A88587:78
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. To convince you that you (not the Minister) have spoken an untruth; I shall produce against you a threefold Testimony. 1. Of the Honourable House of Commons, who on November 23. 1647. voted a Letter to be sent to the General to give him thanks for the execution of that mutinous person, for promoting the Agreement of the People, and to desire him to prosecute the examination of that business to the bottom, ⟨p. 18⟩and to bring such guilty persons as he shall think •it, to condign and exemplary punishment; now surely the House of Commons then sitting at Westminster, was more likely to have true intelligence why the man was shot to death, then John Price could have at his shop in the Exchange.
Answ. To convince you that you (not the Minister) have spoken an untruth; I shal produce against you a threefold Testimony. 1. Of the Honorable House of Commons, who on November 23. 1647. voted a Letter to be sent to the Generall to give him thanks for the execution of that mutinous person, for promoting the Agreement of the People, and to desire him to prosecute the examination of that businesse to the bottome, ⟨p. 18⟩and to bring such guilty persons as he shall think •it, to condign and exemplary punishment; now surely the House of Commons then sitting at Westminster, was more likely to have true intelligence why the man was shot to death, then John Price could have at his shop in the Exchange.
2. Of the full Relation in print, having Gilbert Mabbot's Imprimatur, pag. 5. of the proceedings of the Rendezvous (Nov. 15. 1647.) held in C•rkbush heath near Ware, wherein 'tis fully declared, that for dispersing sundry scandalous and factious papers, as the Agreement of the People, &c. for this 3 of them were tried and condemned to death, and one of them was shot to death at the head of a Regiment. Yea to give a third testimony, the General and divers of his Officers who acknowledged it, yea and did commit to safe custody Col. Eyre and Major Scot, for abetting and promoting this Agreement; yea afterward did not the General write a Letter to the Parliament against Col. Rainsborow, who was the man that presented this Agreement of the People to the General? Is not all this proof evident enough that the General and his Officers then did dislike the Agreement of the People, and did put the man to death for promoting it? Yea I might quote a fourth testimony also, if it were of any credit, viz. Lilburne and his Agitators, who with one mouth have exclaimed against the Army, for voting that man (viz. White) to death. But suppose it were true, as you relate it in p. 12. that he was shot to death, for mutinying against his Ensign, and taking away his Colours from him, and beating him with his own Colours. What will this advantage you? I would ask you which deserves death most, whether a Soldiers mutinying against an inferior Officer, an Ensign, or the Armies mutiny against the Supreme Council the Parliament? Whether he that takes away the Colours from an Ensign, or they that take away the fundamental laws from a Kingdom? Whether he that beats an Ensign with his own Colours, or they that offer violence to a Parliament, with their own swords? If you say, that 'twas not only for his mutinying against his Ensign, but against the General and his Officers Commands, who ordered him to go to New-castle; If it were so. I would ask you but this one question more, Whether doth deserve death most, either he that