Animad. first.

Animad. 1. and that in these three particulars, First, as to the Articles, secondly, as to the D ^rs witnesses, thirdly, as to his plea.

Animad. 2.

Acerrini morsus morientium ferarum, wild beasts near their end, bite so fiercely, they will even make their teeth meet, the unclean spirit rends, and foams when he is a de­parting, and to be ejected, what ailes this Dr to imagine on his bed, and when he cometh forth to tell such a forged, lying tale; 'tis true, his words seem smooth as oyle, but they be very swords he doth not bark much, but he bites, and bites the deeper, because he doth not bark. We conceive the Dr fitting in counsell with his thus, what shall we do to blast this testimony the accuser hath brought in before these men [Page 27] of the world? so it saith that I should blaspheme the bloud of their Christ, their ordinance will reach me, or they will stretch it, and the Priests are rigid, advise what is best to be done I know Mistris Grip is the witnesse against me though she doth not appear, nor it named, my conscience tells me so. Re olved upon the question, that it is lawfull for the Dr to say what he please to the commissioners to [...]ave himself▪ and to say what he please of the witnesses to blast them, and their testimony,

The Dr labours might and main to overthrow this testi­mony, knowing that this (concurring so directly, with M [...]ster Tickhills, and Master Stevens) would help to o­verthrow him, for his overthrowing the very foundation of faith, and godlinesse.

We desire the discreet Reader to observe his We cannot find more smooth epi­thi [...]es, w [...] hope it is not b [...]tter­nesse, but some better thing, tis in the 'cause of Christ consulting­ly forged answer, & ex ungue leonem to see him by this paper, as he in his visions did the Devill by his cloven foot, pag. 74. of his book.

Thus he tells you how he came to Mistris G [...]ips house, and how he found her in a very exceeding great passion, with tears, and cries, and wringing her hands, using bitter invectives against Master Fowler; and he tells you the reason why (viz.) because he reported to the gentry there­about, that she lived in adultery with a For this was in h s answer before the Com­missioners, but as he can say, and unsay, so he can put in, and put out even in print. What an [...]ngratefull man is this, thus to bespatter, and dis­grace, (so far as in him lyes) one of his best friends, in the face of a multitude: he resolves to hazzard all his friends, to attempt any thing, so he may enfeeble this sub [...]tantiall evidence. gentleman, not far off, and how he was afraid th [...] she was drenched with An­tinomianisme, and therefore discoursed to her of the nature and spirit of Christ.

To disprove this, we offer these considerations.

First, that Mistrisse Grip being then upon her oath, did solemnly appeal to the Lord of heaven, the searcher of all hearts, that she did not speak a sword of Master Fowler, [Page 28] neither had so much as a thought of him, and that she was so far from tears and wringed hands, (as this man feignes) That she was in some measure of joy, in the apprehension of Jesus Christ, and she did affirm, before God, the Commissio­ners, and above two hundred persons, that it was all false, and a mere forgery, not a word of it true.

Secondly, Consider this, that about a fortnight before his tryall was at the Bear in Reding, Master Daniel Bla­grave told her the said Mistris Grip that the Dr would de­clare to the Commissioners, how she had railed against Master Fowler, upon which, she came to Master Fowler's house immediately, where Master Nutkins, one of the Commissioners, with some friends, then was, and she was exceedingly moved at the D ^rs impudence, & wickednesse, ad­miring how he could raise such a report, saying, she did not think he could have bin such a Divell, and there solemnly did averre, before some Christians, that she did not speak to the Dr so much, as one word of Master Fowler, and did conceive it to be a plot to affright her. So that as the D [...]s ly­ing answer was premeditated, through wickednesse, her answer upon her oath, was premeditated also, through pro­vidence.

Thirdly, As to that passage of the Drs contriving, or some of his Angels, what Master Fowler should report &c. Master Fowler remembers not any such thing reported by him to any of the gentry, as his own judgement; the truth is, many of the gentry have rather wondered at his sparing­nesse, and silence, when occasion of such discourse hath bin offered, the ground of which silence was sincerely this, when he looked upon the reports of many, six or seuen years since, and the suspicions of some godly persons, he durst not justifie her, and on the other side, when he looked upon her profession, gifts, expressions, temptations, he durst not con­demn her especially when he looked upon her temptations, which he believed to be reall, and his judgement is, that a tempted person may without any great difficulty discern the temptations of another, whether they are from pretence. and hypocrisie, or whether they are from reality, and [Page 29] feeling, especially if they have frequent conference.

What passages of lewdnesse there have bin, or whether any he knovves not, he hath spoken unto them both of this very sin, six years since in private, and both did deny it, he leaves them, and the issue to God, but the rise of the Drs forgery and lying. he believes upon good ground to be so false, that he thinks the first deserves the Pillery, the second may claim the whetstone, and the D [...]s design to blast her testimony, vvill stand heavy upon his account, unlesse he come to be vvashed, vvith that most invaluable bloud of Christ, vvhich he hath esteemed as a poor thing.

Fourthly; Again consider that this Deponent Mistris Grip did relate this of the Drs blasphemy to Master Fowler, and the other, of apparitions with indignation & grief, before ever the ordinance for ejecting came forth, saying to him and others, shall this blasphemer continue to bewitch souls? and will the higher powers do nothing? shall such be tolera­ted also? now, whether this woman, who professeth tender­nesse of spirit, even against the least untruthes ha­ving spoken much against this mans blasphemies, and visi­ons, before any Commissioners were in being, and there be­ing betwixt them no personall grudge, (as to the world, she is a looser, and did expect to be so before hand,) should so solemnly depose before God and Angells an untruth, we leave it to the judgement of indifferent men.

Fifthly, Besides if the Drs discourse were (as he pleads clearly against his own conscience) such, as it is in his an­swer, let the Reader consider, what colour even in the least can there be, for Mistris Grips question, (viz) what then Dr? and his answer to that question, (viz.) I do not use to reveal my self, but I do not know, what the matter is, I must speak to you; for consider, what is there in the Drs answer, but that any man may speak to any person.

But this is just like Master Erbury, who, when he had spoken most bitter things against the Lord Jesus, to an un­derstanding christian (of which you shall hear by and by) clapt him on the arm, telling him, I do not use to reveal my self so to others.

The truth is, the Dr seeing Mistris Grip to be fixed, and knowing her testimony would be looked on as con­sciencious, and in some hopes of his own foolish heart, thinking to make her a Proselyte, and on that account ha­ving revealed to her that, which he knew would very much discover him, he thought to try this last attempt, whether he might affright her out of her testimony, but this would not do, she being throughly resolved to go through all re­ports to bear witnesse against such horrid blasphemies, for the glory of Jesus Christ.

But the Dr goes on, and saith she is perjured, and why? because she saith, she never railed against Mr Fowler in her life, see p. 62.

1. Consider her answer, registred by the Clark, and read by him, at the command of the Commissioners, to all the people.

2. M ^rs Grips answer was this, The Lord knows it is all false, false, never, never: any indifferent person may see the question is not, whether, she did ever rail in her life, but, whe­ther at that time, as the D ^r pretends, and which railing at that time, upon such a report, was the rise, and ground of the D ^rs discourse with her.

And here the Commissioners did severall times offer the D ^r, and all his friends, that if any one could say any thing, to evidence the D ^rs answer to be true, wh [...]ch M ^rs Grip did depose to be false, he should be heard, with all freedome and willingnesse; but no man appearing to the point in hand, the Commissioners proceeded to some other articles, for which this bold fellow doth asperse them for unconsciona­blenesse, injustice.

But who are his printed witnesses, p. 62. with which he makes a noise, and clamours upon the proceedings, by this way deceiving many, and hardening more.

1. M ^r Richard Stockwell is quoted, and set forth (by the D ^r) as a pious, sober Christian. pag. 63.

Ans. We wish him so, with all our hearts, this man was profered his oath, if he could testifie any thing of M ^rs Grip, railing at M ^r Fowler, as the D ^r pretends in his answer, she [Page 31] did, which he could not do, and so was not admitted as a witnesse.

Obj. But the accuser saith, this man, Richard Stockwell, is an Erburist.

Ans. And he must say so still, upon the reasons which he gave to the Commissioners, till Richard Stockwell saith no.

Having so fit a season, we desire leave to speak a little of Mr Erbury, we have no thoughts in our hearts to rake up the ashes of the dead, he is gone to his account, and stands, or falls to his own master: we do it, in a little subserviency to the glory of Christ, by undeceiving, (if he please to make us instrumentall) if it be, but one soul in the nation, espe­cially about London, and in this county. Upon personall knowledge, and upon the oath of Christians, (if called to it) we declare, that these were his positions.

First, That the Father in flesh, is the Son.

Secondly, That the Father in Adam, and so downward, is Christ.

Thirdly, That the fulnesse of the Godhead is in Christ, and the saints, as the soul is in the head, and foot.

Fourthly, That Jesus Christ was man as he, and no more God.

Fifthly, That it is blasphemy to say that Jesus Christ made an atonement, for the sins of Gods elect.

Sixthly, That coming to a murderer sentenced to die, he said, thou hast killed a man, what if thou hadst killed a hundred? I tell thee for thy comfort, God is in thee, but thou dost not see it, but thou shalt see it.

These upon credible testimony.

1. That there is neither good, nor evil, but as men appre­hend it.

And that he might do any thing if his mind did lead him to it.

Positions enough to astonish the heavens, and shake the earth, and tend our very bowels; from another guesse man then this Dr. both for life and learning. But he is gone to Eternity, and to us that knew him, out of his grave he [Page 32] preacheth a sermon upon that text, Rom. 11.20. Thou standest by faith, be not high minded, but fear. let us pray, pray, pray, that God would keep us in the knowledge, love, and practise of all divine truth. But to return.

Animadver. 4.

To weaken the testimony of John Grip the Dr prints pag. 42. a letter from M ^r 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 M ^r Blagrave was twice summoned by their war­rant, and did not appear: some say he would not, others think he durst not.

The D ^r saith, that M ^r 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 D ^r, and is now travelled farther then where either M ^r Blagrave or the D ^r 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 M ^r Blagraves conscience.

First, Doth M ^r Blagrave think in his heart that the Dr is innocent? doth not his conscience tell him that he heard the D ^r 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 M ^r Trapham and M ^r Tickhill depose it? nay, doe not the D ^r, and his own brother confesse it? and yet M ^r Blagrave the then Chaireman saith, the Dr is inno­cent. We desire to know in which of the D ^rs worlds he finds, that blasphemy against the Lord Jesus is innocence. Yet further, when M ^r Trapham told M ^r Blagrave of the D ^rs 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 D ^r replied to M ^r Blagraves head, But Christ is not Jehovah; and is this innocence? Oh the patience of God! Beyond all this, M ^r Blagrave being told in the town Hall at Reding, that the D ^r should say be­fore him, that Christ was not Jehovah; M ^r 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 M ^r Blagraves countenancing the D ^r 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 [Page 44] 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 D ^r 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 D ^r 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 [Page 45] 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 M ^r 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.

Animadver. 5.

We shall take the D ^rs answer as it lies in order.

First, As to M ^r Lewin, he was the man who related the foresaid articles himself to two of the Commissioners, Mr Whet­whyck and Col. Arthur Evelyn, to whom telling them of the lewdnesse of these princi­ples, they both, viz. Mr Lewin and his wife, replied, we are ready to de­pose it, and did farther affirm to Gol. Evelyn, that they did hear the Dr assert the same things at ano­ther time. and that in terminis, of his own accord, and this with so much seeming willingnesse, that the gentlemen stand amazed at his fordid shrinking from, and denying of his own testimony, which he wrote with his own hand, and altered as he pleased. Besides, M ^rs Lewin related the very same to M ^r Wood­bridge, who did offer to attest it upon oath.

We do not wonder at this carriage of his at all, our won­der was, that M ^r Lewin of all men should accuse the Dr; the proverb is, tis an unlucky bird, that defiles his own nest: the truth is, he thought if he should discover the D ^rs lewd­nesse, some of the D ^rs party might discover his own vile­nesse: he was loath to speak the truth, for fear he should be discovered, and now through a righteous providence he is like to be discovered, because he would not speak the truth.

He was afraid his crew would tell of him, and now some honest and understanding officers hearing of his basenesse, have detected him, take his character thus;

This M ^r Lewin (we are unwilling to say Minister) of Hamsted Norris, was formerly a member of the army, where he lived in wickednesse to no small height, and that, First, against God, by cursing and swearing, and this (as was judged by some) he reckoned as a piece of his perfecti­on, in a ranting way: Secondly, against others, by pilfer­ing (to say no more) in a most fordid, unworthy manner: Thirdly, against himself, by sinning against his own body, (if he himself is to be believed) boasting of his wickednesse, he could not blush, nay he gloried in his lewdnesse, and pro­claimed his sin as Sodom under the pretence of a shaking or convulsion fit, he was taken in an unseemly wanton da [...]ance with a woman.

Being asked whence he came, in a profane way persona­ting the Devil, he answered, I came from compassing the earth to, and fro, seeking whom I may devoure.

From credible persons, of pious repute, we have this, sc. that he should speak to this purpose, I preach of faith, and am Orthodox in the countrey, but I do not mean so.

All this and much move, we have from persons of place and integrity in the Army, who are ready to testifie what they have said, out of their own willingnesse to the service of the gospel, and a desire to promote the good of souls; and in this businesse of shrinking in his evidence, M ^r Whitwick and Col. Evelyn do intend to prosecute him, either as a slan­derer, or a false- swearer.

Obj. But is not this cruelty, even to fetch the bloud of mens names?

Ans. Our consciences bear us witnesse that we take no pleasure in it, we are compelled thereto, and partly by his own carriage: our apology shall only be that of M ^r Calvin, for himself, in the same case, against the like persons, viz. Better it is that the names of men should rot above ground, then that the glory of our Lord Jesus should be trampled up­on, nay, in the least impaired.

Obj. Were it not better to be silent, are there not of Fa­milists many, and bloudy too?

Ans. We remember what Luther said, he should be contented to be accounted any thing, so he might not be found Modo non arguar reus maledicti si­lentii. guilty of a cursed silence, in the cause of Jesus Christ: as for danger with a little poor faith, through mercy we have learned to say, our times are in Gods hand; and to apply what the Lord Christ saith, a sparrow doth not fall to the earth, without my Father.

Secondly, Th [...]s Everard mentioned in the fifth article, was first a separatist, then a scoffer at ordinances, then a curser, then a blasphemer, then by report a conjurer as the Dr saith, but indeed rather an apparitioner, as the Dr is, then, mad and frantick, and committed by authority to Bridewell.

The Dr in his answer labours industriously to cheat his reader, by saying that this Everard came to him with a [Page 60] pair of harvest gloves upon his hands for work, as though he had not seen him before, when as for many weeks and for most daies in the week this Everard came to the Drs house before harvest began, and after he was gone, the Dr repor­ted that he was an honest godly man.

Thirdly, As for John Tawney the Dr exhibites a long answer of his feeding the hungry, and his pure ends in enter­taining strangers, &c.

Ans. May it please the reader to consider that this Taw­ney at first denyed the Scriptures, then cursed them, and lately within these five moneths burnt the Bible openly in Lambeth, wickedly calling the blessed Gospell of the Lord Christ, the grand Idol of England, that he pretended he had a revelation to destroy the Parliament, who hath since written a book as full of open blasphemy, and sly sedition, as a toad is full of poison, this man findes entertainment (as at other times) so about August last, for a fortnight toge­ther at the Drs house, and the Dr quotes for his defence in so doing, the thirty seventh article of the government viz. All such as professe faith in God by Jesus Christ. &c.

Consider, whether these men will stretch that article, it seems by this kind of men John Tawney himself, doth pro­fesse faith in God by Jesus Christ.

Ob. But what is this to the Dr? he is not of Tawneys way?

Ans. it was lately confessed to a person that will depose it, by one of the Drs own visioners one of his own way, and his own family. That, Dr Pordage, and John Tawney were both of one judgement.

Fourthly, the D ^r answers, he entertains those that come to him under some shew of godlinesse or other.

Ans. We would not seem to carp, therefore we will not propose this question to him, how many shews of godlinesse there are, the sequele will resolve it.

We professe we do not know, neither can we learn of any that he hath entertained, but Abiezer Copp, notorious for blasphemy, and rantisme, in whose behalf this D ^r appeared before the Committee at Reding; and being opposed by one [Page 61] of us, replied, (but with much meeknesse) that we should follow shortly after our dear brother Love. Or Coppin, to whose book that crawls with blasphemy, the D ^r gave his approbation. Or John Tawney, or Everard, who set their mouths wide open against God and man: or Elizabeth Pool, or Goodwife Geffreys, who even stink above ground: we that live round about him, do not know any godly per­son but shuns him as a very monster: it is a frequent blind he puts upon his reader, by citing in his own behalf, and against the Commissioners, the godly party.

For our parts, we dare not say, that any Socinian or Fa­milist is, or (continuing such) ever can be a godly man, our reason is, because such deny the Deity, and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus, from the sound and feeling knowledge whereof, proceeds and streams out all reall and sound godli­nesse, a godly Familist, or Socinian, sounding in our ears even as great a contradiction, as a godly Turk.

God forbid that we should speak one pick against holi­nesse, better that our tongues should be dumb, then our mouthes utter, and our hands wither, then our pens should write one tittle to blemish it. We desire to look upon it as the most glorious thing in the world, and we would rather (if our own hearts do not deceive us) seek our bread, and the bread of our little ones, with holinesse in our hearts and lives, in a howling wildernesse, then to enjoy all the scepters of the world without it: yet give us leave to say (if it be but to ease our hearts) that it is a trouble to us, that Blasphe­mers, Antichristians, Anti-scripturists, should go up and down, under the precious name of men fearing God, by which artifice they harden themselves in their impieties, and infect souls with their blasphemies.

We do forethink that that expression of a godly Turk, will sound harsh, but we know not why it should, See Dr Calo­vius Socinis. proflig. p. 33. 34. Ignati­us calls the predecessours of the Familists and Socinians, the seducing serpent, or the Devil preaching to destruction.

The Fathers denied the Ebionites to be Christians.

The Samosatenians were accounted and called God-killers, God-deniers, [...]. (quantum in ipsis) quia divinam [Page 62] Christi naturam negabant, because they denied Efficitur (prob dolor) ut Jesu Christi religio Turcis sit lu­dibrio. cap. 1. Johan. p. 7. explic. Christ to be God by nature.

Socinus himself saith, that the Protestants held opinions that made their religion ridiculous to the Turks, what were those opinions? why, in speciall this, that Christ is God: so then if we would deny the Deity of our Lord Christ, (as do the Familists and Socinians,) we were in a fair way not to be ridiculous to, but to agree with the Turks: again, this Hac ratione Turcas ad Ch. religionem al­lici posse, ibid. p. 2. Wretch tells us, that one reason of his writing against the figment (as he calls it) of Christs divine nature was, to make the Turks turn Christians; therefore by a parity of reason, they that do deny the Divine nature of Christ, in this point may quickly turn Turks.

Valent. Gentil. a blasphemer of Christs divinity, was not Non puduit eum subsidium petere ex Al­chorano Are­tius. Hist. Val. Gent. cap. 1. ashamed to seek arguments to help himself, out of the Turkish Alcoran.

And Alciatus Ma­hometista sa­ctus est. idem. cap. 2. Alciate one of his complices, (as he confessed himself) was turned down-right Mahometan.

Calvin in his instruct. ad Lib. calls them rake-hells, dogs, swine, we fear that, in giving smooth language to villanous seducers of his kind, we use more manners then will do the gospel good.

Dr Twisse, a late learned, pious man, did call them A­theists, and he often said to one of us, that all gospel Athe­isme was against the Lord Jesus Christ: in a little measure we find it, amongst the Gnosticks and Arrians, and for some Centuries, their main spight and quarrel was against the Lord Jesus; after, for more Centuries, in the kingdome of the Papacy, where their damning errour, is in dividing, and so by consequence destroying both the efficacy of Christs grace, and the fulnesse and compleatnesse of his righteousnesse as to justification: upon the account of which last, some learned men (when zeal was in request) have said, That a Papist living and dying in the doctrine of the Councel of Trent, can never be saved; in this last Century the Libertines and Fanaticks in Germany, and the Netherlands, the Socinians in Poland, and the Familists in England, what do they main­ly do? but pour forth their venome against the Di­vinity, [Page 63] personality, and righteousnesse of the Lord Jesus.

To shut up all, the Court D ^rs in the late Kings time, be­gan much to vary their expressions, using such, in which they might have the company of the Socinians, as affecting to call Christ their Great master, sometimes, their Lord and master, that a man could hardly discern by their prayers, whether they respected most the Lord Jesus, or their very good Lord and Patron. God hath found many of them out, & cast them out; the desire of our hearts to God is, that Familisticall. Al­legorizing, Antichristian doctrines, may be shut out from thence, and all Pulpits of the land, that the name of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ may be magnified in us, and we in him.

And so we come to the remaining articles of the third and last charge.

Animad. 6.

Let the reader observe, that to that article, that marri­age is the way of beasts, the Dr gives no particular answer, and good reason, for to affirm it before the face of the coun­try, had been very monstrous, and to deny it, had been notorious.

In the businesse of Mrs Flavells child Hannah, we desire the reader to observe, First, That the Dr in his answer to this article would call the child by no sirname at all, but only Hannah, and being demanded by the Commissioners to tell them Hannah what? what besides Hannah, even to the derision and wonder of all standers by, he would by no means give in any particular answer but Hannah, and I will say nothing but Hannah, and Hannah what you will, ob­serve that the Dr should carry away the mother with child to a private place, and after baptize the child, and take mother and child back again into his ovvn family, for [Page 78] some years, and yet not know the sirname seems to us in­credible.

But what should the man say, it must have been called by him either Hannah Frewin, or Hannah Flavell, or Han­nah Pordage, or some other Hannah: the first, Hannah Frewin had been to make the child daughter of a man, that for ought yet appears never was in the world, for the se­cond, Hannah Flavell had been to make her the child of a father dead two or three years before she was born; for the last, Hannah Pordage if it were true, (as it is very possible) yet it was not safe as yet, as yet the times will not blaze it, there is a pure word wrested to a ranting sense viz. All things are lawfull, but not expedient.

Secondly, Consider that in open Court, Mrs Flavell ap­pearing and being demanded by thee Register what her name was, answered Mary Flavell, and being demanded the second time, gave the same answer, Mary Flavell, and being minded by the Register that surely she did forget her self, her name was Mary Frewin, she answered, Mary Fla­vell, or Mary Frewin which you please.

Thirdly, The child was often denied by her to be her child, and commonly taken for her neece, till it was disco­vered by Roger Loughton, at whose house the child was born, the timpany proving to be a daughter, whose testi­mony is uery considerable. the man being rationall, dis­creet, refusing all occasions of being tempted, for before his testimony was given in, the Dr with all his women sent for him to an Inne in Hounslow, but he refused, the next day be­ing Tuesday they came to his house at Heston, but he was gone to Branford, whether the Dr and his company went and inquired for his shop, where they found him, and would needs perswade him to go with them to the tavern to drink a pint of wine, he replyed, he had no body to look to his shop, the Dr told him he would give a boy sixpence to look to his shop in the mean time, he answered no, he was about his businesse, if they had any thing to say to him he would give them an answer there right, he thinks if he would have been so base as to have been tampered into silence, he might [Page 79] have had a round some of mony, This was to­ward the end of the last har­vest. the discovery is observable for these two providences in it.

First, The manner which was this, a plain country man of Bradfield went to Heston to see his brother living there, with whom, on the Lords day, he went to Haworth to hear the sermon, where also was this Roger Loughton, a frequent hearer there, after the evening exercise there were two chil­dren baptized, and all being finished by a providence, the country man of Bradfield, and his brother, and Roger Loughton, met and went home together, going in the way the country man began to discourse, and said to his brother, I have seen more to day then I have seen these two years, I have seen a child baptized, our Dr will not baptize, Roger Loughton not knowing who the man was, nor where he li­ved, asked his country, and his Drs name, the man told him Dr Pordage, at a place called Bradfield in Berks, Loughton smiled and questioned the man about Mrs Flavell, and how many children she had, the man replyed one, a boy named Stephen, and being asked whether she had not a daughter, was answered by the country man, no, never a child that we know of but only her boy Stephen, R. Loughton said, yes, she hath, and I knew when the Dr would baptize, for she was brought to bed at my house of a daughter, and the Dr came and baptized it himself, and called it Hannah.

Secondly, The second providence is the time when, and that was about a moneth before the Commissioners were authorized by the Ordinance; therefore whereas the Dr saith we rake in the grave of the dead, we reply the scan­dall was prosecuted as soon as it vvas discovered, there vvas not tvvo moneths respite betvveen the one and the other.

The rest of the articles contained in this third charge, be­ing most of them concerning the Drs visions, both of the Dr and the rest of his family, and others of his followers, and of their strange and unheard of apparitions, revelations, trances and raptures, converse with Angels both good and All principles and practises, tending to Ran­tisme, Diabo­lisme, Sorcery, and seducing of others. bad, shall not be here particularly distinguished, but for brevity sake put together as they were exhibited together [Page 80] with his answers thereunto, and the proofs together after­wards as followeth.

That he hath very frequent and familiar converse with Angels.

First, That a great Dragon came into his chamber, with a tail of eight yards long, four great teeth, and did spit fire at him, and that he contended with the Dragon.

Secondly, That his own Angel came and stood by him while he was expostulating with the Dragon, and that his Angel came in his own shape and fashion, the same cloathes, band and cuffs, the same banstrings, and that his Angel stood by him, and upheld him.

Thirdly, that Mrs Pordage and Mrs Flavell had their Angels standing by them also, Mrs Pordage singing sweetly, and keeping time upon her breast, and that her cbil­dren saw the spirits coming into the house, and said, Look there Father, and that the spirits did often come into the chamber, and drew the curtains when they were in bed.

Fourthly, That the said Mr Pordage confessed that a strong inchantment was upon him, and that the Divel did appear to him in the shape of Everard, and in the shap [...] of a fiery Dragon, and the whole roof of the house was ful of spirits.

Fifthly, That Mrs Margeret Pender acquainted wit [...] the doctrine of spirits, and pretended to be converted by visi­ons of Angels, and whose confession followeth, doth thin [...] that she was bewitched by them of Bradfield.

Her confession to Mr Fowler who penned it from her own mouth before witnesse.

She was taken ill upon Wednesday in the afternoon in July 1653. about nine a clock the same night, there ap­peared [Page 81] unto her the vision of a man standing at her beds feet, on Thursday the next day he had a book in his hand, and stood by her all that day and said nothing, on Fryday it spake, saying to her, why art thou so discomforted, she answered, a wounded conscience who can bear, he replyed, Observe how the Divell will speak Gospell for his own bloudy ends. he that hath wounded thee will make the whole, then she spake much of her own unworthinesse, he replyed there was worth in Christ, and he had paid a ransome for her, then he told her that that book in his hand was the book of the Lamb, and that her name was written in it, she saw the book, a broad book with a parchment cover, she saw wri­ting in it, and then was she Beware of false joy. lifted up with a great deal of joy.

About four a clock the same Fryday. the dark Angel came and stood by the other vision, with a knife in his hand, and said thou hast had a great deal of joy, and offering her the knife, bid her dispatch her self, and she should enter into that eternall rest her soul so much thirsted after, upon this she trembled, the bed shook, and her Mrs held her.

The same Fryday, she had visions presented upon the wall, she saw the world, and the resurrection of the dead, and the son of man appearing in the cloudes of heaven.

She saw clearly the vision of a friend of hers, of London, in her chamber at Southcott, her friend was much inclined to this way, she much wondred at it, and told Mrs Pordage of it, who answered her, alas so do we, we see abundance of those we never knew before, when once they come into our way.

On Saturday Dr Pordage came to her being sent for, and prayed in a very strange language, she did not very well un­derstand what he said, she heard him say, Lord, but nothing of Jesus Christ, but the abysse. and the bottomlesse eternity.

She heard a great noise of drums and trumpets, she ask­ed the Dr what the ratling of the drums and trumpets meant, he answered her, it was an alarme to the spi­rituall warr.

One of the nights she saw a vision of young Mr Daniel Blagrave, which came to her beds side, she took him by [Page 82] the hand, and it felt cold, she asked the Dr what it meant, he answered her that the coldnesse of the hand, did signifie his beginning to be cold to vanity.

She asked Dr Pordage what the visions meant she saw upon the wall, he answered that they durst not reveal one anothers visions, he did not question, but God would discover himself, and reveal wonderfull things to her.

She was from Wednesday noon till Munday noon, and did not eat one peice of bread, but some times drank a lit­tle water and sugar, and she saith she was not sick at all af­ter the first two houres, and when she was about to eat, she had a voice came to her viz, The Divell will do more then some Quakers, for he will quote the Scripture, but it is as some of them do, o deceive. we are not to live upon bread, but upon every word of God, and upon that voice she did not eat.

She saith that she hath oftentimes seen at London flashes of light in her chamber, and at last heard a voice which put her into a very great fear and sweat, saying to her, thou hast married a lump of clay, but thou must return to thy first husband, which is thy Saviour, thou must go to Joppa: And upon this she was convinced that these visions were of the Divell, because the voice was clean contrary to the Scriptures. she saith that she hath heard it reported at At Mr D. Brs where she then lived. Southcott, that ere long Dr Pordage should have power from on high to bestow saving graces on whom he pleased.

That Dr Pordage preached that water baptisme was not the ordinance of Jesus Christ.

That about Michaelmas in the year 1653 he was commanded by his Angel or from Heaven, to give off prea­ching and take no tithes, but since he conceives he hath had a dispensation.

That in July last 1654 he was to be taken up into hea­ven, and it is said by some, he hath been there, and dismis­sed again about his businesse.

That he cursed the people of Bradfield in the pulpit, and their posterity for euer, in this world, and in the world to come.

That he faith goodwife Pocock singeth the highest [Page 83] hymnes very sweetly, that she knoweth not a word when she begins, but is taken with a burning about her heart, and when she hath done she cannot repeat a word, if it were to gain the world.

That goodwife Pocock lately came to Collonell Evelyn, saying she had a word to him from God. viz. have nothing to do with that just man.

The testimony of Richard Seyward. September the 9. 1650.

I came into Bradfield Parsonage in the evening, and there I heard a very mournfull cry, as if it had been one in extreme paines, but who it was I knew not, but it continu­ed all the time that I was at the door, which was well near a quarter of an hour, and so it continued when I went away, and then the tenth day in the morning I came unto Mr Francis Pordage at the parsonage of Stanford Dingley, and he enquired of me what I did think of the noise that I heard, I told him I could not tell, then he related to me, the Lord was about a great work in this kingdom, and to this nati­on, and the cause of this cry was one in travell, and the pains were so extreme, that if I had stayed there but a little longer, I might have heard it as far as the town, but now she was delivered of a man-child, and the travell was at an end, and that he and others were eye witnesses of it.

That in Dr Pordages house in Bradfield, the new Jeru­salem hath been seen, to come down from heaven, all of precious stones, and in the new Jerusalem there was a globe, which globe was eternity, and in the eternity were all the Saints.

That at the said Drs house, the face of God hath been seen, not as Moses saw him, but the very face, as one man may see anothers.

That one being in the said Drs house in a trance, the said Drs daughter being by her, said that she saw two An­gels all in white, with crowns over her head.

Animad, 7.

The Dr pretends to, and now hath printed h [...]gh visions, and so high, that even by himself they are likened to the visions of Paul, and John in the Revelation, so far are they above the raptures and trances of John Becold, Matthias, and the rest in Germany.

He hath seen the world of Divells, evill spirits innume­rable, their order and government, he hath heard, felt, ta­sted, and smelt hell, in salt, sulphur, & that by amagicall tin­cturation, as his phrase is.

He hath seen the world of Angells, and of them without number, bright as the rayes, sparkling like diamonds, he hath tasted, and heard the dews of paradise, and h [...]rmonious mu­sick, his inward senses were opened to see the kingdom of glory, and there he saith he is, for his spirituall senses were never shut, nor shall be unlesse he return back into the earth­ly nature. pag. 77.

He saith this was given to him as an extraordinary favour from God, and this he speaks in high langu [...]ge, and swelling words, and now he hath a command from God to publish it, some persons are, and many more are like (specially if the Quakers proceed in every corner of the Land to make the people Antiscripturists, which is the great design of the Divell, for the Bible makes him a Quaker) we say many are like to cry up these visions, and cry out upon the ordi­nances of the Lord Christ.

The question is concerning their proceedure, whence are they: whether from God or from the Divell? we shall confesse with all willingnesse that if they be from God, vi­sions of the Lord, they are very admirable and extraordinary (as he calls them) besides the ordinary dispensations of God to his hidden ones, and let it be proved by the Dr or any of his in the world that they are such, we shall willing­ly confesse our selves to be persecuters, plunderers, theeves, lyons▪ (as he saith) and we trust we shall not be ashamed to give God the glory.

But if they be from hell, and diabolicall, then we say, the God of heaven did scarce ever permit Satan to act a cheat upon fallen man beyond this delusion of the Dr, we do not know (but it may be our ignorance we heartily confesse) any feigned storie of visions that come neer these, the 74, 75, 76, 77 pages of his book do exceed all of the Mahu­metans, Papists, Familists, old or new, & we cannot but look upon them. First, as tremendous judgements from God upon men, who are most righteously punished with believing lies, because they receive not the truth in the love of it. Se­condly, as wise providences for the tryall of others, of the chri­stian magistrate for the probation of his courage, zeal, and love to truth, and of the private christian for the tryall of his faith, that those that are approved may be made manifest. Thirdly, As a call from heaven to every one of us to keep close to Scriptures to labour for a sound scripturall know­ledge of the Lord Jesus, to love the truth for the truths sake, and to practise it for Christs sake, from his love, and for his glory.

The reader hath seen his blasphemies, we shall now de­sire his favour to consider and judge, what his apparitions, revelations, visions are, and what his mortification is, which was alwaies the pretence of cheates and deceivers; John of Leyden did much presse the people to mortification, and to a converse with God, the precious title of holynesse is assu­med by the Popes, even those that were conjurers, whore­mongers, dealers with the Divell, we shall speak of these in order.

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 [Page 116] 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 [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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 [Page 120] 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 [Page 121] 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, [Page 122] 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.

Animad. 9.

He offered to the Commissioners his protestation, which sounds orthodox. and since hath published it in print to the view of the world, beginning thus, I John Pordage do so­lemnly avow and protest, &c. pag. 91.

Animad. 10.

Upon this Doctors pretence of Holinesse, height of mortification, abstractednesse from the world, living on the tree in the midst of Paradise, &c.

Ans. This is not the way of Gods Saints: Abraham is dust and ashes, Jacob lesse than the least mercy. Job ab­hors hims [...]lfe, David cryes out, Lo [...]d who am I? Peter calls himselfe a sinfull man, and Paul, the least, lesse than the least of Sa [...]nts. Thus did not the Fathers or Martyrs boast of, but complaine against themselves. The richest Mines lye lowest, and the deepest rivers make the least noise. But he must praise himselfe, or else who will, that knowes God? and how how should he be like his pre­decessors, of ancient and later times? As

Simon Epiphan. contr. haer. pag. 18. Tom. [...]. lib. 1. Magus, a horrid blasphemer of Christ, a sink of filthiness and Lust, a man of very slender parts, and a shallow judgement, and so fell to deceive the people by Magicall tincturation (as the Doctor phrases it) he be­witched the people of Samaria.

This wretch gave out, that he was some great one, he called himself the power of God, and gave out, that he came downe from on high, and the people presently said so, even from the least to the greatest, they said, this man is the great power of God, Acts 8.10. yet Peter tells him, he was in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity ver. 23. he kept a Harlot whils he lived, and was brui ed to pieces when he dyed.

The false Apostles and Idem Haer. 31. pag. 56. Tom. 2. lib. 1. Gnosticks by what name soe­ver distinguished from their severall ring-leaders, how did they vaunt themselves as the knowing men of the world, and the spirituall ones, soaring in their notions? they had their mysticall stuffe, and unintelligible words, but very Caterpillars of Hell upon every green herbe, let the Gal. 3. Phil. 3. 2 Pet. 2. 1 John 2. Jude the whole Epistle. Apostles, Paul, Peter, John and Jude, be con­sidered, speaking their unerring judgement of them, they [Page 150] called them Witches, Dogs, ungodly, wanton, bruit-beasts, presumptuous, ignorant, cursed Children, Antichrists, Lyars, filthy Dreamers, despisers of Government, for whom is reserved the blacknesse of darknesse for ever.

This vaunting of heigths hath ever been the way of Heretiques, Epiphanius observed long since, that the Gnosticks of all sizes, and all the rest Dignitate &c. they boasted themselves with honourable titles, to convey their poysonous Doctrines, and Calvin of late, sub praetextu no­minis, &c. they labour to raise an esteem to themselves, and so to seduce the simple, under the pretence of sanctity.

Thus did Antonius Pocquius hear him speake for him­self as one raised of God in these Last dayes, thus, we are now taught of God, I understand nothing, for God is my understanding, thanks be to God by the spirit of reno­vation, I am raised from the Dead, I am quickned with Christ, called with Angels, I am past the Law, an heire of Immortality, our Soules are the secret dwellings of Divinity, the world is burnt up in me by fire, &c. You will say, what was this Pocquius? sure a holy man, yes, if you will take his own word, but heare what Mr. Furcifer, ne­bulo, impius, in­fal x, poreus, very often, Calv. Instr. ad. lib. cap. 23. his censure of Pocquius. Cal­vines censure was of this high-flown Meteor, this Sathan, transforming himselfe into an Angel of light.

Calvin terms him a rake-hell, a villain, ungodly, unlucky, a Swine, &c. yet Calvin was a man of singular patience and meeknesse, insomuch (as Epiphan. said of himselfe, that he did compell himself to write the blasphemy and fil­thiness of Heretiques for the good of future generations) so did he even force himselfe to rehearse the ungodly, and uncleane practises of the Libertines, to name their persons, and to set such deserved brands upon their names, for the glory of the Lord Jesus, and saving souls from being taken in the snare of the Devil.

David George of Delph, in the Netherlands, an Im­postor, a pattern both of detestable Heresies, and abomi­nable filthinesse, [...]parbemius in his naration of the Original of Sects, pag. 21. he gave himselfe out for the Christ of God, he called the Scriptures imperfect, nay, childish and carnall; he cozened his Disciples of their Money, [Page 151] he pretended persecution for the sake of Christ, (as this Doctor doth in his book) and although a man would think that no person could be so irreligious, or irrationall to entertain his horrid Doctrine, yet a very great mul­titude were seduced by this vile wretch, his meanes of seducing were these three: 1. A crafty way of instilling his opinion into others, creeping into mens mindes by little and little through subtile and wary insinuations, for he would not reveale his horrible mysteries, but to those who were totally his owne; 2. by counterfeiting a come­ly, majesticall kinde of countenance; but 3. and chief­ly by an outward shew of a holy life, and a mortified con­versation, and his frequent and seemingly M [...]re austere than any Gapu­cian, fasted three dayes to­gether. Ruther Sur. cap 4. fervent pouring out his prayers unto God; at last when his Vizard began to be torne from his face, by some of the Nether­lands, who knew him, who fled to Basil for succour, this wretch partly through the gnawings of a tormented con­science, and partly through fear of the civill Magistrate, pined away and died miserably, in the year, 1556.

Henry Nicholas, whose Blasphemies are justly ac­cursed to the pit of Hell, and whose secret whoredoms and filthinesse were at last detected, yet how did this man pretend austerity, holinesse, perfection? giving out in his gibberish, that he was anointed in the hoary age, of the ho­ly understanding, at the beginning he watched divers nights, and fasted, and prayed, and praised, and then came to visions, and thence to the Devill.

Faustus Socinus, that wretched Caitiffe, and incarnate fiend, who made it his businesse to confute that inve­terate figment, (as he calls it more then Satanically) of the Deity of Jesus Christ, yet this man also pretends much meekness & modesty, using towards those that did detest and oppose him, the sweet compellation of Brethren, and that in such a sweet way, (as many now adayes do language it toward blasphemers) he would commend Luther, Oecolampadius & others, and as it were by a side winde of their commendations, saile into the port of his own ample praises, he Dr. Cheynect rise and groath of Socianisms. pretended to be a reformer [Page 152] of the reformers, nay, of the reformation it selfe, he look­ed on other men, and gave it out amongst his Proselites, as low men (as the Doctor calls the Ministers of a narrow stamp) he saith that God in this last age intends to make many new and glorious discoveries, and slily intimates, as though he were the man ordained of God to erect the tem­ple of Christ: many more might be named, but these are too many, and truly we should admire at our own folly, in being so copious upon this subject, but that we cannot chuse but stand amazed at the indiscretion of many pro­fessors, especially in such a day of plentifull light, who doe unawares plead for, and give countenance to horrid Blasphemers, because they walke under the notion and shew of holinesse, and pretended mortification, as if we had no Bibles to informe us, that Wolves, devouring wolves should come in Sheeps cloathing, and false Prophets should carry their matters with so much speciousnesse, that they should bid faire, nay and should doe it too (if it were possible) namely deceive the very elect, the De­vill is never so much a Devill as when he is white, he knowes full well that he can doe nothing to any purpose for his owne Kingdome, but in that colour, we desire to have a raised esteem of the least dram of true holiness, we say that Rubies and all that can be named or imagined, are not comparable to it; we say as Luther, that one single gratious worke, is more worth than the whole world, onely it is a trouble to our Soules, to see people cheated into, and hardned in damnable opinions by such shewes and pretences: we believe there can be no reall holinesse, without the sound and right knowledge of Jesus Christ; we conclude this for these dayes, with that of Adversus Francisc. p. 570. Calvines in his dayes, they have mortification often in their mouths, but their mortification is this, viz. they have no sense of good or evill.

Animad. 11.

As to the Phrase and Language used by the Doctor, as for example:

The fiery Deity burning in the center of the Soule, the Godhead mingling it selfe with our flesh, the divine union, the divine transportation into the glory of the Majesty, p. 76. the essentiall essence of love, fixation in the love of the holy Ghost, divine tincturation, eyes fixed upon the being of love, the pure life of virginity, with many more. We de­sire the Reader to observe, that this hath been the guise of Blasphemers and Familists old and new.

Valentinus in his Mens in [...] ­b [...]lis magn [...] [...] [...]e in. b l [...]bilibus [...]nominatorum supersalestium. & Epiph l. 1. Tom. 2. Hae [...]. 3 [...]. Epistle begins high with swelling un­intelligible words, thus: The unabolishable mind to the in magnitude unabolishable, of unnameable supercelestiall se­crets I will make mention to you, with a fardell of nonsen­sicall stuffe of his males and females, and his triginta sae­cula. This Blasphemer was as errant too at Allegorizing as our Doctor; he proves his thirty Ages or Worlds most clearly by the Parable of the Labourers sent into the Vineyard, thus: Some were sent at the first houre, [...], These they cal­led wonderfull ineffable My­steri [...]s. some at the third, some about the sixt hour, others at the ninth, some at the eleventh houre. Now compute 1. 3 6. 9. 11. and these houres put together make thirty, and this a­mong his Sect was as cleare as the Sun to prove his tri­ginta saecula. Just as R. Higgs (one of the Doctors Dis­ciples and Witnesses) when one told him he could not beleeve Abrahams family in that Text to be his Family in him, viz. his will and affections, Oh said Higgs to him, It is cleare as the day, so that Pontius Pilate must con­demne Christ in us, and the Jews put him to death in us all very cleare. This Allegorizing and Quakerisme bids faire to drive the Scriptures out of the world, the very hopes whereof will make the damned Fiends keep Holy­day in Hell, when men thus abuse the Scripture, and be­witch the simple. It calls to our mind a saying of an An­cient, Whosoever speaks the Scriptures in another sense [Page 154] than he that wrote it, that man Austin de Doct. Chr. lib. 1. cap. 37. speaks a lie, though he speak the Scripture.

And againe, for this frothy language of Seducers: What Idem de Doct. Chr: lib. 4 c x. profit (saith he) is there in the sublimity of words, which are not understandable by the hearers? when there is no other cause of speaking, if they understand not what we speak, for whose sake we speak that they may understand; He that teacheth, should avoid all words that doe not teach.

Quintinistae peregrina, &c. the Velut cercula­tores & errones ex Bohemia. Cornicantur. Quintinists use a strange and uncouth language, with which they doe so chough it, that there is no more perspicuity in their words, than in the chanting of birds, and this they doe a malitiously to circumvent novices, [...]in adv. [...] cap. 7. [...]. 516. for they reveale not the mysteries of their abominations, which lay under the covert of their swollen language, but to their own, who are bound to them by Oath of Secresie, under these they lay hid like theeves in a thicket, their novices stand amazed at the sublimity of their words, which Peter and Jude compare to bubbles and froth. See more.

So H. Nicholas, thus, H. Rutherfords Survey Anti­christ, cap. 9. pag. 56. Nicholai, through the holy spirit of the love of Jesus raised by the highest God from the dead, anointed by the holy Ghost, in the old age of the holy understanding of Jesus Christ, illuminated with the spirit of heavenly truth, the true light of perfect be­ing godded with God, or the spirit of his love.

John Knew­stubb in his confutation of H. N.This form of writing is an evident note of a seducing spirit.

There are Quakers at Bodenham, who suffer extreme tortures of body, visible to the reporter, and many others, very often so extreme, that if God did not limit the Devill, their inwards would burst out, trembling and quaking in their agonies, as though their flesh would part from their bones, and ligatures, they call these The Quakers blazing star, by Edmund Skippe, teacher at Bodenham. pag. 22. agonies the fiery triall, and they say it is the power of the Holy Ghost burning up and destroying their corruptions, purifying them as gold tryed by the fire seven times.

They tell you how much joy and pleasure they have [Page 155] mixed with their torment that they could wish to be in it even for ever and ever.

This they call the drinking of the Cup, the undergoing the wrath and curse of God, as Christ did, most blasphe­mously, and say they must be brought to suffer as Christ did, untill there is nothing left them but the pure seed of God. Thus reckoning as far as I can determine (saith he) by their words, that upon this account they must be Just like the Doctor, not by the saplesse righteousnesse of another, but the fiery deity burning in the center of the soul: ju­stified before the Lord. This testimony is unquestionable, because of an eye-witnesse and eare-witnesse, Like to be seduced into this way by Sathan, but delivered out of it by the Lord Christ.

The Quakers at Reding had the same language of Christ suffering death from the eternall Love, and the holy Ghost burning up their lusts, and what were these but Blasphe­mers, saying,

• 1. Your Ministers tell you, that Christ died for your sins, if so, then you may live in them.
• 2. That the Scriptures were not the Word of God.
• 3. That Solomon was a foole, for saying, To every thing there is a season, Eccles. 3.1, 2.

And this is their common principle, but the times wil not yet bear it.

Thus Cal. ad Lib. cap. 9. pag. 519. Quintinus, Porcus ille unumquemque Apostolo­rum aliquo scommate notavit vacans, Paulum vas fractum, Joannem juvenem stolidum, Petrum abnegatorem Domi­ni, Matthaeum foeneratorem. We are loth to English it.

Animad. 13.

Upon the Doctors pretended great Temptations by se­verall applications of the Devills to him, in the shape and cloaths of Everard, and of a Gyant with a Sword in his hand, and a great tree lying by him, and a great red Dra­gon, with red Eyes, and Teeth, and a long Taile, pag. 73. of his books, for three weeks together.

Observe that temptations of Satan, are either ordinary or extraordinary.

[Page 156]1. Ordinary are injections to ordinary sins, as Sathan tempted David to number the people, and the Devill entred Judas to betray the Lord Christ, these are fre­quent and hardly discernable from our own lusts, and therefore in this case it is the truest, and safest course, to lay all the blame upon our own Soules: let no man by the way of extenuation say, that when he is tempted, he is tempted of the Devill, his striking fire could never harme us, were it not for the tinder, and lint of our own base hearts; thus did David, I have sinned (saith he) and I have done exceeding foolishly; Nay, thus did Judas, I have sinned in betraying innocent blood, and thus doe the Damned in Hell, let us doe it as David did, Graci­ously.

2. Extraordinary, and these are of three sorts,

1. Of Blasphemy, & such as is not to be named, against God, Christ, the holy Spirit; Saints thus tempted, would not in cool blood consent to such a thought for 1000. worlds, one of the best wayes in this case is, the more they are tempted to Blaspheme, the more to lift up God in his glory, and to magnifie him infinitely above all, so to beat the Devills weapon down upon his owne head. Though they finde a pronenesse in their nature, some­times to close with such temptations, yet this they gain by it, even to hate their owne base nature.

2. Of violence to lay violent hands upon our selves, or our relations, & this also is very terrible, and will make a man sweat for fear, and ask a Saint in this case, or let him ask his own heart, whether he would doe such a thing or no, and he would tell you no; he would rather choose to be torn in pieces with wilde Horses, or be buried alive than doe it, and yet it is so violent, that they will say sometimes they must doe it. The Lord keep such from the evill one.

3. Ʋnreasonable temptations, as that a man is not the same person he was, that he must shew himselfe as guilty of some notorious fact of which he never was guilty, with many more; there are many Saints goe to Heaven, that never [Page 157] feel them, and those that doe feel them, God makes them gainers by them exceedingly; some learne more in this School, than by any books in the world, the De­vill is but Gods Scullion: incomparably better it is, to live under these temptations, though for the present grievous, than to enjoy in a state of since, all the plea­sures and treasures of a 1000. worlds: the frownings of a Father are better than the kisses of an enemy: the bit­terest Physick, how much better is it than the sweetest poyson? by these sullyings and besmearments of dark temptations, God makes the vessels of mercy to shine the brighter. The Lord Christ out-shoots the De­vill in his owne bow; what he intends for the greatest mischief, Christ converts into a soveraigne good; Blessed be God.

But now this Doctor doth not tell us in the least what his temptations were, of what kinde they were, nay in his book he saith nothing (where he had a fit opportunity to declare himselfe) of temptations, but of a conflict between him and a great Dragon, and that he was as­sisted by the Angels, and pag. 76. he saith, the great conflict was between the dark world, and the Devils thereof, afflicting them with dreadfull shapes, poysonfull smells, and the light world, and the Angels thereof, relieving them with odoriferous perfumes, Angelical harmony, &c.

We deny not but God may suffer the Devill to appear to a Saint, but first it is very rare; secondly, such Saints have been Gods reall ones; thirdly, if so, yet not to fight and contend with Satan mouth to mouth; fourthly, for a short time, not twenty dayes together; fifthly, they have not an Angel standing by them in their own shape to support them: the battell of Saints is within, which through grace they fight with spirituall weapons under their Captain the Lord Christ, through whom they are more than conquerors: as he hath conquered for them by his death, so he doth conquer in them by his spirit.

The Doctor in his answer to these Articles, concerning apparitions, quoted with much confidence the Lord [Page 158] Lawrence as a friend to this way, he must quote him to this purpose, or to no purpose, and indeed therefore to no purpose, because to this purpose, that learned Gen­tleman saith nothing (that we can find) towards it, the hearers much admired, and his favourites much simpred at the naming of such an eminent person; if he be not of the Sure this ho­nourable and Leraned Man is not for a vi­sible converse with Angels, nor the appari­tions of Devils in the shape of Giants, Dra­gons, Villains, in order to temptations. Doctors judgement, why did he abuse him to name him before the Commissioners and the Country? if he be, why did not he prove it in his Printed Book? in this indeed he was tempted to deceive.

The truth is, (the Articles and Depositions in the Re­lation considered) the result of all his pretended temp­tations will be this, that the Devils spitting fire at him, and other Devils under the notion of Angels supporting him, was to this purpose, That by this meanes he might more deceivingly and plausibly spit fire at Jesus Christ, which the Doctor hath done both before and since his Apparitions and Visions; and therefore his quoting for his defence, the temptations of the Lord Christ, Mat. 4. is wicked, and borders upon Blasphemy; and his quoting of Job, (Job 6.4.) is very impertinent and ignorant. Job saith in that Text, The Arrows of the Almighty stick in me, and the venome thereof drinketh up my spirits, by Ar­rows figuratively we are to understand afflictions inward and outward, which like Arrows were upon, and in that holy man, swift, sudden, sharp, secret, wounding affli­ctions, described, 1. By the Efficient, The Arrows of the Almighty: 2. By the Effect, They did heat and burnt up his spirits. What is this to the sight of a great Dra­gon, with a long taile, and great teeth?

Animad. 13. Ʋpon his high Appeale to God, p. 112.

Concerning his Appeale to God, we professe that when we considered the solemnnesse of an Appeale to the most high God, of what an important and serious nature [Page 159] an Appeale is in it self, and considered the principles and practices of this Doctor, we could hardly perswade our selves to reade it; and when we did, we were astonished to reade such swelling words, as to his owne holinesse, and his great persecution for righteousnesse; but this also in an evill cause is not a new thing, we will instance in one, and that is Sir The Narra­tive of King James, Printed by M. Sparks pag. 148. Jervas Yelvis, when he was arraigned in the businesse of Sir Thomas Overbury, he made solemne Ap­peales to God, and deep protestations of his Innocence; yet after the Sentence, he confessed his guilt in the Tower, and upon Tower-hill gave as large a testimony of sound repentance and reall hearty sorrow, as few Histories can shew the like, and lamented that sin of protesting and ap­pealing in particular. That which we would have the Reader to consider, is, what Judge Crooke said to him at the Bar, when he did call God to witnesse, and protest, Sir, (said the Judge) It is not your deep Protestations, nor your high Appeals to God, that can sway the Evidence gi­ven upon Oath unto the Jury.

We have not named this Gentleman to blemish him for his sin, but to shew what dangerous courses guilt, and feare through guilt will put men upon to blind the world, and save themselves: and we have mentioned his great repentance, not so much for his honour, as the Doctors imitation, that he (if God please) may doe like­wise and not to be as V [...]hementisi­mis & diris de­votionibus per salutem & dam­nationem animae omnia verissima esse d [...]jerabat. Camd. An. par. 4. pag. 35. Hacket, who boasted of his temp­tations from the Devill, and his revelations from God, with the highest oathes and protestation, that they were all most true, when indeed they were all starke false.

Animad. 14.

Toward the Vindication of the Commissioners, from the unmortified tongue of this pretendingly mortified Doctor.

1. He excepts against Mr. Dunch, and why, because Mr. Dunch looked upon him as worse than a Felon, and asked him how he durst to deny the God-head of Iesus Christ? this was before the Ordinance came forth for ejection.

Answ. A savory Speech from a Religious, Zealous Gentleman, our Soules desire that of his owne Order he had more company in his Gospell-Zeale which is ac­cording to knowledge; pray how did Saint Paul looke on the false Apostles, who did not arrive to that height of expresse Blasphemy as you have done in any pro­portion? did not he look upon them as witches? How did Peter look upon the Gnosticks, when he called them cursed children, going in the way of cursing Balaam? How did Polycarpus look upon Marcion, when he called him the first begotten of Sathan? or Constantne upon Arrius, when he named him the Image of the De­vill?

How doe you thinke the Senat of Bazil looked on David George, when they did execution upon his bones, and burned them to ashes? How did the Senat of Gene­va, look upon Servetus a Spaniard, a Blasphemer of the Son of God, when they burnt him? pouring out his Soul in the midst of his Blasphemies in the very fire, and this was done by the advise of Calvin, Oecolampadius, Me­lancthon, and the Churches of Helvetia.

How did the Senate of Berne look on Valentine Gent. they arraigned him, and sentenced him to Death for his Blasphemies against the Lord Jesus, and the Sentence was executed upon him? Aretius tells us he dissembled at the very place, nay, at the very point of Execution; and when they were ejecting him out of the world (as you did when you were ejected out of your living) he boast­ed, se pro gloriâ altissimi pati, that he suffered for the glory of the most high God: did not the Senate look upon him as bad as a Felon? to come neerer. How did Queen Elizabeth look upon Hacket think you, a Bla­sphemer of the Lord Christ, when he was hanged and quartered, and whereas commonly people at such a spectacle are compassionate, now by the hearing of the Blasphemies of this Seducer upon the Ladder, as soon as the Ladder was turned (as Multitudine postulante de­mittitur, exente­ratusque mem­bratim disseca­tur. Annal. par. 4. Cambden tells us) they cut him down, and pulled out his very heart.

When Gortyn and his crew had vented these three things especially, in New-England;

• See the History of New-Eng­land, pag. 186. Anno 1643.
  1. That Christ was no otherwise borne, than in the heart of Believers, and that he and his were perso­nally Christ.
• 2. That Ordinances were but Silver shrines, made for Diana.
• 3. His disowning of, and contempt against the civill Magistrate.

How did many of these godly Magistrates look upon them there? how did Mr. Cotton publickly and privately presse the Magistrate, not to suppresse their Doctrines only, but to punish them as Malefactors; Nay, Mr. Wilson an [Page 165] humble, tender, meek-hearted man, did professe, that if the Magistrate should condemne them, he would be the first man should throw the first stone at them.

How did the Magistrates in England look on Prefat. Barth. Legat. Ob nefandos errores Hareses, & de­testandas Bla­sphemias, & ex­ecranda Dogma­ta: the Kings writ to the She­riffe of London: the Narrative of King James by M [...] Sparke, Printed, 1651. at the latter end. Barth: Legat of London for these Blasphemies amongst many others?

• 1. That Christ was not God.
• 2. That there were no Persons in the Trinity.
• 3. That Christ was not God from everlasting, but began to be God at his Incarnation.
• 4. That the Apostles did teach Christ to be Man onely.
• 5. That Christ was not to be prayed unto.

Who for these Heresies was convented, condemned, and burnt in Smithfield, Anno 1611.

How did they look upon Super refandis haeres. C [...] inthi, Vale tiniani. Arrii, M [...]cedo­nii Sim: Magi, Man. King James hi [...] W [...]it to the Sheriffe of the County, ubi supra. Edward Wightman of Bur­ton upon Trent, who was likewise arraigned, sentenced, and burnt at Litchfield for these blasphemous opinions:

• 1. That Jesus Christ was not the true naturall Son of God.
• 2. That Jesus Christ was a meere Creature.
• 3. That the holy Ghost is not God.
• 4. That he the said Edward Wightman is that person spoken of in Deut. 18.18. (I will raise them up a Prophet.)

How did the Parliament in 1643. look upon the de­nyers of the Divinity of our Lord Christ, Anti-Scripturists, &c. but as felons, and worse than felons?

How did the last Parliament in 1654. three months since, look upon Biddle and Tawney, reprochers of the Lord Jesus and the blessed Spirit, and Scriptures, but as Felons? Some doe think that they had looked upon them so, that in case of their pertinacy, no man should have looked upon them in these Nations for some yeares; had not the Session been concluded by the expiration of their time. They declared their judgment by the commitment [Page 166] of their bodies to the common Gaole, and by burning Biddles book by the hand of the Executioner, in London and Westminster.

Nay above all these, and which is the ground of these, How doth God look on Blasp [...]emers and Idolaters, read Deut. 13.7, 8, 9, 10. Here are two things observable.

1. It is evident, the Civill Sword was appointed as a remedy against Blasphemy: And

2. That it was the appointment of Jesus Christ, the Angel of Gods presence, whom the Jews tempted in the Wildernesse, 1 Cor. 10.9. and therefore it is not true that the Lord Christ never appointed the Civill Sword as a remedy in the case of Blasphemy, for he did expresly appoint it in the Old Testament, and he never did abro­gate it in the New. The reason of the Law (which is the life of Law) is of eternall equity, viz. Because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, ver. 9, 10. If Magistrates be the Ministers of God in the New Te­stament, (as they are called Rom. 13.4.) and Ministers to punish evill doers, then surely either this is no evill, viz. to seek to thrust away Gods people from him, or else the Ma­gistrate is to execute vengeance on such, as evill doers, non datur tertium. Godly Magistrates of old did take care for the soules of the people, and they did it, not as types of Christ, but as servants of Christ; for if they did it as types of Christ, then that care is utterly abolished, and this very Ordinance by which the Dr is ejected, would be as unlawfull as to offer Sacrifice, &c. which how irreli­giously absurd is it?

That saying of the King of Persia may deserve the thoughts of Christian Magistrates, Whatsoever is com­manded by the God of heaven for the house of God, let it be done diligently, for why should there be wrath against the King and his sons? Ezra 7.13.

We desire the Reader to observe,

1. That God from Heaven, and Magistrates of all forms, as Emperors, Kings, Queens, free States, Parli­aments, have looked upon Blasphemers, Seducers, as bad, [Page 167] nay, worse than Felons, and these assisted by the advice of godly able Ministers of the Gospell, and these too of all formes. Episcopacy, Presbytery, Independency.

Object. Then was then, and now is now.

Answ. We doe foresee this objection, because we doe converse with it, are well acquainted with it, the cryers up of a Toleration, The whore of Babylons back-doore, (as Master Cotton calls it) use to speak much to this purpose. But we say,

1. If the power of the Civill Magistrate in the things of God and Jesus Christ were a truth then, it is a truth now, (the righteousnesse of Gods Testimonies is everlasting) unlesse they can produce a repeale from God, and they may read till their eyes drop out of their head, before they will find that, as we beleeve.

2. For our parts we would not stand at the Barre of Christ with this guilt upon our hearts, sc. of exempting of the Civill Magistrate in the case aforesaid, That Reli­gion may look to it selfe if it will, if she will have a nursing Father and Defender, she may seek them: we would not thus be guilty for the gaine of the whole world.

3. Our thoughts are, that this objection will not be able to lift up its face, but would think it a friendly office to be buryed under some rock or mountaine at the day of Christs appearing with all his Saints.

But to proceed.

The next Commissioner taxed by the Doctor is Ma­ster Trapham, and that first, for the meannesse of his in­tellectuals. What a bold man is this to censure men, and his Superiours, knowing men, and conscientious? But of this before.

2. For his Passion, & why? because he said, he could as wil­lingly run his sword into the bowels of such a Blasphemer, as into the bowells of a common enemy, a shrewd crime in­deed: why Doctor, is not Blasphemy against God a grea­ter evill than Enmity amongst men? the words to any sober understanding can amount to no more than this, that Mr. Trapham is more heartily and zealously bent a­gainst [Page 168] the Enemies of Iesus Christ, than against his owne Enemies, and the exercises of Civill liberty, that he is more a Christian than an English Man: Mr. Trapham saith to you, as Mr. Dunch did, How durst you be so wicked as to deny the God-head o [...] Jesus Christ? The Devill durst not do it, nay did the clean contrary, Mark 5.7. Iesus the Son of the m [...]st high God torment me not. The Socinians, Familists, Quakers, doe out dare and out doe the De­vill.

The next is Mr. Cook of Wallingford, indeed his charge is high, but as false as falsity, the Doctor charges him, 1 for a supplanter of Mr. Wyer, 2. that this Mr. Wyer suplanted is a godly man.

1. For his supplanting, the naked truth is, that the businesse concerning a Minister for Wallingford, was made known to his Highnesse the Lord Protector, who was pleased to refer it to Mr. Caryl, Mr. Peters, Mr. Lockier, who according to his Highnesses order met, and upon hearing on both sides, after two houres de­bate did apprehend, and accordingly did order Master Pickney to be the fitter man to be Minister of Walling­ford, and Mr. Wyer after some convenient time to remove; A Copy of this Order we have seen, and this the Dr calls subtile supplanting, and that the Godly party look upon it so.

2. As for Mr Wyers godlinesse, we wish it so, we are sorry that we are forced to write what he hath delivered, viz. that the Death of Iesus Christ is not the procuring cause of Mans Salvation, a Doctrine toto coelo, inconsist­ent with reall godlinesse, or any one duty of it.

Object. The Man is known to be a blamelesse man.

Answ. Tell us not of that, a man may be without Crime, and without Christ, nay, Antichristianisme, it is common case now adayes, if his life, or any mans life whatever, in the guilt of such a Blasphemy, should out-dazle the holinesse of an Angell, yet we will not stick to say, that there can be no Salvation, he that will goe to Heaven out of Gods way, must enter in without Gods leave.

The next is, Mr. Nutkins, who is reproached by the Doctor for blinde Zeale and rigidnesse of Spirit; A most unjust and false accusation: the man is a man of eminency for knowledge, piercing into the Scripture, Soundnesse and Piety; a man fearing God above many, a long stan­der, and a great proficient in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and one of those (happy man he) that loves the truth for the truths sake, and our Lord Jesus in sincerity.

The last that were present, but not named, are Master Stroud, and Major Fincher, whom this Doctor calls more moderate than the rest, yet their hands were to the Sentence: we reply yea, and their hearts too, and we believe that they would go from one end of the County to the other upon their bare feet, (rather than it should not be done) to rid the Souls of people from such a Blasphemer, to whom they give no thanks at all for his seeming commen­dation.

The last Commissioner named by him, but not present, is Colonel Arth: Evelyn, a person of Conscience and Honour, whom the Doctor calls, A chief contriver of the designe against him, and that he set the wheel of others Zeal and false Passion in motion, and that he prejudiced him in London and the Country, telling all he met, that he was abominable and monstrous, &c.

Ans. As for designes we are not in the least consci­ous of any, unlesse it were a design to advance the good of Soules, and to vindicate the fundamentalls of the e­everlasting Gospell, from the tongues of Blasphemy and Lewdnesse: as for this Gentlemans driving on a designe, and setting others on worke, and telling all he met, that the Doctor was abominable, here are three untruths in a breath, not one sentence true, no not one. 'Tis confessed, that he hath said to some, that this Doctor was an un­worthy, false, ignorant man, before he was sentenced, in which he spake his knowledge, and he looks upon his ejection, as an act of justice in God, and an act of con­science for God, in the Commissioners, and a good mer­cy from God to the Countrey.

We cannot conceive what design this Gentleman is in a capacity to entertaine against this Doctor upon any selfe account (as this man insinuates) as though his eje­ction were not justice, but some Plot, we doe really as­sure our selves, that the Commissioners can truly rejoyce that their proceedings were not in fleshly wisdome, but in singlenesse and sincerity in this businesse, and so long as they have rejoycing in themselves, they doe not regard the censure of others, they know the praises of men can­not cure or cool the Conscience in point of guilt, nei­ther can the strife and reviling of tongues, in the least di­sturb the Conscience in point of uprightnesse, it mat­ters not what all the world saith, so God speak peace: onely they take notice, that

It was very unrighteous, and unconscionable & daring in this blown-up Dr, to speak evil, and that so publickly of his superiors: we doe not believe that any of those great Friends of his (with the frequent report of whom we poore Countrey people are amused) would ever incou­rage him to, or will support him in these unjust practises; we believe it is, and desire it may be farre from them; we believe he made more bold to vent his spleen upon the account of his friends, out of his owne presumption, than ever he will have thanks for his labour.