Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	ghost_n	john_n	son_n	20,120	5	6.1565	4	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

any other means then by Gods blessing upon our fasting and prayers I shall judge my self worthy of punishment but otherwise it is hard measure to be prosecuted and prejudiced for the malice of the Devil towards me inflicting what I was passive in and could not help especially by those who profess the Christian Religion and know that the God of heaven rules over all permitting and disposing of what ever comes to passe Art 14. That Mrs. Margaret Pendar doth think she was bewitched by them of Bradfield 1. Part. Ans Here is a long and tedious Relation in which truth and untruths are mixed together the whole structure of which Relation so far as it concerns me depends on this weak Basis and foundation That she thinks she was bewitched by them of Bradfield But what a sad thing is this for my accuser to impeach me for that which might endanger if true my Estate and life upon the thoughts of a discomposed maid because she thinks I sent those visions therefore I must be thus arraigned But for my part I do not believe she dare say so much less swear it having no ground at all for it 2. Part. Ans I shall briefly relate some circumstances which concern this business and may serve something to clear it up Before these visions of hers I had never seen her as I know of nor exchanged so much as a word with her in the time of her visions Mr. Daniel Blagrave whose servant then she was came for me himself to fetch me to his house to visit her To which motion I yielded being suitable to the Law of Christian Charity and when I came I had no conference with her but in the presence of Master and Mistriss Blagrave with others that were then present And from this visit there arose a rumor that I was a Conjurer and a Sorcerer which report was spread abroad by two that carry the name of Ministers of Christ Mr. Fowler and Mr. Ford the last of which so exceeded the bounds of Charity and Christian moderation as in his Sermon at the Assizes to call me a horrid blasphemer asserting that the Devil was as visibly familiar in my Family as my own servants and so excited the Magistrates to persecute me 3. Part. Ans As for those untruths which are mixed in the Relation I shall not trouble my self to answer them for I know when they come to be sworn to and to be cross-examined they will appear to be but the fulfilling of that wicked Maxim Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit Calumniate and asperse boldly something will stick Which being a piece of Jesuitical policy hath been practised by my accuser in this confused Rapsodie of Articles Articles of one Francis Knight of Wallingford Art 1. THat some of Blewbery who spake against Marriage said they came then from my house Ans I hope I have enough to do to answer for my self what need the assertions of others be alleadged as Articles against me They spake against Marriage having lately been at my house therefore I must be guilty of it surely this Consequence is neither according to natural artificial nor divine reason Art 2. That my Chamber hath been filled with Spirits Ans I hope none will be so unadvised as to swear to this Article being Spirits are immaterial and cannot take up place or fill a room Art 3. That I Preached That Water-baptism was not an Ordinance of Jesus Christ Ans It was never so Preached by me all that I then affirmed was this That Water-baptism could not be proved to be the Ordinance of Christ by way of eminency so called from that Text of Scripture Mat. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost for that Baptism may very well be understood of the Baptism of the Spirit which by the Disciples was instrumentally administred to all Converts yet I denied not Water-baptism to be a Gospel-Ordinance instituted by John as the chief Instrument under God from whom he received his Commission And that this was the sum of what I then Preached I can prove by Oath Art 4. That about 1653. I was commanded by my Angel or from heaven to give off Preaching and to take no more Tythes but that since I have had a dispensation Ans I believe no one that hath the fear of God before his eyes dare attest this Article by Oath which is here stated This is answer enough to such a thing which is meerly brought in as an odium by my accuser the more to prejudice me Art 5. That in July 1654. I was taken up into heaven c. Ans If Paul were now upon the earth he were in danger to be accused by my accuser for his rapture into Heaven or Paradice but this concerning me will prove but some idle dream created by some bodies fancy to make people wonder at me Art 6. That I cursed the people of Bradfield in my Pulpit and their posterity for ever c. Ans This Article was one of those heard and examined four years since by the Committee of Plundered Ministers from which I was acquitted by them these Witnesses viz. Richard Luington John Hambleton Mary Pocock Richard Holmes with four more attesting by Oath that I did not curse the people of Bradfield so as is expressed in the Article The Testimony of these Witnesses was this That they being present September 29. the Dr. expressed himself thus Bradfield is a place partly made famous partly infamous by reason of the false and lying reports that are abroad but I say Cursed be the tongue and the mouth that shall say That what is done by the power of God is done by the power of the Devil What one Parishioner is here cursed by me except any ones conscience accuseth him of the guilt of that forementioned Blasphemy Art 7. Concerning the little Horn mentioned Dan. 7. to be Christ This Article was four years since exhibited against me from which I was discharged by the Committee Richard Higs Iohn Higs and Richard Luington attesting on Oath that I paraphrasing on the seventh of Daniel and speaking on the little Horn said That some Interpreters would have the little horn in the letter to be meant of Antiochus Epiphanes a bloudy and persecuting Tyrant others think the little horn to be the Turk who is a great persecuter of Christians but in the mystery in regard of its power we will apply it to the power of Christ in a Christian who is often in Scripture resembled to the horn of David and to the horn of salvation and that upon three Considerations Consid 1. In regard that Christs power in the soul doth appear to be a little horn a small despised instrument to sense and reason for flesh and bloud look on it as a poor instrument in regard of bringing down the strength of sin in us Consid 2. In regard of sin and Satan who laughs the power of Christ in the soul

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.

Dr Pordages house and that the people there told her her eyes were opened and she said she saw at that time the new Jerusalem to come down from heaven all of precious stones and so on according as in the Article The said Susanna told the Deponent on the said Tuesday night that the last time she was at the Drs house she saw the new Jerusalem to come This Deposition being but a meer hear-say and so no legal evidence is not of any force and so deserves not any answer down from heaven a City four square with borders and precious stones and being asked whether it was not her fancy only she answered she saw it really The Deponent saith that he asked the said Susanna whether she saw any Angels in the Drs house To which she answered no but she said the Drs daughter did see two Angels holding a Golden Crown over her head Thus have I finished this last Charge of Articles being in number 37. Of these 21 were passed by without any Depositions brought to prove them and of those Articles to which somewhat was said to prove them most part was attested but by hear-saies and reports from others as the Depositions of Mr Fowler the accuser of Mr Woodbridg Mr Tickle and John Grip clearly shew which cannot be accounted so much as concurrent testimonies being they are not any way testimonies in Law The rest were attested but by a single Witness except those of visions and apparitions which I acknowledged my self and which are no way criminous This is much cavilled against by a late railing Pamphlet being an expression in that Pa●er lately wrote by a friend of mine though as there spoken it is very true having reference to those words in the foregoing Paragraph viz. That which was of most weight was some words c. by which may be seen he respected not that of visions and the apparitions which was confessed by my self and attested by two as not of weight either by their own Law or Gods Law to prejudice me Other things she attested were witnessed by none but her self as it is there and here expressed nor under the cognizance of those Commissioners viz. Mrs Grip who in her testimony is not wholly positive though she did swear very desperately to two or three of the Articles the particulars of which are no way included in the Act of Scandalous Opinions as to their nature or time for as to the last I was so far from being accused within six months after the pretended speaking those words as it was four years before they were alleadged against me besides this woman speaking an untruth upon Oath was really perjured and had been so proved had I had just dealings from the Commissioners whence in equity her testimony is to be accounted invalid as in Law it might have been had my Witnesses been but examined who were ready to prove it Now as to that Article of Ignorance and Insufficiency I have before shewed That the Depositions of George Hastlet brought to prove it cannot in Justice and equity weigh any thing to condemn me for the reasons before expressed And now let the Reader consider whether Mr Fowler was not very rash to proclaim in the open Court at Newbery That if he did not prove the greatest part of these Articles he would be accounted a slanderer Which Title whether he deserves or not I leave to the judgement of the judicious Reader But to proceed the Depositions on both sides being ended I presented into the hands of Mr Dunch the Chairman this following Protestation to be read publiquely before the Court and the people but they privatly consulting of it would not suffer it openly to be read but suppressed it as before they did Mr Blagraves Letter My Protestation was this I John Pordage do solemnly avow and protest before the all-seeing eye of Almighty God That I do maintain hold and embrace these following Principles of Divine truth as my real and avowed judgment 1. That there is a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost distinct from each other 2. That Christ is God coeternal coessential and coequal with the Father and therefore Jehovah 3. That Christ is a perfect Saviour and Redeemer of his Church and so more then a Type 4. That Christs righteousness is a most holy pure spotless compleat and perfect righteousness for the satisfaction of lost sinners 5. That the bloud of Christ is not only redeeming and ransoming in reference to Hel and Damnation but also purchasing in reference to salvation as having purchased an open gate and way to glorification and life eternal for purified Saints 6. That all Arts of Necromancy and black Magick all compacts with evil Spirits whether explicit or implicit direct or indirect are unlawfull being against the holy Scriptures and never looked into or practised by me but on the contrary abominated even as they are to be detested and abhorred not only by all Christians but by all mankind 7. That Polygamie and all such practises that tend to the indulgeing of the flesh are contrary to the mind of God and not to be owned by Christians I do moreover disown and reject these subsequent Positions which are contrary to the former Principles 1. As to maintain that there is no such thing as Persons in the holy Trinity 2. That Christ is not God That Christ is not Jehovah 3. That Christ was not perfect and that he is no more then a Type 4. That Christs righteousness is a poor vain empty and sapless righteousness 5. That the bloud of Christ is not meriting and redeaming bloud or that it is a poor thing to live upon the bloud of Christ 6. That is lawfull to have communion with evil Spirits or any compact with them explicit or implicit 7. That it is lawful for a man to keep company with more women then one Now this most solemn protestation I make in all humility and reverence before the Divine Majestie the omnipresent God the searcher of all hearts that from a true intention without any vail or covering as I shall answer it at the great day when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed And now if you my Judges have not so much as a grain of faith to believe this my cordial and solemn protestation let God Angels Saints and all here present bear witness that I have left every one of you inexeusable And now having performed what I could and what I thought my self obliged to do in reference to the vindication of that pure truth I owne and live to I am as ready to receive any sentence from you whether of acquitment or ejectment as you are to deliver it Now although the Commissioners would take no notice of this solemn declaring of my Judgement yet it is of great moment as you may see by that passage in the Ordinance by which the Commissioners are to act page 613. where it

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

travel 2. Mrs. Flavel in a short time fell in travel and then desired no company might be called in yet the woman of the house Goodman Loaders wife called in three or four And Mrs. Flavel was then brought to bed of a daughter having then no husband that the world knew of Mr. Flavel being dead Not proved by any 3. That Doctor Pordage came to that house and Christned that child and named it Hannah and the Doctor came often to visit her there and alwaies alone by himself 4. That the child being put to nurse in the same Parish the Doctor Not proved by any The Nurse denied all these particulars before Witnesses and affirmed them to be un●ruths moved Mrs. Flavel to Kensington and paid the Smith for her being at his house That a little while after the Nurse went to Kensington to enquire for Mrs. Flavel to pay her some money but she was removed and the Nurse saying she left a child with her the company smiled and said they thought she was such a woman After this the Nurses husband wrote a Letter to the Doctor to Bradfield that he was twenty weeks pay behind and could not forbear Not proved The Nurse affirmeth this to be most untrue before Witnesses and affirmed the contrary that no Letter was ever wrote nor ever one penny received from the Dr. nor by his order Not proved by any whereupon he was paid and shortly after sent for the child away from the Nurses 5. That a little while after this Mrs. Flavel came again to the Doctors Family and a little child called Hannah it was also brought thither and Mrs. Flavel took the care of it ever since And Mrs. Flavel being by neighbours asked whose child it was said a dear friend of hers but none could ever hear in the house whose child it was And some telling Mrs. Flavel that the child was so like her that they should take it to be hers had she not said the contrary she answered as before 'T was a dear friends of hers but never named whose 6. That this child who was called Hannah this last Summer they changed her name and called her Ruth they have also changed all their names the Doctor is called Father Abraham his wife is also called Deborah and old Goodwife Pocock is called Rahab and so the rest 7. That Goodman Loaders son being a Souldier saw Mrs. Flavel in Bradfield street and spake to her but she took no notice of it Afterward Mrs. Flavel coming to his Fathers house his mother in discourse Not proved by any asked whether she lived at Bradfield Mrs. Flavel answered she knew no such place I will call my son in who saw you there Mrs. Flavel said people be given to lying and would not have him called and presently called for her horse and went away though before she had resolved to stay all night and never since was there except since the Doctor hath been questioned 31. That Dr. Pordage is extream covetous and hath exacted five shillings at a time to marry one man or else told him he would not marry him the man told him he could not justly demand so much the Dr. not proved by any answered without five shillings he would not marry them and took five shillings 32. That his Preaching doth not tend to Edification Not proved by any 33. That he is a very ignorant and insufficient man for the work of the Ministry September 9. 1650. 34. I came into Bradfield Parsonage in the evening and there I heard a very mournfull cry as if it had been one in extream pains but what it was I know not for it continued all the time I was at the dore which was well near the quarter of an hour and so it continued when I went away And then the 10 day in the morning I came vnto Mr. Francis Pordage at the Parsonage of Stauford Dingley and he enquired of me what I did think of the noise that I heard I told him I could not tell Then he related to me that the Lord was about a great work in this Kingdom and to this Nation and the cause of this cry was one in travel and the pain was so extream that had I stayed there a little longer I might have heard it as far as the Town but now she was delivered of a man-child and the travel was at an end and that he and others were eye-witnesses to it The Testimony of Richard Seward 35. That in Dr. Pordages house in Bradfield lately the new Jerusalem hath been seen to come down from heaven all of precious stones and in the new Jerusalem was a Globe which Globe was eternity and in that eternity were all the Saints 36. That at the said Doctors house the face of God hath been seen not as Moses saw him but the very face as one man may see anothers 37. That one being in the said Doctors house in a trance the said Drs. daughter being by her said that she saw two Angels all in white with Crowns over her head The Examination of Goodman Seward concerning Mr. Pordage THis Deponent saith that Mr. Pordage did affirm marriage to be a very wicked thing contrary to the word of God Goodman Seward telling the aforesaid Mr. Pordage that a friend of his had buried his wife and intended to marry again Mr. Pordage replyed that it was a very wicked act and wondred at it The Deponent replyed that he took Marriage to be an Ordinance of God then demanding if his wife should have died what he should have done he replyed Would you be so wicked as to marry This the above-mentioned Deponent will averr with his Oath A true Copy Examined by MATH LANGLEY Regist ' After he had done it seemed not enough to him to have read such a horrid scandalous confused Charge to the people against me but he proceeded to speak to them desiring them to take notice what a strange person I was representing me to be guilty of Blasphemy Devilism and of loosness in my conversation promising to prove that Charge of Articles or to be counted a Slanderer after which prevaricating speech he suddenly departed After I further urged the Commissioners to hear the Testimony of my Witnesses in reference to the first Charge of Articles that so it might be dispatched that so I might be freed from the trouble of answering so many together which would unavoidably bring confusion and disorder to mine and their proceedings I further shewed that according to their appointment my Witnesses were present and ready desiring them to consider that I had been at trouble and charges in bringing them and that I must unavoidably be at more if they would not then hear them notwithstanding this they denied to hear them at that time calling for two Witnesses which they had summoned to attest my second charge of Articles Here I desired that as my charges had been openly read to the people so the examination of

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

righteousness is called Christs righteousness no other righteousness but the righteousness of Christ can justifie the soul Therefore he is stiled Jer. 23. 6. The Lord our righteousness 1 Cor. 1. 30. Christ is made unto us wisdom and righteousness that is for our justification This righteousness of Christ in its own nature is an everlasting righteousness Dan. 9. 24. 2 Cor. 5. That we might be made the righteousness of God in being clothed upon with Christs righteousness Phil. 3. 9. We are not to be found in our own self Pharisaical righteousness but in Christs righteousness which is the righteousness of justification And the formal cause of a sinners justification is their union and communion with this righteousness of Christ through faith and believing on it Rom. 10. 6. The righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise c. that is the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith This was also intended to have been given into the Court in writing being transcribed out of three or four note-books compared together and afterward seriously considered and weighed to which the Witnesses could swear with good consciences notwithstanding all those outcries were against this Evidence by some of the Ministers and Commissioners as though I had prescribed what they should swear and that we were all combined to commit a hainous sin and bring the guilt of Perjury upon our selves whereas we all stood in innocency as to this thing having no other end in it but the stable assurance of the truth of what was to be attested by serious reflections upon it after the comparing of divers note-books together which served to help and strengthen the memory of the Witnesses together with the avoiding of the Clerks prevarications in writing by partially taking the Depositions in which we oft found him defective But to conclude this Article I have produced these testimonies to shew my judgement touching Christs righteousness which with the positive Deposition of Mrs. Mary Pocock That I spake that of the imputative righteousness of Christ with a limitation may in justice outweigh the Depositions of the other two Witnesses against me being neither of them are positive and so not effectual in Law or reason Now I shall pass to the third Article To which Mr. Tickle being sworn saith that I delivered That the Newbery Octob. 5. discoveries of the sinfulness of sin the terrors of the Law the death of Christ the free-grace of God are fleshly and flashy discoveries Afterward being cross-examined by me to this Interrogatory Whether this Article was delivered in the same express words and in the same Novemb. 2. order he answered thus That the very sum and substance of this Article was delivered fully and roundly by me and in the express words f He dares not swear syllabically to this but keeps two reserves in the express words for substance for the substance of them and to g To the best of his remembrance which clauses keep him from perjury and this from being a legal testimony in regard it is not positive the best of his remembrance Now I not remembring that ever I said that these were but fleshly and flashy discoveries and knowing that it was but his single testimony and not positively sworn to and so no legal evidence to condemn and besides that it was not comprehended in the Act of Blasphemous Opinions to which the Ordinance refers I passed it by formerly without any answer but now to satisfie knowing Christians concerning my judgement in this particular I shall here present this Answer That I then held forth and do still own it That the discoveries of the sinfulness of sin the terrors of the Law the free grace of God the death of Christ were but preparatory works under the Fathers dispensation to the higher and more powerfull workings of God under the dispensation of the Son in changing and transforming the heart into his Image and so but weak in comparison of the more full and clear manifestations and operations of God upon the soul in bringing it up into divine union and fruition To the fourth Article Mr. Tickle saith that I delivered That the Liberty and freedom spoken Taken Octob. 5 of purchased by the bloud of Christ is not a liberty and freedom from the guilt of sin the curse of the Law the wrath of God but the fiery Deity of Christ in the centre of our souls Mr. Tickle being further examined on this Article by me to this Interrogatory viz. Whether this was delivered first in the same express Novemb. 2. words Secondly and in the same order Answers First The very sum and substance of this Article was delivered fully and roundly by the Doctor Secondly That it was delivered in the express words for the h This is a meer shift to make the evidence seem positive and syllabical though in reality it is not so substance of them To a third Interrogatory proposed by me viz. Whether this Article was thus expressed by me without any addition or diminution of his own He thus answers h This is still no legal evidence to condemn one in Law or reason for his memory might fail as really it did To the best of his remembrance without any limitation addition or diminution of his own But here courteous Reader you must give me leave to shew you Mr. Tickles uncertainty and disagreement with himself in delivering this Article which cannot but make it invalid in the eyes of those that are judicious In his attesting of this Article three several times he never agreed with himself but either diminished or added The first time he sware to this Article he had this clause and applyed by the clinging and cleaving of the soul to Christ as you may see in the first paper of Articles which being sworn again October 5. he left out and neither of these agreed with his own Deposition given under his own hand some four years since to the Committee of Plundered Ministers when it was more flesh in his memory and yet not delivered so fully and positively as now which you may see by his own words taken out of his former Depositions which were these i This was the repeating of some passages in my Sermon though in a mistake as you will see afterward Another preparation was the instating of the soul into a glorious liberty and freedom in these expressions Which liberty and freedom is not that liberty and freedom from the guilt of sin the curse of the Law the wrath of God brought about or in an expression of the same signification by the death and bloud of another and applyed or a word like it by the clinging and cleaving of the soul to Christ Now you may take notice that in the two former this clause was added viz. But the fiery Deity of Christ in the centre of the soul which here is not mentioned Moreover the order is changed and some doubtfull expressions are inserted which shewed

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

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