4-54 TheHISTOR Y of the PuRITANs. VoL. II. Commonfamily. The rightful patron was to prefent to the vacant living an a~'~prov-· wealth. d h t' 16 , 4 . e preac er; and in cafe of lapfe it fell to the proteCtor and his council. ~ This ordinance being confirmed by the parliament of 1656, gave great offence to the old clergy; Mr. Gatford the fequeftered reClor of Den– nington, .rubliilied a pamphlet, entitled a petition for the vindication if the publtc ife of common-prayer, &c. occaiioned by the late ordinance for ej~Cling ~candalous ~iniilers; as alfo thirty feven. queries concerning the fa1d ordmance; wh1ch he prefented to the parliament, which met Sept. 3. 1654; but they took no notice of it. Ob)etri~ns aMr. Gatford obferves, that the proteCtor and his council had no legal _gtu'!}ltt, authority to make this, or any other ordinance, without confent of a par– liament: whereas the irljtrument of government empowered them to pro– vide for the fafety of the l1ate by making laws, till the parliament fhould meet, He obferves further, that fuch a proceeding mull ju!l:ify his late Majelly .and Council in all their illegal proceedings before the civil wars; that it would juftify the high commiilion court; and that by the fame authority, an ordinance might be publifheci to ejeet freeholders out of their efl:ates. He complains, that the power of the commiilioners is fin al, and ad– mits of no appeal ; that it looks back to crimes antecedent to the law for a twelvemonth; whereas it ought .only to declare, that for the future fuch offences fball be punifhed with deprivation . That the commiilioners who were to fit in jlldgment upon the clergy were all laymen, the minifiers being called in only in cafes of ignorance and infufficiency; that the ordinance admits of the oath of one witnefs, provided it be fupported with other concurrent evidence, which is contra– ry to the laws of God and man. That fome crimes in the ordinance were none at all, and others of a very .doubtful nature; as how often a miniiler omitting to pray and preach in his pulpit awuld render him negligent; and what lbould be deemed non– rijidence. Above all, he complains that the public reading of the com– mon-prayer fhould be ranked with the fins of fweari~g and drunkennefs, and be an evidence of a fcandalous life and conver(ation; which obferva· tion was unqueftionably juft. Dr. Pordage To give tbe reader an example or two of the proceedings of the commi(– .jetred. fioners: tho(e for Berkjhire fummoned Dr. Pordage retlor of Bradjielrt~ to appear before them at Speenham-Land, near Newbuty, to anfwer to di– vers articles of blrifphemy and herejj. After feveral days bearing, and wit– neffes produced on both fides, the commillioners detennined Dec 8. 1654· that the faid doetor was guilty of denying the deity of Chriil ; the merits of his precious blood and pa!lion ; and feveral other fuch_ ~ike opinions. It is further declared under the hands of fix of the commii110ners, and a fuflicient number of miniflers their alliilants, that the faid doetor was ig~ norant, and infufficient fot the work of the miniftry; it is therefore ordered, that:
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=