A88575:220
Mr. Love's case
Mr. Love's case: wherein is published, first, his several petitions to the Parliament. Secondly, a full narrative of the late dangerous design against the state, written with Mr. Loves own hand, and by him sent to the Parliament; wherein he setteth down his several meetings and secret actings with Major Alford, Maj. Adams, Col. Barton, Mr. Blackmore, Mr. Case, Mr. Cauton, Dr. Drake, Mr. Drake, Cap. Far, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Haviland, Major Huntington, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Jaquel, Mr Jackson, Lieut. Col. Jackson, Cap. Massey, Mr. Nalton, Cap. Potter, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Sterks, Colonel Sowton, Colonel Vaughan, and others. Thirdly, Mr. Loves speech and prayer on the scaffold on Tower Hill, August 22. 1651. Printed by an exact copy, taken in short-hand by John Hind. Fourthly, animadversions on the said speech and prayer.Mr. Love's case: wherein is published, first, his several petitions to the Parliament. Secondly, a full narrative of the late dangerous design against the state, written with Mr. Loves own hand, and by him sent to the Parliament; wherein he setteth down his several meetings and secret actings with Major Alford, Maj. Adams, Col. Barton, Mr. Blackmore, Mr. Case, Mr. Cauton, Dr. Drake, Mr. Drake, Cap. Farr, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Haviland, Major Huntington, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Jaquel, Mr Jackson, Lieut. Col. Jackson, Cap. Massey, Mr. Nalton, Cap. Potter, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Sterks, Colonel Sowton, Colonel Vaughan, and others. Thirdly, Mr. Loves speech and prayer on the scaffold on Towerhil, August 22. 1651. Printed by an exact copy, taken in short-hand by John Hinde. Fourthly, animadversions on the said speech and prayer.
London: printed for R.W. and Peter Cole, 1651
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Animadversions › Section 9, 10, 11, 12: ANIMAD. upon Sect. 9, 10, 11, 12.
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.
Whereas in purging himself from the Aspersion of Lying, he saith thus, I hope you will believe a dying man, who dare not look God in the face with a lie in his mouth, intimating, as if his being ready to die, was a bridle in his lips to restrain him from lying; the truth is, according to that principle of his (formerly mentioned) that he, who ever once truly believed, can never by any sin or wickedness whatsoever lose the love and favour of God; his being ready to die in conjunction with a persuasion of his Saintship, should rather be a temptation upon him to lie or commit any other wickedness, then an engagement upon him to refrain lying: For in case he were in hope of living still in the world, and should practice lying or any other sin, he had cause to fear, that though God would not cast him out of his saving Love for such practices, yet he might, and would severely punish him otherwise. But when a person of such a principle certainly knows that he shall presently die, he hath no ground to fear any punishment at all from God, for whatsoever he shall now either say or do, because death (according to the said principle) delivers him for ever out of his hand. Nor am I free from all Jealousy, but that the Principle I speak of had some malignant influence upon M. Love's spirit, in many of those unworthy strains and misdemeanours which proceeded from him at his death. Whereas he pleads to that particular indictment of lying, insisted upon by himself, That what he denied before the High Court of Justice, he neither afterwards confessed himself, nor was it proved by others against him; very possibly, in his equivocal sense of the words, denying, proving and confessing, that which he pleads may be true: But M. Love, had he been ingenuous when he was before a Court of Judicature, where the common and known Dialect of the Law useth to be spoken, and where critical and captious Formalities of speech are not expected, he should have denied only such things, which according to a Law-sense of the words used by him, he could truly have denied. Upon these terms he could neither have denied that he ever wrote Letter to the King, Queen, Church ⟨p. 47⟩or State of Scotland; nor yet that he never received any Letter, &c.
Whereas in purging himself from the Aspersion of Lying, he saith thus, I hope you will believe a dying man, who dare not look God in the face with a lie in his mouth, intimating, as if his being ready to die, was a bridle in his lips to restrain him from lying; the truth is, according to that principle of his (formerly mentioned) that he, who ever once truly believed, can never by any sin or wickedness whatsoever lose the love and favor of God; his being ready to die in conjunction with a perswasion of his Saintship, should rather be a temptation upon him to lie or commit any other wickedness, then an engagement upon him to refrain lying: For in case he were in hope of living still in the world, and should practice lying or any other sin, he had cause to fear, that though God would not cast him out of his saving Love for such practices, yet he might, and would severely punish him otherwise. But when a person of such a principle certainly knows that he shall presently die, he hath no ground to fear any punishment at all from God, for whatsoever he shall now either say or do, because death (according to the said principle) delivers him for ever out of his hand. Nor am I free from all Jealousie, but that the Principle I speak of had some malignant infuence upon M. Love's spirit, in many of those unworthy strains and misdemeanors which proceeded from him at his death. Whereas he pleads to that particular indictment of lying, insisted upon by himself, That what he denied before the High Court of Justice, he neither afterwards confessed himself, nor was it proved by others against him; very possibly, in his equivocal sence of the words, denying, proving and confessing, that which he pleads may be true: But M. Love, had he been ingenuous when he was before a Court of Judicature, where the common and known Dialect of the Law useth to be spoken, and where critical and captious Formalities of speech are not expected, he should have denied onely such things, which according to a Law-sense of the words used by him, he could truly have denied. Upon these terms he could neither have denied that he ever wrote Letter to the King, Queen, Church