Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	father_n	person_n	trinity_n	2,522	5	9.8786	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90861	Innocencie appearing, through the dark mists of pretended guilt. Or, A full and true narration of the unjust and illegal proceedings of the commissioners of Berks, (for ejecting scandalous and insufficient ministers) against John Pordage of Bradfield in the same county. In which he is justly vindicated from the unjust and horrid aspersions of blasphemy, divelism or necromancie, scandal in his life, and all things else falsly objected against him by his enemies. Published for the clearing of truth, and the detecting of malice and subtilty, and for the prevention of all mispprehensions that may be caused by any scandalous pamphlets, and false relations of the proceedings in his case. As likewise for the information of all sober-minded Christians touching his judgement in many things of high concernment, and particularly concerning chastity, virginity, apparitions of spirits, visions, communion with the holy angels, the invisible worlds, magistracy, &c. / Written by the said John Pordage.	Pordage, John, 1607-1681.	1655 (1655)	Wing P2967; Thomason E1068_7; ESTC R210422	152,492	125

my relating to some that were wise and knowing what I heard from another with much grief to my soul makes me any way culpable or guilty Art 3. That the bloud of Christ was not meritorious of any mans salvation Ans I call heaven and earch to witness that such thoughts never entred into my soul nor did such words ever come out of my mouth For my judgement ever hath been and still is that the bloud of Christ is satisfying reconciling cleansing bloud that it is interceding redeeming meriting bloud in relation to all those who through faith and patience come to inherit eternal life Art 4. That it was a poor thing to live upon the bloud of Christ and fetching it over again in a contemptuous kind of speaking Pish said he thou art a babe thou knowst nothing to live upon the bloud of Christ is a poor thing 1. Part. Ans I acknowledg that about four years since such expressions were uttered by me to one Mrs. Grip but without any such intent as may be supposed by my accusers and not with that circumstantial aggravation of repeating it in a contemptuous manner which is but a supposition of my adversary and cannot be attested by an Oath without this Witness pretends infallibly to know my thoughts and purposes 2. Part. Ans Again this being spoken to a particular person on a particular occasion might be true if the circumstances of the discourse were accordingly added though as here presented it seems very monstrous 3. Part. Ans Therefore to make things clear I shall here insert some particular circumstances which may present this Article though in a new yet true face I coming to Mrs. Grips house she took me into a private room to have some conference with me alone where she brake forth into a violent passion of tears weeping and wringing her hands and pouring sorth bitter complaints and invectives against Mr. Fowler as that he was a graceless man a Lyer a Slanderer not worthy to come up into a Pulpit or to have the name of a Minister of Christ with other such bitter expressions The cause of which was as she then told me Mr. Fowlers reporting about that she then lived in Adultery and after her passion was somewhat allayed she brake forth into these or such like expressions of high assurance Christ hath loved me and dyed for me and justified me by his bloud from all guilt of sin I am an elect person a justified person and what is this Fowler to charge sin upon me These and other expressions fell from her to this purpose from some of which I feared she was drenched with Antinomianism and told her more then once it was a poor thing to live upon the bloud of Christ and to look so much upon that except she had the nature of Christ and the Spirit of Christ asking her where was the meekness of Christ and the patience of Christ to suffer as an innocent lamb quietly but still she crying out she lived on the bloud of Christ I told her it was a poor thing to be thus exalted with notions of the bloud of Christ without mentioning sanctification and those holy graces which flow from Christs nature dwelling in the soul Now by these expressions of mine my scope was to make Mrs. Grip see the necessity of sanctification and of a pure and holy life and not to make void the blessed effect of the bloud of Christ applyed according to the mind of God and the true meaning of the Scripture And now having related the circumstances as near as I can remember I believe a sober and knowing Christian will not judge me either scandalous or ignorant for these expressions Art 5. That one speaking to me of the glorious persons in the Trinity I replyed pish there is no such thing as persons in Trinity 1. Part. Ans I doe here profess and avow from the sincerity of my heart That I believe the Trinity of persons as an Article of my faith viz. That there are three persons distinct from each other the person of the Father the person of the Son the person of the Holy Ghost yet not so as to prejudice the unity in essence and I so believe the unity as not to confound the Trinity of persons 2. Part. Ans I never uttered such expressions in that way as to give any just ground of suspition of my denying the Trinity But I remember about four years since being before the Committee of Berks Mr. Fowler or Mr. Gilbert I remember not which desired the Committee to give them liberty to ask me two or three questions amongst the rest they asked me whether there were three persons in the Deity I answered them I believed the Trinity as it is recorded in 1 John 5 7 There are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Thus you see I believe the Trinity But doe you believe the Trinity of persons said they I replyed I find not the term Persons in the Text but to put you out of doubt I do not stumble at the word Person And this afterward I told to the above-mentioned Mrs. Grip in a private conference some years since to whom I affirmed that I found no such expressions as persons in Trinity in the Scripture and that the word Person being a School-term was very difficult to be apprehended by common capacities but I never spake thus to prejudice the true notion of the persons in the sacred Trinity which I do cordially believe but only to shew that ordinary Christians should not be too curious in prying into that deep mystery of the three persons in the Trinity but rather content themselves with what the Scripture plainly affirms of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as distinct yet one But to conclude this Answer pray consider what hard measure it is thus to pick a broken sentence out of a long discourse and so to accuse one without relating the circumstances which might serve to clear what otherwise may seem very strange to prejudiced persons Art 6. That it was a weakness to be troubled for sin Ans I do not remember that any such expression as this ever dropped from my mouth either publiquely or privately and I am perswaded that none one dare assert it with an oath which if they did would not make much to the purpose for with a charitable qualification it might thus be made forth That 't is a weakness for one to be troubled for sin who hath the assurance of Gods love his sin pardoned his person justified sanctified and his will converted from and crucified to sin for such a one should be triumphing in the power of faith and love enjoying sweet heavenly communion with God and saying O death where is thy sting and there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Whereas trouble for sin thus pardoned and mortified may be an engine of Satan

there was no u Mr. Tickle swearing this so peremptorily it is not for me to contend whether this word Father were in or not it b●●●ng so long ago but this I pro●●●● as in the sight of God that I so understood it and do still believe it and if it were not it was that mistake which was the growed of the dispute such expression of the Father used in the definition of blasphemy as is mentioned in the Doctors answer but saith that the definition was That blasphemy was an evil speaking against God derogating from his glory either in his name nature word or works Mr. Tickle further affirms that my immediate words thereupon were Hark he answereth Blasphemy is an evil speaking against God and in his Paper chargeth me with blasphemy against Christ as if Christ were God And hereupon we began a hot dispute about the God-head of Christ The Reader must here know that upon Mr. Tickles defining Blasphemy to be an evil speaking against God the Father as I then really apprehended I immediately cryed out Hark he defineth blasphemy to be an evil speaking against God the Father and in his Paper chargeth me with blasphemy against Christ who is God the Son Whereupon began a dispute in reference to which Mr. Tickle further deposeeth That he asked the Doctor if Christ were God who did did a I never denied him to be God but as God is taken for the person of the Father deny it and put the Deponent upon b This was a work of supererrogation in which Mr. Tickle proved what I never intentionally denied but this he earnestly did to make the Auditors believe that I denied the Godhead of Christ proof of the same whereupon he cited that Scripture In the beginning was the word c. To which the Doctor replyed He is called God but he is not c When ever I said Christ was not Jehovah I meant as it is taken for the Fathers person and this in reference to Mr. Tickles definition of blasphemy Novemb. 22. Jehovah To which the Deponent replyed He is Jehovah which the Dr. likewise put him upon proof of to which he answered that Scripture His name shall be called Jehovah our righteousness and as he remembers the Dr. did disallow of that proof as being out of the old Testament to which he cited that Scripture He that was is and is to come as of the same purpose with Jehovah T is well that Mr. Tickle adds according to his best remembrance which saves him from perjury for I esteem the old Testament to be Scripture as well as the new neither did I disallow of that proof as being taken thence as he would insinuate but I said that Jehovah in the old Testament most commonly signified the Person of the Father But now we shall pass to the next Witness Thomas Trapham one of the Commissioners sworn and examined deposeth That to his remembrance the word Father was not in Mr. Tickles definition of Blasphemy and that the Dr. did then d It was no wonder that Mr. Trapham mistook me being of so fierce a spirit as he is which he shewed when he deposed this by openly relating that he told the Committee before whom I was them examined that he could as willingly run his sword upon which he then as he said clapt his hand into the bowels of such as I was as into the bowels of a common enemy Now whether such 〈◊〉 are fit to be Judges let wise Christians judge deny Christ to be God which the Deponent did acquaint Mr. Blagrave with to which Mr. Blagrave said If he say Christ is not God we must take further course with him To which the Doctor replyed Christ is not Jehovah and that when Mr. Tickle had confuted him in that Argument I must now tell the whole truth the Dr. replyed he was not God the Father Note This was rather a confutation of Mr. Tickles own apprehensions concerning me then of my meaning in what I then spake and if he swears truely that the term Father was not in his definition then as he mistook me I mistook him upon which mistakes his needless proofs were grounded But now to the next Mr. Roger Stephens of Redding sworn and examined November 22. deposeth That the Dr. did confess in the Deponents hearing in a Sermon That Christ was not Jehovah Note Before I proceed any further I cannot but desire all sober Christians to take notice what a bitter and envious spirit this Deponent is of which will appear by what follows After his before expressed Depositions I put these Interrogatories to him 1. Where did you hear me Preach this To this he replyed In a Sermon at St. Lawrence's Church 2. I asked him before whom He answered Before the Committee of Berks. 3. I demanded of him how I explained my self when in the Sermon I affirmed openly That Christ was not Jehovah He replyed He did indeed explain himself thus That he had said that Christ was not Jehovah in e This Mr. Stevens delivered with this addition and see what sense this is not understanding that there is oppositio relativa even between the persons in the Trinity For Iehovah taken for the Father is not Iehovah as taken for the Son for then there were no personal distiction which there is and so a relative opposition which much troubled Mr. Stephens as he then expressed opposition to the Father Note here the Reader must know that this Sermon was delivered at Redding by the appointment of the Committee before which we had the dispute about the Godhead of Christ in which Sermon I openly cleared my self from that dismal aspersion of denying the Godhead of Christ which so satisfied the Committee that upon this they judged me innocent in that particular and by vote cleared me And now considering the scope of my Sermon at that time together with the Deponents Deposition viz. That he heard me in a Sermon confess that Christ was not Jehovah without adding any more to shew how I said it till I cross-examined him I say weighing these well together the judicious Reader cannot but see this Deponents envie and partiality and unfitness to take Oath or be much regarded after Oath who swearing to speak all the truth dares yet take one sentence out of a whole discourse without adding any further explanation of it to make the Commissioners believe that I accused my self of blasphemy at that time when my whole scope was to vindicate my self from the undeserved imputation of it Now I shall present you with the Depositions and Evidence given in on my behalf touching the eighth and ninth Articles viz. That Christ is not God and That Christ is not Jehovah BUt in the first place I referr you to my Answer to these Articles in which you may see the occasion of the discourse before the Committee touching the Godhead of Christ and that I never owned any such monstrous Positions as That Christ is

this Deposition what is further to be added to give the Reader more light to judge both of the Article and Deposition Is this NOt to speak any thing of the levity and rashness of this woman which is well known to the Inhabitants of Reading and may make her Testimony the less to be valued She in her rash denyal of the Circumstances of my Answer confidently spake a known untruth upon her Oath and so made her self guilty of open perjury Whereupon when I came to make my Defence To invalidate her Testimony I presented four witnesses who were ready upon oath to prove her perjured The first of these was one Mr Richard Stockwel esteemed by all moderate persons that know him to be a sober and pious Christian Although he was excepted against by Mr Fowler the Accuser as an Erberist as this subsequent deposition sheweth f Though Accuser yet here admitted as a witness against my witness Mr Stockwell offered openly in the court to prove Mr Fowler a lyer and as to his Deposition perjuted But they would not hear him Mr Fowler being sworn as to his knowledge of Mr Stockwell deposeth that he conceives the said Stockwell is an Erberist because that when the Deponent being charged to be a slanderer of him did offer to make a publike Recantation and to confess himself to be a slanderer in case the said Mr Stockwell would deny the Doctrine and Opinion of Mr Erbery which he refused Notwithstanding which the Commissioners would examin him if the Dr would ask him any material question but doe not think fit to exaamin him to their a i. e. The Clerks due of undue taking of them who here omitted a weighty circumstance due or undue taking of Mr. Grips Examination which the Dr. insisteth on Now let the Reader judge whether the question was not material which this Witness would have answered to by Oath viz. Whether b This Mrs. Grip denying on Oath many circumstances o● my answer concerning Mr Fowler said she never railed against him for which she had been proved perjured had not the Court by the perswasion of the accuser against reason and equity rejected my witnesses Mrs. Grip did not averr on Oath in open Court that she never railed against Mr. Fowler To this one Mr. Tench was ready also to be sworn in the affirmative there were also many others which heard it And further I had two more substantial Witnesses who offered to swear they had heard Mrs Grip rail against Mr Fowler in publick meetings before many Witnesses Mrs Elenor Burleigh was willing to depose that she heard Mrs Grip say That Mr Fowler was a son of Belial c. and one Mrs Kent would have attested that she heard her rail against Mr Fowler in the same and the like speeches with much more Now because the Clerk had not taken that expression of hers That she never railed against him therefore the Commissioners made it their pretence of not examining the Witnesses to it as a thing impertinent though by the attestation of that with the testimony of the other two Witnesses she had been proved directly perjured but Mr. Fowler the accuser being a great friend of the womans and seeing she was in danger to be proved perjured and so an insufficient Witness in all her Testimonies prevailed with the Court against the importunate rational and legal Pleas of my Councel to reject these fore-mentioned Witnesses The unjustness palpable partiality and illegality of which action I leave to be weighed in the ballance of equity by the impartial Reader who in justice may esteem this woman as really prejured as though the Witnesses had proved c Which was hindered only by the wil● of the Judges it and value her testimony accordingly And truely some of the Godly party at Redding hearing with what impudency and rashness she affirmed on Oath she never railed against Mr Fowler confessed they could not but wonder at her being it was so commonly known But to conclude let the Reader take notice first That this Article may be either true or false according to the applying of it to particular persons Secondly That though it were taken in the worst sence yet it were not within the Act of Scandal Thirdly that there was onely one Witness to it to whose testimony what credit is to be given let the foregoing particulars declare Fourthly That I had witnesses ready to depose That in the tenor of my Ministry I had often held forth Christs bloud to be of a cleansing redeeming and justifying nature Fifthly That in my Answer to it I have given the true ground and oceasion of it Art 5. Pish there was no such thing as persons in Trinity Depos The former Susanna Grip saith that the Doctor came in to her Kitchin at another time as she thinks from the Committee and said That whereas Ministers spake of Persons in Trinity there is no such thing d In that Scripture 1 John 5. 7. she leaveth out This I spake in reference to the terms of persons in Trinity There are three that bear Record in heaven but there is no such thing as Persons in Trinity Note In that Scripture 1 Iohn 5. 7. would be added and that in reference to the terms as it is in the Margent Now my Interrogatories to her upon this Article were these first 1. When I spake these words she saith When I came from the Committee which was two or three e This was four years since my transactions before that Committee being a year or two before the time she speaks of years since or thereabouts Secondly Before whom She answereth whether her maid or any body else or who was present she doth not remember 3. Being further asked whether this expression was delivered without any further limitation or explanation she replies without any as f This As she remembers makes her testimony invalid in Law and in truth her memory fails her for I spake it in reference to that Text 1 John 5. 7. intimating that the terms of persons in Trinity were not in it as I have before expressed she remembers Now what I have more to add to clear the truth in reference to this Deposition is this 1. I refer the Reader to my Answer to this Article in which you may see that I made a relation to this woman of what had passed before the Committee where some questions were proposed to me concerning the holy Trinity Secondly I had a Witness present to testifie on Oath That what I said before the Committee was only this That there was no such word as persons in Trinity in that Text 1 Iohn 5. 7. a relation of which I made to this woman who as it seems mistaking my meaning comes now four years after to accuse me though at the very time she seemed to assent to what I spake and made no exception against it nor so much as asked me to explain my self for her satisfaction though

not God In the second place I come to the Witnesses the first of which was Mr. Francis Pordage brother to me Now this Deponent being asked Whether the words That Christ Decemb. 7. was not God and that Christ was not Jehovah before the Committee at Redding were not delivered in a hot Dispute He saith they were And being further asked Whether in the same Dispute these words That Christ was not God were not limited by me He saith the This is full and clear Doctor did express it with this limitation That Christ was not the Father Now follow the cross-Examinations of the Accuser and some other of the Ministers Mr. Pordage being asked by them the ground of this Dispute he thus answered That the Dispute arose upon a definition of Blasphemy which Mr. Tickle gave to Mr. Blagrave That it was against God to which the Dr. replyed He saith it is against God and yet chargeth me for speaking against Christ Note Here are some things prevaricated by the Clerk the Ministers at that time being very hot in examining this Deponent I must here therefore a little correct it by the line of truth Mr. Pordage indeed said that the dispute arose upon a Definition of Blasphemy which Mr. Tickle gave to Mr. Bragrave but then a Minister Correct asking him whether the Definition was not thus expressed That Blasphemy was an evil speaking against God He replyed he could not tell whether it was expressed against God or against God the Father But now I shall proceed as the Clerk took them Mr. Pordage being further asked by me Whether in that Dispute I did deny that I held Christ not to be God He saith the Doctor did declare to Mr. Blagrave That Christ was God Hereupon he was asked by the Commissioners and Ministers Whether there was not so much distance of time at the least between the Doctors denial of f I never denied him to be God in my enemies sense and as they think Christ to be God and his correcting of it afterwards as required proof of Mr. Tickle to prove him to be God and Jehovah the Deponent doth acknowledge the same And the Deponent being asked whether he did hear Mr. Tickle speak any word of God the farther in that dispute He saith he doth not remember that Mr. Tickle used any such expression This Deponent being asked by me Whether frequently in that dispute when I spake of denying Christ to be God I did not speak it alwaies in relation to God the Father He thus answered The Doctor did then speak it in relation to God the Father but he cannot say frequently or alwaies Moreover the former Deponent being asked by me How I did explain my self in St. Lawrence Church concerning the Divinity of Christ when I was commanded by the Committee at Redding to explain my self in a Sermon there g Mr Tickle was very forward to prove what I never denied viz. The Godhead of Christ as I afterward told him and the Committee He saith in that Sermon the Doctor did clear himself concerning the Trinity of Persons and that Christ was God and did assert the same as his avowed Judgement After this being asked by the Commissioners Whether the Doctor did not make his limitation if any h Was not this sufficient to free me from any further trouble touching this point after he was confuted by Mr. Tickle concerning the Deity of Christ The Deponent answereth to this That it was after Mr. Tickle had cited many Scriptures to prove the Deity of Christ But last of all being asked by me Whether he understood me at that time to be confuted or mistaken He saith Mistaken Francis Pordage The next Witness is Mary Pocock sworn again and further examined Decemb. 7. Who being asked by me Whether this expression That Christ was not God and Iehovah was not spoken in a dispute before the Committee at Redding She saith she was before the Committee of Berks where she heard the Dr. in a dispute with Mr. Tickle concerning Christ in which dispute she heard the Dr. say Christ was not the Father but she did not hear him deny that he was God the Son neither then nor at any other time but owning him to be perfest God and perfect man And being further asked Whether she did not hear the Doctor express that Christ was not God with a limitation and with what limitation She answered yes and that the same was thus He was not God the Father And being further asked by the Doctor Whether she did not hear him deny in that dispute that he held Christ not to be God She saith she did apprehend him so viz. That he did deny he held Christ not to be God and so far as she was satisfied with it And being asked by the Commissioners Whether she did not hear the Doctor in that dispute deny Christ to be God She answereth she heard him deny Christ to be God the Father And being further asked Whether the words of God the Father were not spoken by the Doctor after Mr. Blagrave did tell him If he held such opinions they must proceed against him To this she saith Mr. Blagrave put some questions to him what it was she cannot remember And being further asked Whether the Doctor did not bring in the expression of God the Father after many Scriptures cited by Mr. Tickle to prove Christ to be God To this she saith some Scriptures Mr. Tickle did bring but she is not able to say it was before the Doctor did express God the Father Mary Pocock After this I desired the Commissioners that if they were not yet satisfied they would hear my Witnesses which I had there ready to be sworn that I had formerly cleared my self of holding Christ not to be God and Jehovah and that I had held forth the contrary as my avowed judgement viz. That Christ was God and Iehovah in a Sermon before the Committe of Berks at Lawrence Church in Redding and how afterward I was cleared by their Vote from these Articles now in debate and particularly from this of holding Christ not to be God But they would not suffer me to produce the Evidence of these Witnesses replying They had nothing to do what other Committees before had done they would proceed according to the proofs of the h i. e. of those that they pleased to hear present Witnesses But nevertheless I shall here present to the judicious Reader the Evidence which they through prejudice rejected Which was this that follows I confess I heard i This was to be attested by four several witnesses which were present at the Sermon one or two of which wrote and had this in their notes the Doctor deliver himself in a Sermon at Redding in Lawrence Church where the Committee of Berk was present out of Ezek. cap. 9. ver 4 5 6 7. after this manner viz. That Jehovah taken latè largely including the Trinity of persons so

they are all Jehovah but take Jehovah strictè onely for the person of the Father and then Christ is not Jehovah And hereupon he further said What dealings have I had from my fellow-Ministers but as Iacob had from Esau Obad. 10. 12. who spake proudly against his brother Iacob in the day of his distress and there he avowedly declared that the thought of denying the Deity or Godhead of Christ never entred into his soul Moreover These following Witnesses were present to attest on Oath their former Depositions taken before the Cmmittee of Plundered Ministers which were these This Deponent Mr. Francis Pordage further saith on Oath That he was present before the honourable Committee of Berks when the Doctor was cleared by the Vote of the whole Committee touching the business at Ilsley and concerning those Articls That Christ is not God and Jehovah This Deponent John Hambleton saith on his Oath That he was present before the honourable Committee of Berks when the Doctor was cleared by the Vote of the whole Committee concerning Ilsley business and these Articles of Christs not being God and Iehovah And this Deponent further saith on Oath That he was at Redding before the Committee of Berks where the Doctor was cleared of the business at Ilsley and from the false aspersions laid to him as if he denied Christ to be God or Iehovah and that by the Vote of the whole Committee But the Commissioners not receiving these Testimonies I earnestly desired them they would hear the Evidence of some Witnesses there present touching the tenor of my Ministry since that dispute concerning Christs being God which I looked upon more considerable then one expression uttered in a dispute upon a mistake if Mr. Tickle swears the truth but they denied this reasonable request saying they were in haste and that these testimonies were but delatory and impertinent which notwithstanding I shall here present to be weighed by the judicious Reader These four Witnesses M. Francis Pordage Richard Higgs Mr. Samuel Pordage Iohn Higgs were ready to attest this which follows upon their Oaths which was writ down in some of their Note-Books We confess we heard the Doctor Preach out of Matth. 1. 23. in the year 1652. concerning Christs birth at which time he speaking of six wonders delivered the four last after this manner The third Wonder in Christs birth was this That he was born a perfect man a true natural man Luke 1. 42. Where Christ is called by Elizabeth the fruit of the Virgin Maries womb Gal. 4. 4. made of a woman 1. 1. not only in or through a woman but out of the substance and nature of the Virgin Fourth wonder That Christ was born perfect God Iohn 1. 14. The word was made flesh Who is meant by this Word The eternal Word the Word Christ Heb. 1. 2. Fifth wonder Behold two distinct natures born in him viz. The Deity and Humanity the Godhead and the Manhood Rom. 1. 3. 4 according to the flesh he is of the seed of David and according to his divine nature he is the Son of God These two natures remain distinct in Christs person Iohn 8. 58. Before Abraham was I am according to his divine nature he was before Abraham and according to his humane after Sixth wonder Behold two natures Hypostatically united in one person these two natures do not make two persons two Christs but both these natures hypostatically united together make up but one person Matth. 1. 23. Immanuel God with us The nature of this union was after this manner explained It was an inconvertible union an indivisible union an inconfused union an inseparable union a substantial and real union yet a mystical union We also heard the Doctor in Bradfield Church at another time a-about 1653. deliver himself out of Joh. 1 14. concerning the words being made flesh thus viz. That this word was Christ the eternal word that is coeternal coessential and coequal with the Father Prov. 8. 22 23 24 25. I was set up from everlasting c. Joh. 10. 30. I and my father are one Besides we can with a good Conscience testifie that in his publike Ministery out of divers Texts of Scripture we have heard him cleerly hold forth Christ to be God So much for these Articles as to the Testimony of witnesses And now we must inform the Readers that I have hitherto in truth without partiality toward my self or passion and prevarication toward my adversaries presented the Depositions and Evidence on both sides touching the first Charge I would therefore request that these following particulars drawn together by way of Recapitulation may be seriously weighed and considered Part. 1. That to most of these nine Articles they have but one witness without any concurrent Testimony which is not sufficient proof according to the Ordinance they are to act by in which it is expressed that at least there must be one witness with concurrent Evidence Part. 2. That wheresoever the Accuser hath two I have also two to ballance them Part. 3. That although many of the Articles are in gross sworn to positively yet in the cross examinations you will finde such Limitations as these according to our best remembrance and according to our apprehensions in the same express words for the substance of them c. which cannot therefore amount to legal evidence being invalid in point of Law because as the judicious Lawyer saith if the deponents swear not positively and syllabically they may by changing adding to or taking from the express words usurp the place of Judges and so prevent their work and duty which is to judge whether such express terms are criminous or not which they cannot do after the terms be altered and made criminous already by the witnesses misrepresenting them Part. 4. That my witnesses in reference to the most substantial questions are positive in their Answers I shall here also further present you with some more Considerations taken from the justice of Law and particularly of those Laws and Ordinances by which the present Commissioners were obliged to act Consid 1. THat the present Commissioners had no legal Authority to question me again for this Charge of Articles especially the g In regard I publikely in a Sermon before the Committee renounced the denying the Godhead of Christ and averred the contrary as my cordial judgement which had been sufficient though I had formerly denyed the Godhead of Christ which I never did to have prevented further trouble about that eighth and ninth in regard I was cleared from them by the vote of the Committee of Berks who had legal power by an Act of Parliament to do it 2. That this Charge of Articles was not within their cognizance to traverse over again because after a ful hearing and examination of witnesses on both sides as the discharge runs the Cause was dismissed by the Committee of plundred Ministers two and thirty then sitting who had an absolute power by an Ordinance of