Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	father_n	person_n	trinity_n	5,937	5	9.9723	5	true

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

all humility I leave to your serious considerations 2. Partic. I humbly conceive that the forementioned Act cannot take into cognizance those Articles exhibited against me because they are acknowledged by the accusers to have been uttered a year before this Act had a birth in the world Now can any guilt be legally imputed from any Law before the original being of it This seemeth contrary to reason Now those Articles were charged upon me Aug. 16. 1649. and this Act made and published Aug. 9. 1650. Moreover these Articles are not punishable by that Act because according to the conclusion of the said Act no person is to be impeached molested troubled or punished for any offence mentioned in that Act unless he be for the same offence accused presented indicted or convicted within six months after such offence committed Now it is six years since some and four since any of these expressions were pretended to be uttered by me 3. Partic. I humbly conceive that the forementioned Act cannot take into cognizance the Articles exhibited against me because upon examination of Witnesses on both sides I was cleared by the Vote of the honourable Committee of Berks who had full power by an Act of Parliament to put out and to put in Ministers in this County 4. Partic. I humbly conceive that the forementioned Act cannot take into cognizance the Articles exhibited against me because after examination of Witnesses and after a full hearing I have been dismissed and acquitted from all guilt and offence charged upon me from them by the honourable Committee of Plundred Ministers who had full power to put out and to keep and put in Ministers Now the judicious Lawyer saith that these Articles having had their original dependance before two Committees of Parliament who had an absolute power by Act and Ordinance of Parliament to put out and put in Ministers and they having cleared and acquitted me from the pretended guilt of such Articles it is not according to the liberty of the Subject or tenor of the Law that it should be within the cognizance of this Act or of this Committee it being against that fundamental maxim of Magna Charta Nemobis pumetur pro uno delicto Moreover it seemeth contrary to the sixth Article in the Instrument of Government published by his Highness the Lord Protectors special command in which it is expressed That the Laws shall not be altered suspended abrogated or repealed but by consent of Parliament save as it is expressed in the thirtieth Article Therefore my former legal Discharge according to the former Acts and Ordinances of Parliament is still in force and holds good not being abrogated by the Government or by any thing expressed or included in the said 30 Article of Parliament I shall now proceed to answer each Article in particular Artic. 1. That Christ is not God That Christ is not Jehovah Ans 1. Part. I do acknowledg that such expressions were uttered by me but I hope the bare expressions of such Negations doth not make me come within the guilt of the Act for it must be known what words preceded such expressions and what followed To say in Preaching There is no God doth not make the Preacher guilty of Atheism if the words going before be but annexed The fool hath said in his heart there is no God so do but annex the subsequent words to the former expressions That Christ is not God viz. the Father That Christ is not Jehovah Jehovah taken strictly for the Person of the Father the first person of the glorious Trinity I say add but these words and there is nothing blasphemous or culpable in such expressions Ans 2. Part. Though I do acknowledg that such expressions fell from me yet I never avowedly uttered or maintained such Propositions for they were only uttered by way of dispute and that upon this occasion Mr. Daniel Blagrave then being Chairman of the Committee demanded of Mr. Tickle what Blasphemy was * * This relation I give to the best of my remembrance as true though Mr. Tickle denies it as you shall see afterward He answered Evil speaking against God the Father I replyed A lame definition of Blasphemy had Mr. Tickle said Evil speakings against God which is a word implying the Trinity in Unity then there had been no occasion given of contest for the ground of these expressions arose from the weakness of his definition of Blasphemy in that he said Blasphemy was evil speaking against God the Father To which I reply'd His definition of Blasphemy doth not reach that of which he accused me for that which he chargeth me with is not Blasphemy against God the Father but against Christ God the Son And I have uttered no evil speakings against God the Son but seemingly to my accuser in saying that his imputative righteousness would prove a sapless righteousness to all those that had not the Fiery Deity of Christ in the centre of their souls burning up their lusts and corruptions Mr. Tickle then replyed to the Committee Pray take notice that the Dr. denieth that Christ is God which I prove out of John 1. 1. To which I replyed Christ was not God the Father but God the Son Christ is Jehovah and so called the Lord our righteousness said Mr. Tickle. To which I replyed Christ is not Jehovah if you take Jehovah for the person of the Father And this is the truth as the whole Committee of Berks then present can testifie by whose Vote I was then cleared of all these unworthy aspertions and dismissed and since upon proof of Witnesses acquitted and dismissed and that after a full hearing by the Committee of Plundered Ministers 3. Part. Ans I do humbly conceive that although the former Act did expresly adjudge and condemn evil speakings or blasphemy against Christ yet my delivering such expressions in an extempory dispute viz. That Christ was not God or Jehovah did not make me obnoxious to the guilt and penalty of that Act because p. 980. and 981. they only are condemned as guilty who shall avowedly profess maintain or publish in word or writing such or such execrable opinions which I never did Nay I profess avowedly the contrary and do declare in the sincerity of my heart that the thought never entred into my heart to deny the Godhead or Deity of Christ but I have avowedly in words maintained and published by Preaching That Christ is God out of that Text John 1. 12. The word was made flesh c. From whence I did maintain and publish That Christ was God coequal coeternal and coessential with the Father contrary to all those blasphemous and execrable opinions that deny Christ to be God So that now I hope the meer uttering of such expressions by way of dispute before a judicious and understanding Committee doth not make me a transgressor according to the true sense and meaning of this Act. 2. Article That the imputative righteousness of Christ is a sapless

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

she had a very convenient oportunity Thirdly she is but a single Witness and her testimony not positive she adding as she remembers 4. I desired the Commissioners to hear what my avowed g Was it not real partiality in the Commissioners to regard an expression spoken to a person subject to passion and mistake more then the declaring of my avowed judgement Test Richard Higgs Mr. Francis Pordage Mr. Samuel Pordage judgement was from the testimony of some Witnesses who were ready to depose what I had held forth in my publique Ministry touching the persons in the holy Trinity But the Commissioners refused to examin the witnesses whose evidence was this We heard the Dr in Bradfield Chuch about 1653. from these words John 14. The word was made flesh deliver himself thus For the understanding of the person that was made flesh you must consider the unutterable mystery of the holy Trinity the unity distinguishing it self into three persons The Father Son and holy Ghost Mat. 28. 14. Baptizing them in the names of the Father Son and holy Ghost 1 Iohn 5. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word and the holy Ghost Now which of these three persons are made flesh 'T is not the first person the Father nor the third person the holy Ghost but it is to be understood of the Son the second person in the Trinity We have also heard him out of these Texts Ezek. 9. 4 5 6. Psal 110. 1. The same witnesses with 4 more attested this last Mat. 28. 19 1 Iohn 5. 7. deliver in Bradfield Church the distinctions of the persons in the Trinity as that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost neither the Father nor the Son but each distinct So much for this Article Art 6. That it was a weakness to be troubled for sin Depos Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg Minister of Newbery sworn and examined deposeth That Mr. William Twiss of Dorchester told the Deponent that Dr. Pordage maintained it to him or spake in his hearing in company that he was no Christian that could not commit the greatest sin and not be troubled for the same or words to that effect to his best remembrance To this I replyed before the Court. I knew not the said Mr. Twiss and to my knowledge I never saw his face Being then ingaged in the business of examining my Witnesses I said not much to the vindication of my self as to this horrid imputation the testimony being but a meer hear-say and the Deponent rendering it more invalid by these expressions viz. Or words to that effect and to his best remembrance But I desire the Reader here to take notice of the weakness or envy of He is an assistant to the Commissioners Mr. Woodbridg that he should thus with a hear-say only which he himself did not exactly remember thus endeavor to asperse me and render me odious when he saw there were so many horrid things laid to my charge before but I believe he will one day be touched in his conscience for dealing thus with me for the Lord knows I am innocent as to the acting or holding of what he saith I therefore for the satisfaction of the Reader solemnly protest in the presence of Almighty God That I never held any such opinion for it is diametrically opposite to my Principles neither did I ever utter any such expressions as my judgement and am confident were that Mr Twiss brought to my face he durst not averr any such thing To the seventh Article nothing is deposed being contrived and reported abroad by the accuser to draw an odium upon me as you may see in my Answer to it Art 8. That he asserted he knew nothing to the contrary but that a man might company with more then one woman c. Depos Susana Grip saith she told the Doctor that she heard it was a She was the first that ever told me of any such thing and being urged then and afterward before the Court to tell me of whom she heard it she denied to do it reported of him he should keep unlawful company with a woman in London and asked him if it were true To which the Doctor asked her who said so The Deponent replyed she would not tell him whereupon the Dostor smiled and was not troubled but denied it saying no but he made her a further answer that he did not disallow of any such thing as she b She did not understand me aright for it was then is still against my judgement understood him But what his express words were she cannot remember Note This last clause makes all invalid and shews her rashness in swearing that I did not disallow of any such thing being she hath forgotten my words by which only she can judge of my sense And the Answer of the Doctor to this particular being read to her she thus replyed She doth not remember the Doctor uttered any such passages as are therein mentioned to wit that he should say I am a man born to all manner of sufferings It was further read to her That the Deponent knew his life and conversation This she could remember and doth confess she did then reply c See how unconstant she is to her self before she said I smiled and was not troubled seeming to allow of it and now her conscience forceth her to say she did not believe any such thing she did not believe any such thing of him Being further asked by the Doctor Whether this was expressed as his own judgement or the judgement of some other She thus replyed As farr as she conceived the Doctor did speak that passage of allowing that a man may have more then one woman as his own judgement not as another mans Note she did conceive amiss for if ever I spake it it was in reference to the Ranters who then were much talked of for such carnal principles are very much against my judgement and questionless against the truth Being further asked where it was spoken she saith In the Deponents own Court being asked before whom she answers a A single witness without other evidence is insufficient to prove any thing by the Ordinance No body else was then present being asked when she saith it was about three or four years since But let the Reader here take notice 1. That this Article is not within the limits of the Act. 2. That her testimony is not legal in that it is single and not positive she confessing that she hath forget the express words 3. That this is against my avowed judgement to prove which besides my own assertions I had present three b The Commissioners rejected their testimony Witnesses who were ready to depose that I had oft affirmed in conference That although this Principle was owned by the Ranters yet it was much against my judgement as you may further see in my Answer Article 9.

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

and but a Type Being further examined he saith That I endeavoured to prove that Taken Octob. 5 Novemb. 22 Christ was but a Type out of Peter where he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Further Roger Stevens being sworn to this Article deposeth That Novemb. 22. the Dr. in dispute with Mr. Pendarvis delivered That o This Deponent mistakes the business I endeavoured to prove him a Type but not only a Type as may be seen in my Answer Christ was but a Type and went to prove it by that Scripture 1 Pet. 2. He is our example To which Mr. Pendarvis replyed That is not meant by way of righteousness to justification but by way of example as to reproaches To which the Dr. answered you understand it one way and I another p or words to that effect Now to ballance these Depositions the Reader must take notice 1. That my true sense of this Article may be seen in my Answer to this first Charge in which I have truely shewed in what sense I owned Christ to be a Type viz. as he is a pattern and example for us to imitate and follow 2. That this discourse being with Mr. Pendarvis it is requisite I should here insert his Deposition taken by the Justices of Peace of that County and afterward presented to the Committee of Plundered Ministers which was as follows This examinant which was Mr. Pendarvis further saith that the said Dr. Pordage in a Conference had with him at the same time after his Sermon at Ilsley said that Christ was a Type and but a Type but this expression was immediately waved by him but he constantly affirmed that Christ was a type But because Mr. Pendarvis could not be there to witness vivavoce the Commissioners would not admit this evidence But Mrs. Mary Pocock being sworn and examined on this Article saith Decemb. 7. That she heard the Dr. maintain in that discourse with Mr. Pendarvis That Christ was a type and proved it out of Peter he was an Example and that she heard the Dr. say He would not stand to the word But. And further q Thus the Deposition was wrote by the Clerk John Pordage son to the Doctor aged between 19 and 20. years Decemb. 7. and examined December 7. This Deponent saith that in dispute between the Dr. and Mr. Pendarvis about five or six years since about Christs being a type the Dr. said that Christ was but a type To which Mr. Pendarvis asked Do you say but a Type Whereupon the Dr. answered He did not stand to the expression But a Type it was but the slip of his tongue but he maintained that Christ was a Type You see here are three Witnesses that attest I never owned or stood to that of Christs being But a Type Correspondent to which Testimony I gave in my Answer before the Committee of Plundered Ministers which I offered to prove by three Witnesses then present who heard me who were ready to attest Mr. Francis Pordage Mary Pocock Robert Bolt this which follows viz. That they being present about the 27 of March 1651. before the Committee of Plundered Ministers heard me touching this Article That Christ was a Type and but a Type Deliver my self thus That I had owned Christ to be a Type that is a pattern and example for us Christians to square our lives and conversations by but that I had not owned him to be but a Type or a Type onely But the Commissioners would by no means hear this Evidence After this I earnestly pressed them to hear what my Witnesses could further say touching what I had publickly delivered in my Mynistry about this Subject telling them that such evidence was in justice more to be respected then a mistake in sudden speaking presently retracted but they denied all such evidence and would not hear which clearly shewed their partiality and that they little regarded what my r When I brought such testimonies as these Mr. Dunch the Chairman said It may be Dr. you have changed your opinion since that and are now of another mind but we must judge by what you then spake Thus he said two or three times avowed judgement was Notwithstanding I shall here insert what some were ready to witness in reference to this Article who had been constant hearers of me Whose Testimony was this We confess we have heard the Dr. Preach out of Luk. 1. 68. First this by way of Doctrine viz. That Gods free grace is the first and chief cause of our redemption Then he proceeded thus That the inward man was redeemed in for and through Christ Rom. 3. 24. Through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ How through Christ Ans Through Christs death and passion Isa 53. 5. He was wounded for our transgressions he was broken for our iniquities 1 Pet. 2. 24. Who bare our sins in his own body on the Cross Rom. 4. 25. Who was delivered for our offences to the death of the Cross 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us Now this clearly shews that Christ is more then a type and that he is a compleat redeemer So much for this Article To the eight and ninth Article Mr. Tickle saith That he heard me deliver berore the Committee of Taken Octob. 5 this County sitting at Redding That Christ was not God and that he was not Jehovah Being further examined to this Article my Interrogatories to him were these 1. Whether these words were not expressed in a hot dispute before the Novemb. 22. Committee To this Mr. Tickle replyed That I ſ This was no direct answer to my question but he must every where shew his bitterness endeavoured in dispute with great seriousness before the Committee to maintain that Christ was not God that Christ was not Jehovah My second question was this Whether in the same dispute this Article was not limited and explained by me But this question was wholly waved and passed over in silence but whether voluntarily by Mr. Tickle or by the Clerks deceit the Interrogatories being given in in writing I do not know but this I am sure it was much to the prejudicing of my Cause to let such a weighty question pass without an answer 3. Whether this Article was held forth by me as my avowed judgement Ans To this he thus answers The Dr. did maintain and defend t No otherwise then this That Christ was not God viz. the Father nor Jehovah taken for the first person in the Trinity this Article as his avowed judgement Here Mr. Tickle is very peremptory in a rash answer though that Interrogatory before could be slided over in silence the answer to which if Mr. Tickle had not easily incurred perjury would have much cleared the truth in regard I meant and explained my self of God the Father as you shall see afterward This Deponent Mr. Tickle further deposed to the eight and ninth Article Novemb. 22. That