A52473:26
An Answer to a late scurrilous and scandalous pamphlet, entitled, The Downfall of old…An Ansvver to a late scvrrilovs and scandalovs pamphlet, entituled, The Downfall of old…
An Answer to a late scurrilous and scandalous pamphlet, entitled, The Downfall of old Common council menAn Ansvver to a late scvrrilovs and scandalovs pamphlet, entituled, The Downfall of old Common councill men
London : s.n., 1642
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
2. The second was the non-annuall election of them: So that within these fair branches of his, are contained the Charge. The particulars whereof are crying sins, Spleen, Injustice, evil Conscience, Partiality and Connivance, Cruelty to the poor, Malignity, Robbing the poor, and favouring themselves, even to the saving of all charges and taxes.
2. The second was the non-annuall election of them: So that within these faire branches of his, are conteyned the Charge. The particulars whereof are crying sins, Spleen, Injustice, evill Conscience, Partiality and Connivence, Cruelty to the poore, Malignitie, Robbing the poore, and favouring themselves, even to the saving of all charges and taxes.
Could either Impudence or Malice it self have said more and proved less, then this scurrilous Pamphleteer hath? Hath he all this while alleged any particular ptoose, or so much as given any one instance to prove that which he hath thus impudent-ly affirmed? Truly, No. And why? Because Dolosus versatur in generalibus. He that intends to raise slanders, and cast aspersions upon them that deserve them not, hath no other way to evade, then by traducing in generals: If he had meant to have dealt fairly and candidly, he would at least have instanced one example, to prove every several imputation. But this he knew he could not do.
Could either Impudence or Malice it selfe have said more and proved lesse, then this scurrilous Pamphleter hath? Hath he all this while alledged any particular ptoose, or so much as given any one instance to prove that which he hath thus impudent-ly affirmed? Truly, No. And why? Because Dolosus versatur in generalibus. He that intends to raise slanders, and cast aspersions upon them that deserve them not, hath no other way to evade, then by traducing in generals: If hee had meant to have dealt fairely and candidly, he would at least have instanced one example, to prove every severall imputation. But this he knew he could not doe.