A88587:210
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.
Answ. 1. Here you come in with your Ifs and Ands, begging the question, taking that for granted which was still denied; say not if the saving of the Kings person being a murderer, be the destruction of the Command of true Religion, but prove that he was a murderer, and that the saving of His person would be a destruction to true Religion; a convincing Argument would stand you in more stead then a confident assertion of the one, or a naked supposition of the other.
Answ. 1. Here you come in with your Ifs and Ands, begging the question, taking that for granted which was still denyed; say not if the saving of the Kings person being a murderer, bee the destruction of the Command of true Religion, but prove that he was a murderer, and that the saving of His person would be a destruction to true Religion; a convincing Argument would stand you in more stead then a confident assertion of the one, or a naked supposition of the other.
2. I would demand of you, whether the saving of Davids person, who killed Uriah the Hittite; and of Sauls, who slew 85 of the Priests of the Lord; and of Manassehs, who made the streets of Jerusalem run down with blood, were a destruction of the Commands of true Religion? if you say it was, are not you a very charitable man to stigmatize the children of Israel, that they destroyed the Command of Religion, that the land was defiled with blood, and that to many generations, for not executing all their Kings who had spilt blood; if you say no, give me one cogent reason why many of the wicked and bloody Kings of Israel (as well as the good) should live, and yet our late King dye.
2. I would demand of you, whether the saving of Davids person, who killed Ʋriah the Hittite; and of Sauls, who slew 85 of the Priests of the Lord; and of Manassehs, who made the streets of Jerusalem run down with blood, were a destruction of the Commands of true Religion? if you say it was, are not you a very charitable man to stigmatize the children of Israel, that they destroyed the Command of Religion, that the land was defiled with blood, and that to many generations, for not executing all their Kings who had spilt blood; if you say no, give me one cogent reason why many of the wicked and bloody Kings of Israel (as wel as the good) should live, and yet our late King dye.