A88587:119
A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the…
A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entitled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarm to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alleged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of John Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresy.A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.
London: printed for Stephen Bowtell, 1649
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.
3. And whereas you say in the last place, that if the King and Parliament should engage against the People, we are by the same reason tied to preserve the People, though with the hazard of b••h. Certainly your speech bewrays you; you that once uttered language of Loyal•y in your Snapsack, can speak nothing but Levelling language now; you are not a friend either to King or Parliament, unless they will patronize your party, and favour your faction, though it be to the damage and endangering of the whole Kingdom besides. But I would ask you, (and pray resolve me in the next) Who are the most competent judges to determine what is for the good, or what for the hurt of the people? if you say King and Parliament; why did you not acquiesce in their judgments, in their late transactions of the Treaty, tending to the settlement of the Kingdom? but if you say your Sovereign Lords the People, then why do you not give them their power, and put it to the suffrages of all the People of this Nation, whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People; or whether what the Army did both against King and Parliament, be not for the hurt and ruin of the whole; if you would leave them to be Judges, there is a hundred to one that would give sentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army; Alas! what tyrannical Usurpers are you? a few Members in the House of Common• (when 200 are forced away) must rule King and Lords; the people must rule the House of Commons, and the Army must rule the people? have not you brought the Kingdom ⟨p. 31⟩to a fine pass, that in stead of having it governed by the Laws which should administer an equal right to all, the Land should be overruled by the sword, which will give right to none, neither King, Parliament, or People?
3. And whereas you say in the last place, that if the King and Parliament should ingage against the People, we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People, though with the hazard of b••h. Certainly your speech bewraies you; you that once utterd language of Loyal•y in your Snapsack, can speak nothing but Levelling language now; you are not a friend either to King or Parliament, unlesse they will patronize your party, and favour your faction, though it bee to the damage and indangering of the whole Kingdome besides. But I would ask you, (and pray resolve me in the next) Who are the most competent judges to determine what is for the good, or what for the hurt of the people? if you say King and Parliament; why did you not acquiesce in their judgments, in their late transactions of the Treaty, tending to the settlement of the Kingdome? but if you say your Soveraign Lords the People, then why doe you not give them their power, and put it to the suffrages of all the People of this Nation, whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People; or whether what the Army did both against King and Parliament, bee not for the hurt and ruine of the whole; if you would leave them to bee Judges, there is a hundred to one that would give sentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army; Alas! what tyrannicall Usurpers are you? a few Members in the House of Common (when 200 are forc't away) must rule King and Lords; the people must rule the House of Commons, and the Army must rule the people? have not you brought the Kingdom