Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	person_n	scripture_n	trinity_n	3,376	5	9.9610	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

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

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

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.

insufficiency as a distinct head from scandal and Heresie which in time may prove very prejudicial to that Liberty of Conscience which of late years hath been and is still preserved and asserted by the Rulers of this Nation In the second place to the Articles themselves I thus reply Ans 1. As to the four first I know not how or what positively and directly to answer to them till I see them first proved by Oath and that by such persons who are without just exceptions and then I shall be capable of returning a more full and compleat Answer Ans 2. Neither do I see that seemingly to maintain and argue by way of dispute only the unlawfulness of Mrs. Lewins having children by her husband for the sifting forth of truth from error could it be proved that I did so could argue or evince my ignorance and insufficiency for the Ministry For this though it were evinced to be my crime cannot in justice and equity be referred to that Head of Insufficiency but to scandal except ignorance and insufficiency be resolved into the boundless liberty of the wills of the Judges that what they deem ignorant and insufficient must be ignorant and insufficient whether ignorance and insufficiency be real in such a Subject or not As to the fifth Article which concerns my giving entertainment in my house to one Everard reputed a Conjurer and to one Tawny reported to hold unsound opinions I thus answer As to the first part of it I confess that one Everard about four years since was received into my house at Bradfield for the space of almost three weeks and no longer and that after this manner He came in Harvest-time with a new pair of Harvest-gloves on his hands to shew his willingness and readiness to work and asking to speak with me told me That if I pleased to employ him in Harvest-work he came to offer his service Hereupon I entertained him as a workman And thus you see both the manner of his coming and the cause of his entertainment Whereas it is said he was generally reputed a Conjurer 1. Ans I answer I never heard any the least intimation from any that he was ever suspected to be a Conjurer till after his departure from my Family if he was a Conjurer before he came it was more then I knew or had heard of but after his departure I confess there arose a general report up and down the Country that he was a Conjurer But from that time to this I have never seen him nor known what is become of him 2. Ans After his absence I do further affirm That I was strongly enclined to believe according to the general rumor that he was a Conjurer Hereupon I was in a great strait in my own spirit whether I should prosecute him or not my zeal for Gods glory and my obedience to the command of God that saith Suffer not a Witch to live giving me some impulsions to do it But after serious debate and consideration within my self I resolved this case or scruple of conscience thus that my own perswasions and jealousies though they had some ground of probability yet being not certain afforded me not a sufficient ground of prosecuting him as a Conjurer or of swearing positively he was such Now I leave it to your serious considerations whether this tenderness of conscience keeping me from prosecuting of him or swearing against him for fear of that hainous sin of perjury makes me either ignorant or insufficient for the Ministry As to the second part of the fifth Article which concerns my entertainment of one Tawny reputed as it is there expressed to be one that holds unsound Opinions Ans I answer It is well known as I invite none so I turn away none that come to visit me though their Principles in matter of Doctrine Worship and Discipline be different from mine I will here shew you briefly my grounds and ends My grounds are these I look upon it as my duty according to the Gospel of Christ to entertain all strangers that be in want and necessity professing the name of Christ If enemies hunger we are to feed them if they are naked we must clothe them and as for strangers we are to lodge and entertain them Heb. 13. 2. And as in the practice of this I break no Law of God so no Law of man And you may remember that in the 37. Article of Government it is expressed That all such as profess Faith in God by Jesus Christ though differing in Judgement from the Doctrine Worship or Discipline publickly professed so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others nor to the actual disturbance of the Publike Peace shall be protected and then surely their hungry bellies may be fed their backs clothed their wants supplyed and their persons lodged and entertained And further my ends are these which are pure and Evangelical That I may prove all things and hold fast that which is good that I may try the spirits for many false spirits are gone forth into the world Now how are they to be proved and tryed Not by carnal weapons as by penalties mulcts imprisonments and other external punishments but by convincing of them with sound Doctrine Christian discourse spiritual arguments and by the example of a good conversation And thus Gods glory and the good of others are my only ends in giving entertainment to all strangers that come in civility to visit me Now the cause of many strangers coming to me as Guests from all quarters of this Land ariseth from these lying printed Pamphlets which have hardly a word of truth in them these draw all seeking enquiring minds to visit me for divers ends best known to themselves Let it but be proved that ever I gave entertainment to any common swearer or to any open drunkard Sabbath-breaker or to any known prophane person and I shall judge my self obnoxious to your Censure but all that I give free entertainment to appear clothed under some shew of Godliness or other but if they have not the power it will be their own misery In a word the strength of this Article doth but amount to thus much That as Christ was supposed to be a friend of publicans and sinners so am I supposed to be a friend to all people that profess Religion and walk orderly be their opinion in matter of Doctrine or Discipline never so much differing from mine own or from those commonly received yet this doth not argue my ignorance or insufficiency for the Ministry but if in it any thing be culpable it is to be referred to the head of Scandal but here being no Law of prohibition I cannot see any transgression in it either against the Law of God or man To conclude I cannot give a more direct Answer to these Articles being matter of fact till I see them proved and each Article referred to its proper place either of Scandal or Heresie or Ignorance and

to scorn yet before him his accursed Kingdome must fall Consid 3. In regard its birth and beginning in the soul is at the first a very little grain of mustard seed yet in due time it will destroy the Kingdom of sin and set up the Kingdom of holiness in us Having thus drawn away the vail from this Article I hope it appears with a more tolerable and innocent face Art 8. Concerning Goodwife Pococks singing Hymns and Spiritual Songs Ans She acknowledgeth it as her gift bestowed by God being according to the gifts of Christians in the primitive time But this doth not directly concern me Art 9. Concerning the same persons coming to Col. Evelings and saying she had a word from God viz. Have nothing to do with that just man Ans She owneth these words and looks upon me as a just man and a true Christian and believeth that Colonel Eveling will one day know she gave good councel upon good grounds Art 10. Concerning Mr. Snelling and his wife coming to my house c. Ans This Article hath as little of truth as sence or force to prejudice me and I believe none will be found to swear it however I think it not worthy of a larger Answer Art 11 12. Concerning the sending of my man Bolt in an uncivil manner for Mr. Forster with his speaking of strange things there to be seen and of my telling Mr. Forster he should see very wonderfull things c. 1. Part. Ans These Articles were heard and I acquitted four years since by the Committee of Plundered Ministers and are of so little consequence that they might well have been omitted but that my accuser thinks he hath never enough against me 2. Part. Ans I believe Mr. Forster dares not swear to these particulars some of which are very untrue 3. Part. Ans The forementioned Robert Bolt asserted on Oath that I sent him not with any message but that it was his Mistriss that sent him to desire Mr. Forster and his wife to come to my house Art 13. Concerning Goodwife Pocoks coming to Mr. Forsters and saying the Dr. had fought with and overcome an evil Spirit and that the Family had been strangely acted the power taking some of them in one part some in another and that they spake glorious things 1. Part. Ans This was another of the Articles heard discussed and I acquitted by the fore-mentioned Committee because nothing material could be made of it 2. Part. Ans The said Mary Pocock attested on Oath she saw no apparitions in my house being cross-examined concerning that particular and though she did say God gave extraordinary power to sustain both our spirits and bodies in an extraordinary tryal What hurt was there in that why should it be brought as an Article against me Art 14. That Mrs. Flavel was in a Trance and in it saw the Philosophers stone which she knew to be the Divinity in the Humanity Ans Not to speak any thing concerning the Mystical writings of the deep Hermetick Philosophers or what the judgement of some of them is concerning this secret I my self being not here accused to have seen it or to have affirmed it was the Divinity in the Humanity all that I shall answer is this I wonder that this is brought in as an Article against me to prove me Scandalous Ignorant or Insufficient it not directly proving any thing against me being affirmed of another and being one of those Articles I was discharged of by the Committee for Plundered Ministers Art 15. Touching Sawoods Depositions of the birth of a child and one being in travel Ans 1. This was one of the Articles of which I was acquitted by the fore-mentioned Committee Ans 2. Mrs. Elizabeth Pordage and Mary Pocock asserted on Oath That there was no woman in travel nor any child born nor any other cry heard but of those at prayer which was also witnessed on Oath by Mr. Francis Pordage Art 16. That in my house the new Jerusalem hath been seen to come down from heaven and that in it was a Globe in which Globe was Eternity and in that Eternity all the Saints Ans As to the substance of this Article If God have favoured any with such a vision surely they would be no more ashamed to own it when called to it then John was when to write Rev. 21. 1. That he saw the Holy City new Jerusalem come down from God out of heaven where he also describes it by all the most pretious stones in the Creation but in reference to my Family I believe none dare attest they heard this spoken by any of them which I believe will prove but some groundless imagination Art 17. That in my house God hath been seen face to face c. Ans As this Article is stated I shall give no other answer but this That I shall wait to see who dare swear to it or what proof can be brought of it Now I am come to the Articles exhibited against me by some of Bradfield Parish And as to those which concern Mrs. Flavel I shall answer 1. Somewhat in general touching their import and nature 2. By way of negation 3. By way of acknowledgment or affirmation Ans Gen. This Charge of Articles hath no legal reference of charge at all to me but is meerly scandalous importing but a Libel nothing of fact really criminous being laid to my charge which will more clearly appear when the erroneous circumstances of it are detected by which also the subtilty and envy of my adversaries will be discovered who positively alleadg nothing against me that may bear any action of damage at the Common Law by which they might suffer for their injurious dealing yet by plausible prevaricating circumstances would seem to make me highly criminous and guilty Now I shall answer negatively to many erroneous prejudicing circumstances which are by designe heaped together to put a plausible face upon an envious Libel or illegal Charge 1. Circ It s said it was some eight years since I brought one Mrs. Flavel to Goodman Laughtons c. Ans neg Which is an error though one of the smallest brought in to prejudice the more for it was some nine years since 2. Circ It s further said this was carrying her to London Ans neg which I deny for it was coming from London where she had for some time been 3. Circ That I asked whether my friend behind me being sick might have entertainment c. Ans neg This I also deny she was not then sick neither did I use any such expressions 4. Circ That I never mentioned she was with child Ans neg Though I did not it not concerning me to do it yet she her self did not deny it 5 Circ That in a short time she fell in travel Ans neg A short time may seem to imply some few daies or weeks being brought in as an aggravating circumstance whereas it was some four or five months after 6 Circ

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

That he hath very frequent and familiar converse with Angels Depos c The accuser is here again admitted to be a witness yet all his testimony f●llowing is a meer here-say being no legal proof and so very unfit to have been received by the Commissioners but they delighted to hear any thing against me though no legal evidence Mr. Christopher Fowler of Redding sworn and examined deposeth That about three weeks or a moneth since he asked Mr Daniel Blagrave the younger whether he could not speak to the Doctors converse with Angels He answered as far as the Deponent remembers he could speak much Mr. Christopher Fowler sworn again and further examined November 23. at the Bear in Redding before the Commissioners deposeth That about Michaelmas last the Deponent speaking with Mr Daniel Blagrave the elder concerning the visions of Angels that were at his house in reference to Mrs Pyndar The Deponent told him he the said Mr. Blagrave was able to say much to the purpose it being in his house and desired him thereupon to speak his knowledge of the truth both in point d Note Mr Fowlers subtile insinuations into Mr. Blagrave to engage him to witness somewhat that he might accuse me of of conscience and reputation being censured for supporting such a man as Dr Pordage The said Mr. Blagrave answered why the Doctor doth converse with Angels and I believe when he comes before the Commissioners he will not deny but he doth converse with Angels e If the accuser had lived in the time of Christs Disciples or did they live in this age what an accuser of the brethren were he like to be The Deponent thus replyed to Mr. Blagrave If the Dr will confess them Angels we will prove them Devils Note How full of pride and rashness was this speech of Mr Fowlers and how unsuitable to the Scriptures and the Law of Charity For there are two sorts of Angels and Spirits good and evil light and dark holy and wicked which are continually tending upon men in this world f 1 Pet 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evil to tempt and draw men into the same condemnation with themselves the good to guard and preserve from the evil influences and malitious designs of the other But doth not the accuser seem to forget that the Ministration of the holy Angels stil abides who are Ministring Spirits sent forth to minister for those who shall inherit salvation Heb. 1. 14. And the Psalmist saies The Angel of the Lord pitcheth his tent round obout those that fear him How then dare Mr Fowler affirm that if I confess I have communion with Angels they will prove them Devils How dare he thus limit the holy one of Israel and shut up his favours within the narrow limits of his own conceptions and enjoyments And why may not God for the support and comfort of some precious Saints who in humility self-denial and abstractedness of spirit serve him day and night I say why may he not afford such a sweet and heavenly converse with the holy Angels what Scripture is there that speaks against it Is it not suitable to what he afforded the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles and the primitive Christians But if my accuser lives so much in his sences as to have no sense or knowledg of it yet why should he thus rashly condemn others But the accuser proceeds in his Depositions And further this Deponent saith That he hath credibly heard something tending a What an invalid illegal testimony is this a meer hear-say from he knows not who and his adding to this purpose makes it to no purpose at all to this purpose That Doctor Pordage hath seen the vision of the said Mr. Blagrave somewhat a bright vision But here I put in a question which was this Mr. Chairman I do confess in my answer communion and converse with Angels but pray ask Mr. Fowler What conversewith Angels M. Blagrave understood visible or invisible To this the Deponent further saith That the entrance of this discourse with Mr Blagrave was in reference to visions that were seen with the bodily eye and mentioned the visions of Mrs Pindar that were by her reported to be such upon this he understood Mr. Blagrave that the purport of his answer was a visible converse with Angels And the Deponent further saith That he delivered a Summons for Mr. Blagrave to attest these things b Mr Blagrave was then at London engaged in very weighty affairs who told Mr Cook they had no power to setch him by summons being out of the County in person to Mr Cook one of the Commissioners who sent the Deponent word by Letter That he had shewed the same to Mr. Blagrave who hath notwithstanding refused to appear And further he spake thus in open Court against Mr Blagrave though the Clerk did not take it viz. I do c He speaks against him because he was not so cruel and unjust as he and others are for the former Committee Mr Blagrave being Chairman clearedme by vote after my publick renouncing the denial of the Godhead of Christ for which the present Commissioners against Law and Reason have unjustly condemned me Now whether the accuser doth not speak more like Rabsheca then a Christian in saying it was the plague of the County to have such a cursed Committee let all moderate persons judge it being the use of such to anathematise all who serve not their cruel designs verily believe such a Judge as he was in this case before such a Witness he would have been were he now present But I say It was the plague of this County to have such a cursed Committee Note Mr Fowler here asked me some questions to ensnare me as Whether I had not seen the vision of Mr. Daniel Blagrave To which I answered To this profound question I will answer when I see it attested upon Oath And further asking me concerning converse with Angels The Cleark took this answer The Doctor doth confess that he hath daily converse with Angels but he desires Mr. Fowler to declare what converse with Angels Mr Blagrave did inform that the said Dr had The Dr doth further say That he heard it credibly reported that he hath every day two Angels dressing of him to which he added that they that reported it to him said they had it from the mouthes of two Godly Ministers that would not lie viz. Mr Fowler and Mr Ford. Note I brought in this story to shew the vanity and invalidity of such proofs as the accuser had before produced as that he had credibly heard somewhat to that purpose that I had seen the vision of Mr Blagrave And for all the accuser knows that which he heard so credibly reported might be as great an untruth as that which I heard reported of my self as coming from him and his brother Ford whose function seems very unsuitable to that of lying and slandering Afterward Mr Fowler asked me