<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-06-30</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>TCP Staff (Michigan)</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B140431.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A95333">
<STC T="W">T3151</STC>
<STC T="T">e821_4</STC>
<STC T="C">R207360</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99866417</BIBNO>
<VID>168015</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>TRUTH Appearing thorough the Clouds of Unde&s;erved Scandal And ASPERSION.</P>
<P>OR, A Brief and true account of &s;ome particulars clearly evincing the unju&s;tne&s;s and illegality of the &s;entence of Ejectment (pa&s;&s;ed by the Commi&s;&s;ioners of <HI>Berks,</HI> appointed to judge of Mini&s;ters) again&s;t Dr. <HI>JOHN PORDAGE</HI> Of <HI>Bradfeild</HI> in the &s;ame County.</P>
<P>Printed in the Yeer 165<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="treatise">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>Truth appearing through the Clouds of under&s;erved &s;candal and a&s;per&s;ion.</HEAD>
<P>_TO make this clear, the Reader mu&s;t take notice, that all things the Doctor was accu&s;ed of, may be reduced to the&s;e three heads; of words, actions, or mental defects which are under the cognizance of the&s;e Commi&s;&s;ioners&punc; onely as they relate to &s;candal, or ig|norance, and in&s;ufficiency, according to the Letter of the Ordinance.</P>
<P>In reference to &s;candal, nothing of Actions hath been pro|ved again&s;t him, though the accu&s;er rai&s;ed from the dead, things of nine or ten yeers &s;tanding, which he exhibited by way of cir|&s;tances, all which did not amount to any po&s;itive legal charge importing but a Libel.</P>
<P>As to words, which by the Commi&s;&s;ioners were interpre|ted &s;candalous, though the wor&s;t of them were not directly included within the Act; all that had any &s;hew of proof, were either in the fir&s;t or third Charge of Articles, which are not &s;candalous, but as they are offences again&s;t that Act dated 1650. to which the Commi&s;&s;ion refers, as the rule to judge of &s;candal.</P>
<P>As to the fir&s;t Charge of Articles, which were chiefly in|&s;i&s;ted upon in the &s;entence, the particulars of it were not of|fences again&s;t that forementioned Act, becau&s;e as the Doctor alleadged, 1. The particulars of it were acknowledged, even
<PB N="2" REF="3">by the adver&s;aries to be &s;poken a yeer before the Being of that Act. Now there can be no guilt contracted from any Law, as to any thing committed before the Being of that Law except &s;ome determined retro&s;pect be expre&s;&s;ed in it. 2. None can be rende|red guilty by that Act, that are not accu&s;ed within &s;ix mo|neths after the offence committed; now it is five or &s;ix yeers &s;ince tho&s;e things were pretended to be &s;poken by the Doctor. 3. They onely are obnoxious to guilt by that Act, that avow|edly maintain or hold forth the things there expre&s;&s;ed; now he never avowedly maintained the things he is there accu&s;ed of, but hath oft avowed and maintained the contrary.</P>
<P>Again, the Doctor hath been acquitted of this fir&s;t Charge of Articles by two Committees already, and fir&s;t by the Committee of <HI>Berks,</HI> and that after a Sermon preached at <HI>Redding,</HI> by the appointment of the Committee, in which he &s;olemnly vindicated him&s;elf from the horrid imputation of denying the Godhead of Chri&s;t, of which he was then ac|cu&s;ed from &s;ome words he &s;pake in a di&s;pute before the &s;ame Committee; and for which, as the chief thing expre&s;&s;ed in the &s;entence, he is now judged &s;candalous and ejected.</P>
<P>And after this by the Committee of plundered Mini&s;ters, from whom after full examination and proof of witne&s;&s;es, 32 then &s;itting in Committee, he was compleatly acquitted, receiving legal di&s;charge, which he produced before the pre&s;ent Com|mi&s;&s;ioners of <HI>Berks,</HI> alleadging that it was again&s;t Rea&s;on, Law, the Liberty of the Subject, and that known maxime of <HI>Magna Charta, (Nemo bis punietur, pro uno delicto:</HI> No man &s;hall be twice puni&s;hed for one offence) to take tho&s;e Ar|ticles into their cognizance again, or put him to the trouble and charges of making a new defence. Yet notwith&s;tand|ing they traver&s;ed this over again, and made it the chiefe&s;t ground of their &s;entence of ejectment, though be&s;ides the for|mer ju&s;t and legal Pleas, he produced witne&s;&s;es, who atte&s;ted on oath, that he limitted and explained the chief a&s;&s;ertions (which concerned the Godhead of Chri&s;t) for which he was accu&s;ed, in the &s;ame di&s;cour&s;e, the accu&s;er alledged, he &s;pake them.</P>
<P>Now as to the third charge, that which was of mo&s;t weight,
<PB N="3" REF="3">yet not within the Act of &s;candal, was &s;ome words pretended to be &s;poken to a woman of <HI>Redding</HI> in a private di&s;cour&s;e, about four yeers &s;ince, which may with a charitable con&s;tru|ction, as may be &s;een in the Doctors an&s;wer, bear an harmle&s;s &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>Now the&s;e words were atte&s;ted by a &s;ingle witne&s;s onely, (who is known to be a very pa&s;&s;ionate woman, and &s;o &s;ubject to mi&s;takes) without any concurrent te&s;timony, which accor|ding to the Ordinance its &s;elf is not a &s;ufficient proof; more|over, this woman delivering upon oath a known untruth, had by four witne&s;&s;es been proved perjured, and &s;o an in&s;ufficient witne&s;s, had not the Commi&s;&s;ioners, by the earne&s;t per&s;wa|&s;ion of the accu&s;er (who was joyned in Commi&s;&s;ion as an a&s;|&s;i&s;tant to them, and objected that one of the witne&s;&s;es was an Herberi&s;t) again&s;t Law and Rea&s;on, ab&s;olutely denyed to re|ceive their te&s;timony, though it was much urged, and that ju&s;tly, by the defendant.</P>
<P>Moreover, in reference to tho&s;e things in both Charges, that had any &s;hew of proof brought of them, he had pre&s;ent di|vers witne&s;&s;es to atte&s;t upon Oath, that the tenor of his Mi|ni&s;try hath been in particular contrary to the things they &s;en|tenced him for; which te&s;timony they rejected as impertinent, and would not hear the evidence of the witne&s;&s;es, who came in upon that account, as relying more upon &s;ome words pre|tended to be &s;poken in a private di&s;cour&s;e, or a &s;udden di&s;pute, then upon the avowed judgement of a man; frequently, pub|likely, and &s;olemnly held forth.</P>
<P>To &s;econd which intended evidence, he gave in a very &s;o|lemn Prote&s;tation, in which he di&s;owned and rejected tho&s;e &s;trange opinions, his enemies accu&s;ed him of, and condemned him for, and declared that the contrary truths were his avowed judgement: which is very con&s;iderable, in regard the Ordi|nance judgeth onely tho&s;e, who &s;hall be found, <HI>holding and maintaining,</HI> the particulars expre&s;&s;ed in the former Act.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides this, to leave his Judges inexcu&s;able, whom he found by their carriage all along to be exceedingly re&s;olved and pre|judiced again&s;t him, though he really &s;tood in his innocency, he craved the priviledge of the Act of General pardon, in refe|rence
<PB N="4" REF="4">to all words pretended to be &s;poken before 1651. as all tho&s;e were, which &s;eemed material, or any way related to &s;can|dal.</P>
<P>As to that head of ignorance and in&s;ufficiency for the Mini|&s;tery, which was an Article of the la&s;t Charge contrived to prejudice and defame the Doctor in the day of &s;entence; There was a fellow brought to prove it, by &s;ome Allegoricall interpretations of Scripture, which he affirmed were delivered by the Doctor in preaching, with the holding forth of &s;ome|what touching Chri&s;ts my&s;tical birth, death, and re&s;urrection in us.</P>
<P>Again&s;t who&s;e te&s;timony it was objected, that the deponent not writing down what he there atte&s;ted, could not be able exactly to remember &s;o much as he there depo&s;ed. 2. That either the Commi&s;&s;ioners &s;hould not receive his te&s;timony to write any thing in &s;entence and judgement, or el&s;e give the Doctor time to make his defence, by comparing what the de|ponent had witne&s;&s;ed with what others had wrote, who con|&s;tantly take notes from him. 3. That the deponent was a known drunkard, and &s;o an in&s;ufficient witne&s;s in things of that nature.</P>
<P>But notwith&s;tanding this, and whatever hath been before declared, they proceeded to &s;entence that day, being Friday <HI>December</HI> the eighth, judging the Doctor to be &s;candalous, though nothing criminous was proved in reference to that Act which is the rule to judge of &s;candal; and al&s;o ignorant and very in&s;ufficient for the Mini&s;tery, without ever proceeding to examination, again&s;t the expre&s;s Letter of their Commi&s;&s;ion, and without any colour of Rea&s;on in the judgement of all unbya&s;&s;ed per&s;ons, who under&s;tand the Import of tho&s;e terms, as making a di&s;tinct head from &s;candal, together with the Do|ctors gifts and qualifications, compared with the gifts of ma|ny of tho&s;e, who e&s;teem them&s;elves, and are e&s;teemed by others, able Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>But before &s;entence, the Commi&s;&s;ioners appointed one Mr. <HI>Ford</HI> (who had &s;hewn him&s;elf in a Sermon at the A&s;&s;izes to be a bitter enemy again&s;t the Doctor) to make a kind of &s;peech to the people, in which he was to exhibit the rea&s;ons
<PB N="5" REF="4">of the &s;entence; who there laboured with much earne&s;tne&s;s and &s;eeming zeal, to prevaricate whatever had been rationally and legally alleged on the Doctors behalf; but how he managed this di&s;cour&s;e, whether wi&s;ely or pa&s;&s;ionately, truly or in di&s;gui&s;es, according to Law or again&s;t it, like a Divine as he called him|&s;elf, or a fierce opinioni&s;t, let all &s;ober per&s;ons judge, that were pre&s;ent. But this is certain, that among many other things which were very un&s;avoury to knowing and unbya&s;&s;ed &s;pirits, he a&s;&s;erted, that although many of the proofs, brought again&s;t the Doctor, were not proofs according to Law, yet to the Commi&s;&s;ioners, who are a Court of Equity, and of an Eccle&s;ia&s;tical juri&s;diction, and &s;o not obliged to judge accor|ding to po&s;itive Laws and Statutes, they were and might be e&s;teemed &s;ufficient proofs: which &s;peech let tho&s;e judge of who under&s;tand the Liberty of the Subject, and the danger of tho&s;e proceedings, which are &s;teered by will and arbitrary de|terminations, though again&s;t law and rea&s;on.</P>
<P>To the &s;entence, &s;ix Commi&s;&s;ioners and &s;even Mini&s;ters a|greed, one of which Commi&s;&s;ioners had been witne&s;s again&s;t the Doctor, who openly declared in the Court, That he ne|ver heard of any other death and re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, then what was at Jeru&s;alem, notwith&s;tanding the&s;e and other Scri|ptures, <HI>Heb.</HI> 6.6. <HI>Rev.</HI> 7.8. Another of them who was Chair|man in the time of &s;entence, had threatned him before his tryal, to ca&s;t him out of his Living, at the &s;itting of this Parliament; who al&s;o at the Doctors fir&s;t appearing before him, told him in a pa&s;&s;ionate manner, that he was wor&s;t then a Felon, for ought he knew. Of the Mini&s;ters two had been witne&s;&s;es, being both prejudiced per&s;ons, but one of them a profe&s;&s;ed enemy of the Doctors, who &s;ome yeers &s;ince &s;adly &s;candalized him in print, a third as far as yet can be known, was the accu&s;er him&s;elf, who all the while &s;ate as an a&s;&s;i&s;tant to to the Judges, and had great influence upon their proceedings, &s;ometimes breaking forth in the open Court in bitter railing expre&s;&s;ions again&s;t the Doctors per&s;on and family, who yet was admitted as a witne&s;s by the Commi&s;&s;ioners, but could at|te&s;t nothing of his own knowledge, only hear &s;ayes from others which are no te&s;timones, but meerly &s;tories, and weigh no|thing
<PB N="6" REF="5">in Law, yet were taken as evidence again&s;t the Do|ctor, as the very &s;entence expre&s;&s;eth.</P>
<P>To conclude, 'tis very well known that his Judges were prejudiced per&s;ons, carrying things very rigidly and har&s;hly thoroughout the whole tryal, &s;ome of them, both Mini&s;ters and others, &s;hewing their inward temper by &s;harp and bitter expre&s;&s;ions, which oft fell from them, and by their readine&s;s to catch every word the Doctor &s;pake, which they could take hold on, and to throw it from one to another by their glo&s;&s;es and paraphra&s;es: And it was ob&s;erved that there was hardly one word ever heard &s;poken for the Doctor by any of the Commi&s;&s;ioners thorough the whole trial, except the fir&s;t day, when there were two &s;ober men pre&s;ent, who much oppo&s;ed the re&s;t of the Commi&s;&s;ioners, in reference to that charge of Articles the Doctor had been legally acquitted of before, but &s;eeing the carriage of the re&s;t, confe&s;&s;ed they found them re|&s;olved and wholly bent to bear down whatever might &s;eem to make for the Doctor: and &s;o &s;ate no more among&s;t them.</P>
<P>Much more might be &s;aid of this &s;ubject, and of tho&s;e mon|&s;trous &s;candals and a&s;per&s;ions, which are everywhere &s;pread abroad again&s;t the Doctor, by &s;ubtle and malitious per&s;ons, to overcloud his innocency, and &s;o prejudice all again&s;t him, that none might &s;hew him either mercy, or ju&s;tice. But the Doctor intending to &s;et forth at large a Relation of the whole bu&s;ine&s;s, this was judged &s;ufficient by &s;ome friends, to go forth as a <HI>Prodromus</HI> to the other, by which &s;ome of that prejudice may be taken away from the &s;pirits of tho&s;e who have been mi&s;-informed by the Doctors enemies, touching this tryal, who think to make their own cau&s;e good, by repre&s;enting his as very bad: but certainly the time will come, when his pretended guilt will appear to be innocency, and their innocency but vailed guilt.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
