſcandalous, ſuffer, nay entertain Mrs Flavell to ly in your bed-chamber for 15 moneths together, what had this been in one of the narrow ſtampt prieſts your perſecutors? as you are pleaſed to call them.
Ninthly, What meant you to lodge at Roger Loughtons houſe in the chamber next to Mrs Flavells, there being nothing between you but a latch, why did you lodge there to the ſuſpicion and deriſion of that family, were there not beds enough at Hounſlow but a quarter of a mile diſtant?
Tenthly, Why do you muffle your reader by printing in your book Mrs Flavell lodged in your chamber for fear of the apparitions. pag. 70. when as the apparitions you confeſſe laſted but three weeks, and your maid depoſeth ſhe lodged there twenty times three weeks? are theſe the glorious impreſſions left upon your heart by your viſions?
The truth is you are and have been ſince theſe pretended, glories filthy, as to your doctrine, and the ſcandall of it, falſe, covetous, ignorant, we ſhall propoſe theſe in this method to the reader, and give ſome inſtances of each.
Firſt, What do you mean by propoſing to the world your practiſe and deliberate judgement, as to leave your wife! you tell us ſomething of your ſelf, pray let your ſelf tell us ſomething, was your marriage with the woman (whom in print you call Mrs Pordage) was it a marriage in the Lord or not? if it were, why do not you live together in your relations in knowledge and wiſdome? Thoſe whom God hath joined let no man put aſunder, art thou bound to a wife, ſeek not to be looſed? Mat. 19.6, 1 Cor. 7.27. This is the language of the precious word to us in the lower diſpenſation (as 'tis called) if you did not marry in the Lord but came together in a beſtiall, carnall, adulterous way (as you phraſe it) whoſe fault was that? is it the fault of Gods Ordinance have you not learned to diſtinguiſh between Gods inſtitution, and mans abuſe of it? why do you call marriage idolatrous, adulterous.
Secondly, you tell us that now you and your quondam wife ſeparate, do us the favour to tell us from what you ſeparate, is your ſeparation from a thing lawfull, then who hath required this at your hand? who bad you do it? was it one of your Angels in you bright world, your mundus luminoſus? if you ſeparate from the uſe of marriage as a thing unlawfull, who told you it was ſo? was it not one of your Divels in your dark world, in your mundus tenebroſus?
Thirdly, Why are you ſo unhappily like the*Manichaei auditoribus ſuis ut plebeis & imperfectioribus nuptias concedebant, electis vero (quos ita vocabant) & perfectioribus omnino interdicebant uſum eonjugiii Chem. Ez…m: par. 3. p. 5. Manichees of old a filthy generation, you ſay in your book you do not diſswade people from marriage, but you propoſe even to the married the virgin life as more perfect; yet we know the Manichees were, and the country ſayes, you are againſt marriage, though neither they then, nor you now will own it publickly, amongſt their proſelytes they did own it, and whether you have done ſo amongſt your diſciples we will leave it to the judicious by what followes, your own judgement for the uſe and having more women then one hath been proved upon oath, which is a ſacred thing even among the Paynims.
Fourthly, Pray Dr tell us what mean ſome of your family to ſay to this purpoſe, that*Uxorem ducens grauius peccat quod ſi fornicetur. married perſons were as bad or worſe, then they that had a baſtard.
Fifthly, What made one of your diſciples to ſay lately that marriage was not lawfull, and that ſhe would not marry if ſhe might gain never ſo much.
What meant one of your diſciples to tell a married woman that ſhe muſt come out of that beaſtly nature, ſpeaking of marriage.
Six…hly, Whence did ſhe learn to expound that text, Luk. 20.30. Was it not from you viz. they that were accounted worthy of that world▪ and the reſurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, thus, you think (quoth ſhe) that that text is to be meant of the end of the world, No no, it is to be underſtood of Chriſt riſing in us, in you, and in me, and then we muſt neither marry, nor be given in marriage, is not your hand in all this?
Seventhly, why did you make no anſwer to that article exhibited againſt you, ſc. that marriage was the way of beaſts▪ if you ſay it was not proved, we reply there was no cauſe, you never denied it.
The ſecond particular for your falſeneſſe.
Firſt, Moſt of your anſwers are moſt untrue, and ſome of them notoriouſly and deliberately falſe.
Secondly, Why did you ſlanderouſly report, and plead openly and ſince print pag, 88. that George Aſlet was a drunkard? when as you know no ſuch thing by him at all, nay when all the country that know him know it to be utterly falſe.
Thirdly, Why would ſome of you have inveig…ed a man to witneſſe this againſt him before the Commiſſioners? deſigning by ſuch a lewd ſlander to weaken his teſtimony, may a man lie and ſwear falſe to ſave a ſaint from the men of the world?
Fourthly, Why do you falſely print pag, 88. that goodwife Knap under her hand and before witneſſe hath denied that ſhe told George Aſlet, that Mrs Flavell threatned to have her whipt, for ſaying ſomething of another child beſides her boy Stephen? when the woman never denied it, but ſtill affirms that Mrs Flavell did deny to her that ever ſhe had any child beſides Stephen, the woman would have you ſhew her hand, amongſt you ſhe was circumvented by a lie, and now ſhe ſaith, you have printed a forgery.
Fifthly, Why did you take one of your pariſh into your ſtudy, having ſummoned him by a warrant to appear before the Juſtices fot you, and then, and there did dictate to him what be ſhould ſwear? and why did you profer to write it down for him in caſe he could not remember your inſtruction? how unconſcionable is this?
Sixthly, Why do you print pag. 88. that you expounded that in Geneſis concerning Abraham first hiſtorically? the witneſſe ſaith it is a ſtudied lye, and doth offer to depoſe it, and will prove it an untruth by ſeverall reaſons.
Seventhly, Why do you print that you never denied water-baptiſme to be the ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt? Francis Knight a pious knowing man ſaith the contrary under his hand, and bids us tell you in print, that if you deny it (as you have done) that you have a face of braſſe, you may ſay or unſay (it ſeems) what you pleaſe
Eighthly, Why do you print in your Ep. Ded. to his Highneſſe, that his ordinance for ejecting ſcandalous miniſters is abuſed to the condemnation of the *St. Antichriſt. St. Ignorant. St. Blaſphemer. St. Familiſt.Saints? and why do you prognoſticate that the Commiſſioners will turn the edge of it againſt them thaet have glorious diſcoveries of God? we begin to think the Divell is afraid of the Ordinance, and ſhall take theſe bold words for an untruth, till you produce what Saints, when, and where, and by whom perſecuted.
Ninthly, Why do you ſay pag. 112. and often, that the Commiſſioners have uſed all means to hinder a rehearing of your cauſe? for our parts we have not heard of any that hath done this, neither have we attempted it directly or indirectly, there is ſuch a boaſting of ſo many great friends you have between Charing croſſe, and Weſtminster Hall, that we have expected it every week, but for our hindering of it, till you prove it, it muſt go for an untruth, and a deſign of your own to harden the Familiſts and the Quakers in London, Briſtoll, Lechlade, Reding. &c.
The thi…d particular covetouſneſſe.
Firſt, Why did you defraud one of your neighbours in bargaining, letting, and renting? the man was before the Commiſſioners to make his complaint, and hath ſince made it ſeverall times to underſtanding Chriſtians.
Secondly, Why did you after you came out of your Familiſticall pulpit on the Lords Day, preſently fall to diſcourſe with one of your neighbou…s of buying and ſelling? were you ſo full of the world you wanted vent, could you not ſtay for your own day?
Thirdly, Why did you hire out your teams of horſe to carry bark, and this to the great hinderance of your neighbours who did uſe to earne mony that way?
Fourthly, Nay why did you when your poor neighbours had agreed to carry at ſuch a price, agree at an under price, for leſſe, to get the employment out of their hands, are theſe your parcells of perfection?
Fifthly, Why did you rent land and ſow it to halfes when corn was dear and your living worth hundreds? by your example you did fearfully harden your people in earthly mindedneſſe, your heart mortified by your viſions of darkneſſe thought you could never have enough.
Sixthly, Why did you tell the people in the pulpit when you came to Bradfield, that now the great pot ſhould go over, and what a liberall houſe you would keep (a moſt ſeraphick argument, is it not?) but they ſay they could never ſee pot, pan, nor kittle, indeed they ſay you are a very miſer, an earth worm.
Seventhly, When one of your neighbours was taken from his plough oftentimes in your buſineſſe, went to Newbery eight miles for you five or ſix times, and to London for you thirty nine miles, and you promiſed to pay him for his labour, why did you give him for a hundred and fifty miles travell even two ſhillings?
Eighthly, But Dr when there was a collection for a poor burnt*Mariborough town, and you ſpake to the people to give liberally, and many knowing the place did reſolve to do ſo, why were you the leading man ſo cruell, you threw down your twelve pence, even to the ſcorn and table-talk of ſome rich inhabitants in your pariſh.
Ninthly, Why did you wring dues from the people beyond the cuſtomes of the pariſh for marrying? tis true this was put in as an article againſt you by your pariſhioners, and tis as true it was put out by your accuſer, you vapour much upon this in your book, can you ſay that any of your perſecutors did take ſuch a ſordid way as to bargain before hand, and to demand more then their dues?
Why did you trouble your pariſhioners & that often before the Commiſſioners, when all the difference did not amount to above eighteen pence? your viſioning family hath been complaining and crying as the Horſe-leach give, give, the Lord cure this dropſie in yours and you, in us and ours.
The fourth particular ignorance taken out of his Book.
Firſt, Why do you ſay that the law of nature prompts you, and your way to require an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? doth the law of nature allow private revenge? why are you ſuch an ignoramus as to joyn with the Phariſees to corrupt the text?in the Epiſtle to the Commiſſioners. it ſeems you have a warrant from the law to revenge your ſelves, it concerns the Magiſtrate to take care you may not have power too, this is not only ignorance, but tends to ſedition alſo.
Secondly, What do you mean in ſaying But the law of grace commands us to deny our ſelves? do you mean that Goſpell commands do thwart the commands of the law? we know that Jeſus Chriſt did not fill up, much leſſe contradict the law, but vindicate, and clear it from the falſe gloſſes of the Scribes, and Phariſees whom you imitate in this alſo.
Thirdly, Why do you confound the eſſentiall word, Ibid.and the engrafted word, and make them both one? we hope it was your ignorance, though we have too many reaſons to believe that even in this you did lift up your heel and kick at Jeſus Chriſt, or elſe to make no other word but the word within us, as Swincfield, Gortyn, and then if you come to have power, let all godly men beware their throats.
Fourthly, Why do you ſay that Mat. 28.19. Go teach all nations and baptize, pag. 27.that baptiſme there may very well be underſtood of the baptiſme of the ſpirit, ſhew what one of all the many expoſitors received for pious and orthodoxe did ever ſenſe it ſo? in thoſe primitive times, either they had thoſe extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt before they were baptized, as in the caſe of Cornelius. Act. 10.47. or elſe they were baptized before they had theſe gifts as the diſciples at Samaria, Acts 8.16, 17. Did not you in this maliciouſly aſperſe all water baptiſme? and through pride and ignorance dream that you ſhould receive power from on high to beſtow the graces of the ſpirit on whom you pleaſed?
Fifthly,Ibid. Why do you ſay that the Apoſtles did adminiſter the baptiſme of the ſpirit to all their converts? how many viſible converts were there and upon that account baptized, who never had either the extraordinary gifts, or the ſaving graces of the ſpirit? what do you think of the Familiſts old acquaintance, Simon Magus?
Sixthly, Why did you ſay that baptiſme is a Goſpell ordinance inſtituted by John? and now to qualifie the buſineſſe you print it (inſtrumentally) do inſtruments uſe to inſtitute ordinances? thus you labour to ſupport your ignorance by a falſitie fore-thought.
7. You ſay that your judgement is for perſons to live as ſingle, though in united formes, and your deliberate practiſe is thereafter, well, but why do you ſay that this practiſe is according to that of Chriſt, Mat. 19.12. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Pray tell us, doth not our Lord Chriſt ſpeak to the unmarried? read the 10 verſe, the diſciples ſaid, if the caſe be ſo, it is not good to marry: Chriſt anſwered, But all men cannot receive it, or abſtain from marriage, cannot live Batchelours, what is this to you that have been a married man theſe many years?
8. So the other of Chriſtian Eunuchiſme, there be ſome Eunuchs for the kingdome of heaven, you are of the laſt ſort, you were not born ſo, and you were not made ſo of men, but you have made your ſelf ſo, but we tell you again, you ignorantly, if not wickedly pervert the text, for the text is meant of the unmarried, nay the very drift of the chapter from the firſt verſe to the ninth, is to confirm the bond of marriage as indiſſoluble, againſt the Phariſees: what doth this concern you, that have a wife and ſeven or eight children?
9. You are moſt unhappy in your Marginall text, to 1 Cor. 7.38. let them that marry be as though they married not; do you think the meaning of the Apoſtle is, that man and wife ſhould not dwell together, as man and wife? but live, as you pretend, you and Mrs Pordage have done, as though you were not man and wife. It is clear, that in this, you and Mrs Pordage are no more, then you and Mrs Flavell.
10. Why do you ſay Chriſt was born of a Virgin, and lived in virginity, Chriſtus non duxit uxorem, & ejus actio eſt noſtra inſtructio, ſaid the Gnoſtick…. Reſpondet Clemens, conjugium Chriſtus approbavit doctrina, & miraculis. Chem. exam. par. 3.leaving us an example? was that the reaſon why he did come? When we think of the infinity and glory of the Lord Chriſt, how unſuitable marriage was to him, and how his work was to give up his ſoul a ranſome, we cannot but admire at the blindneſſe of this Dr, who ſtill is driving at this, that Chriſt is but a type.
Why do you ſay that you had two ſpirituall worlds diſcovered to you, and apply to theſe worlds that text, Heb. 1.2. By whom alſo he made the world; were the worlds in that verſe made by Chriſt, your mundi Idaeales your phantaſticall worlds at Bradfield, pittifull ignorance.
11. Why do you quote that text, Heb. 5.14. but ſtrong meat belongs to thoſe that are of full age, and have their ſences exerciſed to diſcern both good and evil, and wretchedly apply it to your ſpirituall ſenſation, (as you call it) and the opening of your inward ſences, to ſee cloven feet, and dragons? is this the meaning of the holy ſpirit?
12. You ſay among the devils you ſaw principalities, powers, dignities, and you ſay this is anſwerable to the text, Eph. 6.12. Tell us, who told you, which was this, and which that? did any one point with a rod, and ſay to your inward hearing, there goes a prince, there goes a power? why do you force that text to palliate the matter, and cheat your reader? this text proves that the devils are by Gods juſt judgement rulers of this world, but it doth not prove any government or princedome among themſelves.
13. To haſten: You ſay you had an opening of the eternall world, the kingdome prepared, where you were, as Paul once, &c. pag. 78, and you call it the world to come, and quote for it Heb. 2.5. He hath not put in ſubjection to the Angels the world to come, whereof we ſpeak. We do confeſſe this text is controverted, Calvin underſtands it of the world reſtored by Chriſt, our right being forfeited by ſin; Piſcator of the mundus renovatus, as in 2 Pet. 3.11.*So the Annotations on the New Teſt. others of the goſpel world, becauſe of the context. But we conceive it is hardly ſence to underſtand it as you do, of the kingdome of glory, for how alien and forreign is it to S. Pauls mind, to read that text thus, he hath not put in ſubjection to the Angels the kingdome of glory, of which we now eak.
Though this might have paſſed for a ſmall miſtake in another, yet in this Dr it is conſiderable, becauſe he pretends his hearing of the unutterable miſteries of that kingdome, and therefore his ignorance is obſervable. we believe S. Pauls rapture, but not his in the leaſt, by any means.
14. In the ſame place you ſay that your divine tranſportation was agreeable to that of John 17.24. Father, I will that thoſe whom thou haſt given me, may be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory.
What ignorance, and wreſting of the ſcripture is this? was Chriſt with you in your chamber at Bradfield? what did you behold of the glory of Chriſt there? it is juſtly charged, and fully proved, and righteouſly ſentenced againſt you that you have blaſphemed that glory, ſc. his Godhead and bloud; and you do not tell us that in this third heaven you ſaw any thing of either: is that ſweet prayer to be underſtood of viſions here on earth, or of believers coming to, and abiding in heaven with Chriſt for ever?
15. So Heb. 10.19. is quoted by you to ſpeak for your entrance into the eternall world by your viſions, but the text ſaith no ſuch thing, the text doth not ſay, we have an entrance into the holieſt by viſions, (which are deluſions) but by the bloud of Jeſus.
16. What did you mean to call wiſdome, and quote for it Pro. 8.20, 23. the eternall virgin? See the laſt. Annot. Aſſemb. upon the text.do you know what you ſay? who is there meant by wiſdome, is it not Jeſus Chriſt? did he ſhew you the way that leads to the life of virginity, to leave your wife? why do you call him the eternall virgin? is it not to poſſeſſe your people againſt marriage? are you out of your wits?
17. Why did you inſultingly p. 103. charge Mr Trapham a godly perſon, one of the Commiſſioners, and now print him a man of mean intellectualls, and why? becauſe he never heard of any other death and reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, but at Jeruſalem: you pittifull ignoramus, is not this true? doth not the Apoſtle ſay, Chriſt being riſen from the dead, dieth no more? Rom. 6.9. and in that he died, he died once, and Chriſt was offered once, not often. Heb. 9. laſt. Now if he died but once, he roſe but once, and both theſe he did at Jeruſalem. You ſay that Mr Trapham never read, or never underſtood theſe three texts.
Firſt, Heb. 6.6. You Dr, is that text underſtood of backſliders reall crucifying Chriſt on earth, or their wicked trampling and profaning of his bloud, now he is in glory? was this done by their hands, or by their hearts?
The next you quote is Gal. 3.1. Is this text underſtood of a crucifying Chriſt indeed, or the ſhewing forth of his death in the word and Sacraments? doth not that very verſe ſay that Chriſt was ſet forth amongſt them? and before whoſe eyes (mark Dr) not by whoſe hands, and crucified amongſt you, not by you.
For the other text you quote, about Chriſts riſing, Eph. 2.5. Tis true, Gods elect were quickened with Chriſt, what then, what do you conclude? ergo did Chriſt riſe in other places beſides Jeruſalem?
The truth is, Mr Trapham was tranſported with a juſt indignation, to hear this mans brother vent ſuch Familiſticall ſtuffe concerning the man child, reported by himſelf to be born at Bradfield, ſc. that this man child was (as the younger Pordage ſaid) the ſpirituall birth, life, death, reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, in the nature of Mrs Flavell, who lies under the ſcandall of a baſtard, by this Dr hitherto, becauſe they have had nine moneths time to produce a certificate of the town, and county, where her dead pretended husband Mr Frewin was married, lived, and died; and we ſuppoſe that in honour and conſcience they are bound to vindicate their innocency, (if they be innocent.)
This ſpeech of the younger Mr Pordage, was the occaſion of Mr Traphams ſpeaking what he did, which is a truth, at which the ignorance of this Dr ſcoffes. It is ſuch a truth that ſtrikes through the loins of Familiſme.
18. Why doth your learning quote for your receiving tithes, Pſal. 24.1. The earth is the Lords, and the fulneſſe thereof? from whence you ſay, that tithes are the Lords by an undoubted intereſt, as well the tenth (ſay you) as all the reſt, and all the reſt as the tenth; moſt profound reaſoning. Let the countreyman look to it, for as you have had the tithe under this Magiſtrate, and the Farmer all the reſt, ſo had you a Magiſtrate to your own mind, by his order, you might take all the reſt, and leave the tithe to the Farmer.
What did this man mean to ſay pag. 86. that upon the ſuppoſall of his guilt of adultery, yet now he is not chargeable, and why? becauſe he was not accuſed within a year after the fact.
It is much, that he having ſuch viſions of the inward world, ſhould be ſo dark in the juſtice of the outward world. Sir, you were not proſecuted as a felon, for adultery by a law ex poſt facto, for your life, but merely for the ſcandall of adultery, as you was, (though you never were in any ſence) a miniſter, in regard of your office, before the Commiſſioners, who as ſuch, are impowered only to take notice of ſcandall.
Your Plea had been rationall before a Judge of Aſſize, but before the Commiſſioners abſurd, yet you fill a page with this ſtuff, and clamour upon your betters. Suppoſe a member of a Church ſhould have a pardon as to life, for an act of Adultery, ſhould this pardon exempt him from the cenſure of the Church in point of the ſcandall of adultery? this was much your caſe, and to this purpoſe tended Mr Fords rationall diſcourſe, which you in your ſillineſſe jeere and ſcoffe at.