Satan at Noon, Article 7
The ſeventh article of the first charge.
That Chriſt is a type, and but a type.
Adde to this the ſecond article of the laſt charge, being of the ſame effect.
The ſecond article of the last charge.
That Chriſt was not perfect, alledging that text to confirm it, becauſe he cried out my God, my God, &c.
The Drs anſwer to the firſt of theſe is,
This was in conference, he asked me whether Chriſt were a type or no: I anſwered, Chriſt was a type ſo13He is not ſo expreſſed, but thus, he left us an example, the word is not foreign, but foreign, a Metaphor taken from a Limner, or Scriuener, foreign, leaving us an example 1 Pet. 2.21. expreſſed, the 1 Pet. 2.21. How was Chriſt a type, ſaid Mr Pendarvis? I anſwered, his life and converſation was a type, that is, a pattern and example, for us Chriſtians to ſquare our converſations by; who denies this? ſaid he, why I affirm no more, ſaid I, then that Chriſt is a type; is he but a type, replied Mr Pendarvis? I anſwered, why ly ye thus upon the catch? I ſay Chriſt is a*It is very improper, and too much in any man, but in you, horrid, tell us of what Chriſt is a type, when the thing tipified is come, the type ceaſeth, when you are Chriſted, then Chriſt ceaſeth, and you and he are well met, is not this your direfull meaning? type, but I will not affirm Chriſt is but a type, and this they both confeſſe in their anſwers.
The Drs anſwer to the ſecond.
;I do nakedly, without any vails, profeſſe, that I ever did, and ſtill do look upon Chriſt as a moſt perfect Copy, and Pattern, to ſquare our lives and converſations by:*Utuntur praeclaris ſententiis, they uſe excellent ſpeeches, as if they would extoll the vertue of Chriſt, but it is onelyonly to cover the turpitude of their doctrine, all their ſpeech tends to this, that, whatever Chriſt did, or ſuffered, was only an hiſtrionicall action, or a ſhew exhibited on a theatre, in which the miſtery of ſalvation is figured. Calvin. adver. lib. cap. 17. p. 535: opuſcul. yea, and to be a perfect Mediatour in reference to the world, he undertook for the redemption of the world, being free from the leaſt tincture, either of originall, or actuall ſin, and truly the thought of any ſuch things never lodged in my heart. But ſuppoſe I uttered ſuch expreſſions as theſe, yet the manner of it will ſufficiently free me from the guilt my accuſer may hope, and believe I am obnoxious to by it. I confeſſe I uttered theſe or the like words, yet it was onelyonly in relating to what I heard in a ſermon of*Mr Blagrave ſaith that the Dr never ſpake a word of Mr Erbury nei…her white nor bl…ck: an unwo thy ſhift, to throw it upon the dead. Mr Erburies at Somerſet-houſe, who at that time endeavoured to ennumerate Chriſts ſuppoſed imperfections, whereof he made his crying out on the croſſe in thoſe expreſſions one, Now I leave it to your conſiderations whether my relating to ſome that were wiſe, and knowing what I heard from another, with much grief to my ſoul, makes me any way culpable, or guilty.
The Proofs of theſe articles.
The aforeſaid Mr John Tickhill further depoſeth,In eo conſtituunt redemptionem noſtram, quod Chriſtus ſolùm velut typus fuit. idem ibidem. that he heard the Dr deliver, that Chriſt was a type, and but a type, and being croſſe examined, he further ſaith, the Dr did endeavour to prove Chriſt was but a type, out of S. Peter, where he is called foreign.
The aforeſaid Mr Chriſtopher Fowler further depoſeth, That about three weeks, or a monethmonth ſince, in diſcourſe with Mr Daniel Blagrave the younger, This Deponent then asked the ſaid Mr Blagrave, whether he had not heard the Dr ſay, that Chriſt was not perfect, to which he anſwered, yes.
John Grip of Reding Joyner, ſworn, and examined, depoſeth.
That he was at Mr Blagraves houſe, when the ſaid Mr Blagrave was ill, and kept his chamber, and the ſaid Mr Blagrave and the Deponent fell into diſcourſe about Dr Pordage, in preſence of Mrs Blagrave, and that in the ſaid diſcourſe Mr Blagrave told his wife, that the Dr held ſtrange opinions, ſuch as were not agreeable to the word of God, for he did maintain that Jeſus Chriſt was not God, but that he was a type, and but a type, man, and not God, the ſhadow, and not the ſubſtance, and Mr Blagrave did labour very much to take off his wives affection from the Dr, and his wayes, but he could not prevail.
This Deponent further ſaith, that ſometime the laſt ſummer Mr Charles Blagrave told him that the Dr ſhould ſay that Chriſt was not perfect, and quoted that ſcripture mentioning our Saviours paſſion (when he cried out, My God, my God, &c.) to prove the ſame.
In behalf of the Dr.
The aforeſaid Mary Pocock further depoſeth, that ſhe heard the Dr maintain in hot diſcourſe with Mr Pendarvis, that Chriſt was a type, and proved it out of S. Peter, (he was an example) and ſhe heard the Dr ſay he would not14He would not ſtand to it what Arrian, Socinian, or F…miliſt ſcarce ever would? Obſerve what the fear of the Magiſtrate will do upon blaſphemers. ſtand to the word but, That he was but a type.
John Pordage ſonne to the Dr, aged between 19. and 10 yeares, ſworn, and examined depoſeth.
That in a diſpute between the Dr his father, and Mr Pendarvis, about five or ſix years ſince, about Chriſts being a type, the Dr ſaid that Chriſt was*Obſerve his ſons teſtimony. but a type; to which Mr Pendarvis ſaid, do you ſay but a type, whereunto the Dr anſwered, he did not ſtand to but a type, it was onelyonly a ſlip of his tongue, but he maintained that Chriſt was a type.