Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	contrary_a	scripture_n	word_n	3,868	5	4.6208	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

runs thus Such Ministers shall be deemed and accounted scandalous in their lives and conversations as shall be proved guilty of holding and maintaining such blasphemous and Atheistical Opinions c. In which you see the time present is only respected what then have the Commissioners to do to judge any for things many years past though then guilty as I never was if now they disown them and own the contrary as their Judgement But to proceed in relating the transactions of the last day of Trial after the particulars before recited Mr Dunch the Chairman said to me If Mr Starkey being of Councel for me had any thing to present on my behalf he might have liberty to speak Whereupon Mr Starkey being desired by me recited all the Evidence with much acuteness method and judgement shewing That if they squared their proceedings by the rules of Law they were to act by they could have no ground to give sentence against me which he demonstrated so clearly by ennumerating both the testimonies on both sides and also the particular Laws and Priviledges which freed me from the imputation of any legal guilt that many though prejudiced persons were much staggered doubting of the issue in reference to sentence But after this Speech we were all commanded to withdraw and about an hour and an half after we were called in again and the Register was commanded to proceed to publication Whereupon all the Depositions on both sides were read Which being done Mr Ford was ordered by the Commissioners to make a Speech in justification of their intended Sentence against me which Office he performed as wretchedly as he undertook it willingly mis-representing the Evidence with confused Paraphrases and mistakes labouring to refute the Law of my Councels Speech with such assertions as these viz. That although many of the proofs brought against the Doctor were not proofs according to Law yet to the Commissioners who are a Court of Equity and of an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so not obliged to judge according to positive Laws and Statutes they were and might be estemed sufficient proofs Many such speeches as these he used contrary to the Liberty of the Subject the rule of Reason and Scripture endeavouring to perswade the people I was as monstrous as he and some others had represented me in their Pulpits and discourses but I shall say no more of him and his speech leaving them both to the righteous Judge of all things who one day will justifie whom he and others of his way have condemned After this Speech of Mr Fords was ended I desired liberty of Mr Dunch the Chairman to speak something to the people in reply to some things Mr Ford had untruely said against me but it would not be permitted Then I desired them to receive in this my last request and to weigh it seriously before they proceeded to sentence which though it was returned into my hand again before it was read I shall here present for the satisfaction of the judicious Reader Gentlemen BEfore you proceed to Judgement and pass sentence I desire you seriously to consider these subsequent particulars 1. That I was according to Law acquitted of that Charge attested by Mr Tickle whence I produced my Discharge before you which according to the judgement of judicious Lawyers is undoubtedly legal and will hold good notwithstanding all pretentions to the contrary 2. That the matters of the same Charge are acknowledged by the Witness to have been spoken a year before that Act was made Entituled An Act against several Blasphemous Atheistical Opinions to which the Commission refers as the rule to judge of scandalous opinions which make a distinct head from matters of ignorance and insufficiency according to the tenor of the Commission 3. That the same Act cannot take into cognizance any crime for which the offender was not accused within six months after the committing of it therefore nothing in either the first or last charge that hath been any way proved can be judged as an offence against that Act. 4. In reference to my third or last Charge there hath been nothing directly proved against me but some words and expressions dropt from me in a privat discourse to one single Witness Which expressions as you Mrs Grip who had been proved perjured had I had justice see are capable of an harmless interpretation being never owned in that sence the Witness took them as my avowed judgement but solemnly disowned as contrary to it and therefore incapable legally to prejudice me for the former Act doth not make one an offender for a word but for avowedly maintaining or holding forth in words or writing any thing there prohibited 5. That in reference to those words in both my Charges which have been any way proved to have fallen from me I never owned them as my Judgement in that sence my accuser takes them but have openly denied and disowned them which therefore cannot render me guilty either by the Law of that former Act or by the Law of Scripture which denounceth judgement against those who make a man an offender for a word Isa 29. 20 21. which deserves your serious consideration 6. That the particular Articles both of my first and last Charge that seem to be of worst consequence cannot justly be brought within the cognizance of that Act according to the litteral and genuine scope of it being chiefly made against the Principles and Practices of those called Ranters 7. That nothing of scandal in life and conversation being proved against me my free owning and confessing the appearance of evil Spirits for some time in my Family permitted by God opposed and overcome by the Christian weapons of Prayer and fasting ought not in equity to prejudice any against me so as to sway them in their Sentence or Judgement I having cordially solemnly and sincerely protested my innocency as to any communion or compact with evil spirits and that you would consider that things of this nature though criminous are not under the cognizance of the Act but to be tryed by the common Law according to the usual custom of this Nation 8. That the Act of general pardon doth clearly take away all legal guilt from things done or spoken before 1651. that are not excepted in the said Pardon Now the particulars of my first Charge and all those of my third or last which seem to be of moment and to be any way proved were spoken or done before the year 1651. b b And therefore made invalid by it s not being there excepted Now this being the positive Judgement of able Lawyers who have seen it experienced in things of more dangerous consequence may give you the Commissioners sufficient ground of serious reflections upon it 9. That according to the judgement of wise judicious and knowing men your Commission having been long since and being now again under consideration and debate Whether to be confirmed or altered You the Commissioners in the interim have

before it was heard Hereupon the Chairman commanded Langly the Clerk to read these following Articles in open Court Articles against Dr. Pordage of Bradfield 1. That the fiery Deity of Christ mingles and mixes it self with our flesh 2. That the imputative righteousness of Christ is a sapless righteousness 3. That the 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 4. That the liberty and freedom spoken of purchased by the blood of Christ and applyed by the dinging and cleaving of the soul to is not a liberty or freedom from the guilt of sin the curse of the law the wrath of God but the fiery Deity of Christ in the center of our souls 5. That by Male and Female Gen. 1. we are to understand by Male the Deity by the Female the humanity and that these two became one flesh these things were delivered without any limitation whatsoever 6. That gifts and graces of the Spirit are but flesh 7. That Christ is a Type and but a Type 8. That Christ is not God 9. That Christ is not Jehovah Tickle witnesseth After these Articles were read the Chair-man demanded my answer to whom I replyed That I had been acquitted from all these four years since by the Committee of plundered Ministers and that after a full hearing and debate therefore I desired that according to Law they would pass by these old ones but if they had any that were new told them I was ready and willing to receive and answer them I further replyed I hoped they would give me the liberty of a Felon who after tryall and acquitment cannot be questioned for the same thing again to which Mr. Dunch replyed with much seeming fierceness You are worse then a Felon for ought I know Which language coming from a Judge to the Defendant before tryall let all sober persons judge of who are acquainted with the rules of civility morality or Christianity Here Mr. Hewes the Minister interposed affirming That a Felon might be acquitted at one Assizes and hang for the same thing at the next of which he gave an instance in a story not worth the relating To which I replyed only this That it could not be for the same he was acquitted of before but I seeing that he had gone ultra crepidam beyond his Office and beyond reason said no more to him though he was very bitter and pragmatical speaking oft as Judge although he was but an assistant and that only in reference to ignorance and insufficiency But afterward applying my self to the Chairman I further urged that these Articles were not within the cognizance of the Commissioners in that I had been discharged from them by those who had full power and authority to do it After this all were commanded to withdraw and about an hour after I was called in again and asked for my discharge I answered I came now only to know my Charge and that I had not my Discharge there but would bring it when they would appoint me Then they declared That notwithstanding my Discharge in another Court yet it was the judgement of the Commissioners that they had power to take cognizance of the Articles exhibited whence they made this Order viz. BERKS By the Commissioners for ejecting of Scandalous Ministers c. October 5. 1654. At the Bear in Speenhamland Dr. John Pordage Rector of Bradfield in this County hath in obedience to our Warrant dated the 18 of September last to him directed this day attended and pleadeth that he hath been already discharged from the Articles that are exhibited to us against him by the Parliament and the late Committee of this County and therefore not again to be questioned or proceeded against for the same by these Commissioners But the said Doctor hath produced no such Discharge Resolved upon the Question That by vertue of the Ordinance of his Highness the Lord Protector and his Councel for ejecting of scandalous ignorant and insufficient Ministers and School-Masters The said Commissioners have power to question the said Doctor upon the said Articles and that notwithstanding his Plea as aforesaid of a former Discharge And it is thereupon Ordered That the said Doctor do give his positive answer to the said Articles unto us on this day fortnight being the 19 instant at this place whereof he is not to fail Now this was the substance of the things which were transacted the first day of my appearance which I have here presented in truth and righteousness to the impartial Reader My second appearance before them was the 19 of October at the same place The Commissioners then sitting were these M. Wightwick Chairman M. Danch Mr. Evelyn Mr. Bell Mr. Mils The Ministers Mr. Woodbridg Mr. Fowler Mr. Hughes with some others The first thing they demanded was my Answer to the Articles exhibited against me But I desired them to receive my Discharge which I hoped would be instead of a full and satisfactory Answer So I produced it and it was received by them and delivered to the Clerk who after it was read took a Copy of it and then returned it to me again The Tenor of it was as followeth At the Committee for Plundred Ministers March 27. 1651. VPon hearing the Cause in presence of parties and Councel on both sides concerning Dr. Pordage Minister of Bradfield in the County of Berks And upon reading the Papers and Examinations depending against him before this Committee and full hearing what could be said by both parties This Committee have taken the said Cause into serious consideration and debate and do thereupon Order that the said Cause be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed GILB MILLINGTON Afterward they asked me how they should know that this was a true Copy I returned answer I received it from their Clerk there present who knew it to be true And besides I had a friend by who being with me when I received it could attest the truth of it by Oath Then they waved my Discharge and called for my particular Answer to the Articles alleadging That notwithstanding the Discharge the Commissioners had judged the Articles under their cognizance So that after I had pressed my Discharge with as much earnestness as in modesty I could they still hastily calling for my further Answer I was necessitated to give in this which followeth My Answer to the Articles exhibited against me consists in these Particulars 1. Partic. I Humbly conceive that none of the Articles exhibited against me are comprehended in the Act Entituled An Act against several Atheistical Blasphemous and execrable Opinions derogatory to the Honour of God and destructive to humane society without the sense and meaning of the words expressed in the Act be stretched and wrested beyond the litteral scope and drift of the Act. And this is not my judgement only but the judgement of some pious and judicious Lawyers of this Land Which thing in

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

righteousness Ans I thus deliver the truth As I was paraphrasing on that portion of Scripture mentioned in the 9 of Dan. 24. of everlasting righteousness I did say words to this effect That the imputative righteousness of another was a sapless righteousness to all those that had no right or interest in it I shall desire a little to explain my self on this Proposition that the imputative righteousness of Christ in this sense will prove a sapless righteousness For he that hath not the Spirit of Christ dwelling in his heart by faith notwithstanding all this application of Christ and his merits yet to him it is but a sapless righteousness so saith the scripture He that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his notwithstanding his application of the imputative righteousness of Christ to himself but here I do not deny the imputative righteousness of Christ nor his active and passive obedience to be the material cause of his justification yea I own and acknowledg Christs righteousness to be the souls righteousness in point of justification when it is applyed upon a true ground according to the true sense of the Spirit in the Scriptures 3. Article That they should look to the fiery nature of Christs Deity in the centre of their souls burning up the dross and chaff of their lusts and corruptions Ans For the explanation of this Article we must consider these are Scripture-Metaphors and Christ is often clothed with a garment of fire according to that of Paul Heb. 12. 29. Our God is a consuming fire and in another place Christ shall come in flaming fire None or few understand these Scriptures or the like of elemental material fire but either of the fire of his divine love to burn up our lusts and corruptions or the fire of his divine justice or wrath in destroying sin and sinners 4. Article That the fiery Deity of Christ mingles and mixeth it self with our flesh Ans I was then speaking of the mystical union betwixt Christ and his Church And in the illustration of this union I applyed that expression out of the 5 of the Canticles He mingleth his Wine and his milk together so in this union Christs divine nature mingleth it self with our humanity his spirit with our flesh This expression Mr. Tickle was pleased to charge with blasphemy asking me what I meant by flesh I answered in conference By flesh I understand not the sinfull and fleshly part of the soul that lusteth against the spirit for with this there can be no union 2. By flesh I mean not the outward elementary flesh of the body but by flesh I understand our pure humanity the pure regenerated part of the soul the converted part of our spirit and thus the spirit of Christ and regenerated part are really in union one with the other according to the Apostles phrase We are made partakers of the divine nature And against this answer he had nothing to reply 5. Article That Christ was a Type and but a Type This was in conference He asked me whether Christ was a Type or no I answered Christ was a Type so expressed 1 Tim. 2. 21. How was Christ a Type replyed Mr. Pendarius I answered His life and conversation was a Type that is a pattern and example for us Christians to square our lives and conversations by Who denies this said he Why I affirm no more said I then that Christ is a Type Is he but a Type replyed Mr. Pendarius I answered Why lie you thus on the catch I say Christ is a Type but I will not affirm Christ is but a Type And this they both confess in their Answers 6. Article That the gifts and graces of the Spirit are but flesh I confess I said the common gifts and graces of the Spirit were but flesh but this I opened after this manner That they were but fleflly weak and carnal in point of justification in point of trust and confidence in regard of salvation and life eternal and no otherwise as their own Witnesses on examination confessed before the honourable Committee of Berks. To conclude As for these Articles especially all the latter I look not upon them as under the cognizance of the Act yet for your satisfaction I have transcribed my former Answers and doe here present them again to your consideration by which you may clearly see my innocency in reference to the horrid opinions for which I am accused John Pordage This being read by the Clerk we were all commanded to withdraw About an hour or two after I was called in again and they told me if I would I should have an Order to fetch in my Witnesses to prove what they could on my behalf in reference to that Charge I replyed That I hoped my Discharge and Answer were sufficient and that they would not put me to the trouble and charge of traversing this business viva voce by my Witnesses again in that besides my Discharge I had brought all their Depositions delivered by Oath to the Committee of Plundered Ministers which I desired might be then read before them because the Witnesses could but say viva voce what was there wrote down Hereupon I delivered them to be read and so being handed to the Clerk the Commissioners asked me how they should know them to be true I replyed The Clerk delivered them as a true Copy and I would affirm on my Oath that they had not been altered since I had them But notwithstanding this they rejected them alleadging that they would not take notice of any written Depositions taken out of another Court but that I must again bring in the former Witnesses to testifie what they could by word of mouth so that all the reasons and arguments I could use could not prevail with them to free me from the charge and trouble of From the first to the last I could not have the least civil just request granted me which might either advantage my cause or free me from trouble and expence bringing in my Witnesses again for which the Clerk was then commanded to draw me up an Order BERKS By the Commissioners for ejecting of Scandalous Ministers October 19. 1654. At the Bear in Speenhamland Dr. Pordage of Bradfield hath this day again attended and hath exhibited an Answer in writing to the Articles exhibited against him Ordered that the said Dr. do attend again before us on this day fortnight at this place at which time he is to give answer to the additional Articles now exhibited against him and to produce his Witnesses if he have any for proof of his defence and Summons are to issue out for that purpose if he desire the same Then they told me they had a new Charge of Articles against me which were these that follow then openly read by the Clerk Articles against Doctor Pordage Parson of Bradfield to prove his ignorance and insufficiency for the Ministry 1. IMprimis One Mistriss Lewin being with child and near

the erecting the Kingdom of Christ in their hearts for which I bless God and praise his Grace by which it is what it is Artic. 10. That I am very ignorant and insufficient for the work of the Ministry Answ I believe those that exhibit this Article against me upon tryal will be found very ignorant and insufficient to judge of it and as to those that are to be my Judges I hope they will not make their own wills the rule of ignorance and insufficiency but proceed according to the Canons of pure Reason or supernatural Revelation in giving judgement concerning this particular The event of which I leave to God Now to conclude though in reference to this and the two last charges of Articles I stand free from any guilt in the sight of God and I hope by my answers to them in the sight of all judicious and sober men yet to leave any inexcusable that may design whether by Law or without Law absolutely to condemn me I crave the benefit and priviledge of the Act of General Pardon in reference to all those things that are pretended to be spoken or acted by me before the year 1651. as most of these are that seem to be of any moment and consequence John Pordage After this was read not knowing but that the Commissioners retained their former resolution of examining their witnesses in private I pressed them to an open examination for the satisfaction of all parties and for the more full discovery of the truth alleadging that I hoped they would not deal worse with me then the Jews did with Christ and the Ethnick Romans with Paul who suffered them to hear their accusers face to face So after some dispute it was granted and agreed upon But before I proceed to give you an account of the Depositions taken pro and con I must inform you that the 22 of November was the time of my fourth appearance which continued three days all which three days were wholly spent in taking the Depositions of my accusers witnesses to make good the first and last charge and when they had ended their examinations on the 24 being Friday late at night they called upon me to produce my witnesses if I had any I answered them I had witnesses but they were not then present neither had I received any summons for their appearance whereupon I desired a summons to call in my witnesses which they after much debate and many outcries against me for not having them ready granted together with an Order by which I was to appear at the Bear in Speenhamland at Newbery the 30 of that month which was just a week after to make proof of my defence by witnesses I seeing they had prescribed so short a time for making my defence alleadged that it was impossible for me to be ready with my witnesses so soon and desired a fortnights time which though I urged it with many Reasons could not be granted me But I was afterward prevented by a vehement cold in reference to my appearing at Newbery on the day prescribed whereupon I sent three friends to attest my inability to appear on that day before them who likewise presented the Commissioners with a Letter from me in which I gave them an account of my great distemper whereupon the truth of my extraordinary weakness being attested by those I sent this Order with a new Summons was granted by the Commissioners BERKS By the Commissioners for Ejecting of Scandalous Ministers Novemb. 30. 1654. WHereas Doctor Pordage was required this day to appear before us in the cause depending concerning him And it is now attested that the said Doctor is sick and cannot without further danger of his health this day appear It is therefore ordered that he shall have further day given till the seventh of December next at the Bear in Reading which day is to be peremptory unto him According to which Order I appeared at Reading the seventh of December with my witnesses where two days were spent in Examination now this was my fifth and last time of appearance the transactions of which cannot distinctly be set down by themselves in regard of my joyning the Depositions then taken with those of the adverse party according to this subsequent method Now then I shall proceed to the merits of the Cause secundum allegata Here I must be forced to change the method of the distinct work of every days appearance because I must ballance the Depositions taken this 4th time of appearance against me with those taken the 5th and last time on my behalf from my witnesses Probata Here then I must present you with the Depositions of the witnesses and first with those that concern the first Charge of Articles in reference to which Mr Tickle gave Evidence by Oath against me first at Newbery the fifth of October and again at Reading the 22 of November being the day in which my Answer was read Now to the first Article John Tickle Minister of Abbington sworn at Newberie the fifth of October deposed that I delivered in the Pulpit That the Fiery Deity of Christ mingleth and mixeth it self with our flesh On farther examination upon Oath at Reading November 2. Mr Tickle affirmed that he charged Blasphemy on the former expression and that I repeated my sense to be thus viz. That I did not mean with our corruption but with our flesh a Mr Tickle would here infinuate that I meant the corrupt flesh of our Elementary bodies because I held my hand over the Pulpit in preaching but the consequence is as far from Reason as his gloss from my meaning holding my hand over the Pulpit The said Mr Tickle being cross-examined touching this Article upon this Interrogatory viz. Whether he did swear positively to this Article as thus delivered by me in the very same terms and order without any addition or diminution or onely so according to his best remembrance thus replyed That the sum and substance of that Article was clearly and fully delivered by me and as far as he b This is no legal Evidence for his memory might fail him and he nor swearing to these words syllabically might change them and so mistake the sense could remember in these words or words to that purpose The same person being sworn again and further examined at the Bear in Reading Novemb. 22. after some expostulation with me in which he grew somewhat passionate further said that after I had held up my hand as he had formerly deposed I said I did not mean our flesh but with the soul of Christ and that this was delivered without any the least limitation as to the c Mr Tickle still fails of a positive proof and goeth beyond my words judging of my sense and meaning or else he means his own which is nothing to me but all this was only his single Testimony sense of it Now these last Depositions were taken by the Court from Mr Tickle occasionally

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