A Copy of A LETTER Written by Mr Stephen Martial To a friend of his in the City, for the necessary vindication of himself and his Ministry, against that altogether groundless, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certain Malignants in the City, and lately printed at Oxford, in their Mendacium Aulicum, otherwise called Mercurius Aulicus, and sent abroad into other Nations to his perpetual infamy. In which Letter the Accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulness of the Parliaments taking up Defensive Arms is briefly and learnedly asserted and demonstrated, Texts of Scripture cleared, all Objections to the contrary answered, to the full satisfaction of all those that desire to have their consciences informed in this great controversy.  HOSEA 4. 1, 2, 3. 
1. hear the word of the Lord, ye Children of Israel, for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the Land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the Land.  
2. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and whoring, they break out and blood toucheth blood.  
3. Therefore shall the Land mourn, &c.  
LONDON Printed for JOHN ROTHWELL, at the sun in Paul's churchyard, 1643.   

SIR,  
YOur letters brought not the first tidings of the continuance and increase of those strange reports concerning me, they filled the City even while I was there, and I perceive pursue me into the country: it is a lying spirit which God hath permitted to haunt me for my trial, as it hath done others of his servants before me. You know what a book Bolsec wrote of the life and death of Mr. Calvin: Beza lived to write a confutation of a book written of his renouncing his religion and turning Papist. And concerning Luther, 
Luther tom. 8. 〈◊〉 pag. 206.  the Priests had long reported, that he had his call from the devil, and to confirm it, filled Italy with a rumour of his death, and that at his death he was carried away by the devil soul and body: which they (good souls) divulged not to discredit the man, but in gloriam Iesu Christi, to the glory of Christ, and comfort of the godly. The like usage myself have lately met with in some degree, for being afflicted with a deep cold and distillation from my head upon my lungs, and some feverish distempers, my learned, loving and careful physician, finding that the too importune visits of my many loving friends, occasioned too much speech, and thereby too much expense of spirits, advised me to remove to the house of my Noble Lord of Warwick, where I should have more air, and less company: hereupon a report was immediately spread about the City that I was distracted, and in my rage constantly cried out, I was damned for appearing in, and adhering to the Parliament and Kingdom in this defensive war: which when I first heard, I looked upon as a calumny invented by some simple adversary (though malicious enough to my person and ministry) who finding it the readiest way to reproach me betook himself to this. But afterwards observing how studiously it was maintained, how laboriously propagated, how handed from Court to City, from City to country, from England to foreign parts, Mercurius Aulicus printed it, and a great Officer of State having sent it into other Kingdoms with his letters, assuring the truth of it, and that not nine days, no not a month did allay it, I then perceived the plot was not so much to disgrace me, (for alas who am I that they should trouble themselves so much about me) but through me to wound the cause, in which my poor labours have been engaged. This rumour it seems yet lives, and (as your letter confirms) increases; from my going down into the country they have taken occasion not only to report me distracted, but dead, yea that I died crying our of my appearing in this cause; and this is so confidently reported by some, that it is almost as confidently believed by others; even thousands, you say, which makes you earnestly to press me to write unto you, whether I have not (at least) changed my former judgement about our defensive arms, and this not (as you professed) to satisfy yourself, but that you might have something under my own hand to show for the satisfaction of others. Sir, your ancient love to me, and present desires to vindicate me from these aspersions, but especially your care that the public cause might not suffer, do all command me to be your servant in this thing.  
I know it will satisfy you, that I solemnly protest unto you, that in all these fourteen weeks keeping in, I never had an hour's sickness, nor lost a night's sleep, nor had any distemper in my head, nor saw any cause of sorrow for my adhering to the Parliaments cause but esteem it a great honour and mercy from God, that he should move his Excellency my Lord, to require my service in this great expedition; and that I have even therefore exactly followed the doctor's prescriptions, out of an earnest desire to be fitted for my work, that I might return to my most Honoured Lord, being fully resolved, if God say Amen to it, never to give it over, until either there be an end of that work, or an end of my days. This I think will satisfy you, and it is possibly as much as you desire for the satisfaction of others, to have this under my hand. Take this concerning the cause, and concerning the report spread of me, what Luther said (of those above mentioned) concerning himself; fateor & testor hâc meâ manu, &c. I profess and testify under my hand that I entertained this fiction of my distraction and death, laetaque mente & hilari vul●●…; very cheerfully.  
But since your love hath compelled me to put pen to paper, I shall compel you to read the largest letter that ever I wrote, being resolved to give you a full account both of my ground and warrant of entering upon my office, and how far I am from changing my judgement upon the present view of things.  
When his Excellency vouchsafed to require my service (for, God knows, I offered not myself in this great work) there were but two questions (beside my care to walk aright in my ministry) for my conscience to be resolved in. First, whether upon supposal of the truth of the Parliament votes. viz. That his Majesty seduced by wicked council, did levy war against the Parliament; the Scripture did warrant them to take up defensive arms. Secondly, Whether the Parliament was not misinformed about such his majesty's purpose, and practice. The first is a mear question in Divinity. viz. Whether a people, especially the representative body of a State, may (after all humble Remonstrances) defend themselves against the unlawful violence of the supreme Magistrate, or his Instruments, Endeavouring (and that in matters of great moment) to deprive them of their lawful liberties.  
The Second is a question merely of matter of fact.  
For the first, Before the beginning of these unhappy differences, I had both learned, and taught to this purpose. First, that it is agreeable to God's will, that in all countries (especially when and where the people are numerous) magistracy be set up, with a sufficiency of power and authority to rule for the public good; and that, even among them who are under the sceptre of Christ, against the Anabaptisis. Secondly, that among the divers kinds of lawful governments, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, no one of them is so appointed of God, as to exclude the other from being a lawful government. Thirdly, That the bounds and limits of the Magistrates lawful power of commanding, and the subjects necessary obeying, must be sound, and taken out of the several laws, Customs, and Constitutions of those several States, and Commonwealths: There are scarce two forms (especially of regal government, in the world) but they differ one from the other, and that in matters of moment. Now I say, what the power of Magistrates in one country differs from the power of Magistrates in another country, and how the duty of Subjects differs in each, must be found only in the laws of the respective places: that no man's right must be detained from him, that Caesar should have rendered to him the things that are Caesar's, and all people the things that are their own, the Scripture, and laws of all Nations do determine. But whether (for instance in England) Shipmoney be the King's right, and so to be yielded, or denied; whether this house or inheritance be this or the other pretenders to it, must not be determined by any law, but by the law of England; go therefore to the laws, and learned Lawyers, and from them alone you shall learn what is the Prerogative of the Prince, and both the Duty, and Liberty of the Subject. But then fourthly comes in Religion or the command of God, and binds the consciences of Magistrates to rule, and of Subjects to obey, according to those laws. And fifthly, (in particular) of Subjects it requires these four things. First, to render to their governors, next under God the greatest fear, and honour, as being God's vicegerents, as having the greatest beams of his authority put upon them, and therefore called Gods, and all of them the children of the most High. Secondly, Loyalty to their persons, and office, that is, obedience according to law, and patient subjection, when we cannot actively obey, willingly for conscience sake to submit to the penalty of the laws, when for conscience sake we cannot observe the laws themselves. Thirdly, maintenance with payment of all lawful Customs, Tributes, and impositions. Fourthly, all manner of supplications, prayers, Intercessions, and giving of thanks, their usefulness being great, their temptations many, their fall (like that of great Cedars) the crushing of many, and the shaking of the earth round about them, and all this we owe, not only to the King as supreme, but in proportion to all inferior Governors, who are sent by God also for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well, they being all the ministers of God for our good, and this is the first commandment with promise. But sixthly, if our governors (whether supreme, or inferior) leave to rule according to law, and set up their own will contrary to law; there is no word of God acquitting them from sin in God's sight, but severely threatening them for abusing his name, which they bear; nor any word binding the consciences of their subjects therein to yield them any active obedience. Thus far we have all sides agreeing in all the particulars, except only a few Court flatterers, who (and that especially of late) have endeavoured to cry up Monarchy, as the only ordinance of God, for the Government of States; as if the other forms of Aristocracy, and Democracy were not approved by him: Yea, and have cried up the power and authority of Princes to be such, as that they are absolved from all laws; and that whatsoever the Subjects enjoy under them, is only by the Prince's favour, which if they please to recall, how justly or unjustly soever, the Subjects are bound to yield all unto them, and have no plea against their Prince, only in the Court of Heaven; no law, no judge, no Court here below, having any authority to say unto him, What dost thou: This Divinity hath of late been preached; and, as sweet enchanting music, often chanted in the ears of our Princes: and no doubt was one great occasion of these heavy yokes we have of late groaned under. But these absurdities need no refutation. Egyptian Pharaoh claimed not the wealth of his people, till he had bought it. And Ahab himself, who durst not lay claim to Naboth's vineyard, without purchase, or colour of confiscation, proclaims their ignorance sufficiently to the world. And among ourselves, the constant proceedings of our Princes, even in their most heavy illegal exactions, borrowing always a colour of law, and the known laws of the land, enabling the meanest subject to maintain his Propriety, even in a twopenny matter, against his sovereign; And the innumerable verdicts in all Courts, passing for the Subject, against the King; assure me that unless God for our sins should give up our Parliament and S●ate to the vassalage which this Popish Army would bring it to, we shall hear no more of this Divinity.  
The only Question now is about passive obedience; they who cry down our defensive Arms, confess that the Magistrate cannot require any thing but by Law, and that the subject need not yield up his right but by Law; to tie lies upon the conscience of Naboth to let Ahab have his vineyard: but if a Saul will by force take away our sons to ea●e his ground, and our daughters to be his Confectioners, cooks, and Bakers; if he will by force take our fields, even the best of them, and give them their servants, we have no help in that day, but preces & lachrymae, to cry unto our God: but no liberty to defend ourselves by arms against such tyranni; if we do (Say they) we resist the ordinance of God, and must receive to ourselves damnation.  
But if this opinion be weighed in the balance of Reason, how much lighter than vanity will it be found; how absurd a thing is it, that these men will allow me, if the King pretend Law in any thing I may try it out with him, and not when he or his Instruments come with open violence: If the King will sue me, and by pretence of Law seek to take away my coat, my house, my land, I may defend these from him with all the strength of Law I can, but if he come with armed violence to take away my liberty, life, religion, I must yield up these without making any resistance: I may secure that which I have nothing but lex terrae to plead my propriety in, viz. my money, which I may give away, and in the mean time my liberty, life, religion, which are mine by the laws of God and man, I may not secure with a good conscience. True it is, if in case it do (upon circumstances duly weighed) appear that our receding from our right, and not resisting wrong, will tend to the promoving of a greater and a more general good, or the preventing of a greater and more general evil, it is agreeable to right reason, and our saviour's rule, Mat. 5. 39 that we should both remit of our right, and submit to wrong, whether sued or unsued, whether to superiors or inferiors, or equals. But that men should give a liberty of defence in Law, and yet absolutely condemn defence against unlawful violence, is such an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, such an absurdity as you shall seldom meet with.  
But give me leave to weigh it a little further; if the Subjects defending themselves by arms against the violence of oppressing governors and their instruments be unlawful, either it must be because their Prince hath by conquest spoiled them of that liberty which God and nature gave them at the first. Or secondly, because they or their Ancestors having submitted by covenant and consent to him to be their supreme Ruler according to Law, they must therefore be interpreted to have yielded up all their liberty so far as to be now unable with a good conscience to defend themselves against his violence though contrary to Law. Or thirdly, because God hath lifted up Princes so far above all mortal men, that all hands are by him bound from daring to resist them.  
The first I find not many pleading, that people's being conquered, makes it unlawful for them to defend themselves against the unjust violences of their conqueror or his successors: Most of them grant, that the people's right is to design the person of their Prince. And indeed it is the most absurd reasoning in the world, that because a strong robber hath over ed me in my house, in conscience I am tied to be his servant or slave for ever. Because Eglon 
Iudg. 3.  hath mightily oppressed Israel for eighteen years, it is unlawful for them to shake off his yoke when they are able to resist him: Certainly, whatever of mine another takes by violence from me, let him keep it never so long, it is but Continuata injuria, a continued wrong, till I consent to his holding it; And all reason allows me to recover it again as soon as I can. And I fear not to say, that had William surnamed the conqueror taken and held this crown only by his sword, and ruled over the Nation only by force, and all his successors to this day had no other claim to it, all the reason in the world would allow us to redeem ourselves from that yoke, if we were able.  
But though the sword begin the Conquest, yet many times the Consent of the people comes in, and makes their conqueror their lawful King; and then so far as by Covenant or laws, they agree to be under him for the public safety and good, they are bound up from any resistance. But that their parting with some of their liberty for the public good should (upon the usurpation of him whom they have trusted) deprive them of that liberty which they never parted with, is most abhorring to reason. Suppose a free man indents with another to be his servant in some ingenious employment, as, suppose to attend upon his person; and expressly indents that his master shall not have power to command him to rub his horse heels, or fill his dung-cart, or the like; If now this master shall usurp, and command him to such sordid employment, and by force seek to compel him to them, some show of reason (at least) there would be for the servant to plead that his master had forfeited all his power over him, and that he was free from his service, and might go seek another master; but no colour of reason that the servant hath now forfeited that immunity from sordid and drudgery works that he first covenanted, and must thenceforth lie at his Master's feet, as wholly prostitute to all his Imperious humours.  
Secondly, can it be imagined, by reason that a people submitting to a lawful government, should thereby be necessitated to that which may overthrow the end of all government, that is, inability to provide for their common safety. That whereas when they were free and under no government at all, they might by the law of nature defend themselves against injury: now having submitted, though upon good conditions, they are utterly disabled to defend themselves if he that should be their Protector, would prove their murderer: If he who both in himself and instruments should be only for the punishment of evil and the praise of them that do well, will go, or send, or suffer a company of thieves or murderers to go in his name, and spoil and destroy them that do well: can their being subjects (in reason) deprive them of their defence allowed them by the law of nature? yea were they not guilty of self-murder in suffering such a thing? For instance, some of our Historians relate of King John, that he was transported with so deep a hatred against his Nobles and Commons, that he sent an ambassador to Miramumalin, entitled the great King of Africa, Morocco, and Spain, wherein he offered to render unto him his kingdom, and to hold the same from him by tribute as his sovereign Lord, to forgo the Christian faith (which he held vain) and receive that of Mahomet; like enough some court-chaplain (may be the Clerk that went on the errand) might warrantise the King's conscience, and tell him, that it was the more shame for them who professed the Christian Religion, to compel him to it. But whether the King did lawfully or not, is not our question, but whether the subjects might lawfully have resisted that attempt of his, and have stood for their Religion, Lives, and Liberty.  
Thirdly, is it not quite contrary to reason, that whereas Kings and Rulers nothing differing by nature from their meanest subjects, were at first constituted, and are still continued for the protection, welfare, benefit, yea and service of the people; and who therefore should value their prerogatives, sceptres, and lives no further than they may advance the public good, yet if they degenerate, and will be destroyers, the people should suffer all to be spoiled, as if Kingdoms and people had been created by God for the will, pleasure, profit, yea and lusts of Princes. As if a Pilot purposely appointed for the safe wafting over of passengers, who instead thereof will dash the ship against the rocks: Or a general purposely chosen (and to whom the soldiers have therefore sworn) for the safety of the whole Army, should yet turn the Cannon mouth upon his own soldiers, or deliver them all up into the hands of the enemy: the passengers and soldiers, yea the officers in the ship, and council of war in the Army, should be morally disabled from doing any thing to prevent their own apparent destruction. By this reason the Bishop of Burgeu in the council of Basil proved the council to be above the Pope, and a Kingdom above the King, and said they were but flatterers who taught otherwise. 
Acts and Monum● vol. 1. p 8   
And fourthly, doth not right reason as much abhor this, that whereas Princes are the public fathers, and the people owe them the duty of children, that these children should be prohibited from keeping their public fathers from the greatest evils: If our natural father through ignorance or distemper should go into a pest-house, his children might by force fetch him out; or if in a raging passion go about to kill himself, wife, children, or any others, their children may disarm them, yea we are tied not to suffer friend or foe to incur the guilt of rapine or blood, if it lie in our power to hinder it; and (speak to my reason) what evil have Princes deserved, that if they go about to murder themselves, subjects, and children, not any of their people, no not the whole body politic should have power to restrain them.  
And if reason will allow this liberty of resistance to private persons (as even Barclay and Grotius the two great propugners of the sacred and inviolable power of Kings, grant 
Barcl. lib contra ●…narchom. Grotius jure bel●… l. 1. c. 4. ●… ) how much more clear, honourable, and safe must such a defence needs be, when done by the representative body of a State, who are God's ordinance as well as Kings, the ministers of God sent by him to be a terror to evil, and a praise to them that do well. And in England are the highest Court of Judicature, and in whom his Majesty confesses there is legally placed sufficient power to prevent Tyranny. 
Answer 〈◊〉 the 19 p●●position   
Upon such reasons as these, not only Heathens have resisted their Princes, when bent to subvert their laws and liberties; but even most of the States of Christendom, Papists and Protestants when they have been put to it, have borne defensive arms against the unlawful violences of their misled Princes.  
But now if notwithstanding all this fair show of reason God's word hath determined the contrary, we must lay our hands upon our mouths and shall no longer deserve to be accounted the servants and subjects of Christ, then while we turn our reason (how specious soever) out of doors, when once it offers to oppose the least Jota of his revealed will. But where is this Scripture to be found? Certainly the good Subjects in the Old Testament knew it not. Saul's Subjects who swore that Saul should not kill Jonathan, nor pluck an hair from his head, though Saul had sworn by God he should die, knew no such Scripture and I believe that if the same men had been about him when he protested the Priests of the Lord should die, they would not only have withheld their own, but Doeg's hands from doing execution. David knew no such Scripture; nor the 600 men with him, that would have fortified Keilah against Saul. Nor those many choice men of the several Tribes of Israel, among whom were some of Saul's brethren and kindred and chief officers, that fell to David (though Saul had proclaimed him traitor) 
●Chron. 〈…〉 to 22.  from day to day to help him, till it was a great host like the host of God: And all this while David was (though an innocent yet) but a private man. And I think if Elias had took himself bound in conscience to render himself prisoner to the Captains which Ahaziah sent for him, he would not have killed them with fire from heaven: Neither would Elisha have taken such a rough course with the messengers sent to take his head. Nor would the eighty valiant Priests have thrust Uzziah by force out of the Temple, who was a King still, though a Leper. Neither can these examples be eluded with saying these were extraordinary persons; for first they were not all so, not the people that resisted Saul, nor the people that fell to David, nor the eighty Priests, unless in the extraordinariness and valiancy of their spirits: And for the extraordinary persons themselves, I know nothing why their examples may not be pleaded, for our Defensive arms, as well as David's eating the showbread was pleaded by our Saviour, for his Disciples rubbing the ears of corn, unless they can first show, that their practice was against a known law, I mean, unless there were some known law that Innocents might not defend themselves, and one another against the unjust violence of their Princes. Indeed we often read in the Old Testament of Fearing the King, Honouring the King, Obeying the King, which their practice shows they understood to bind them to yield Honour, Loyalty, Obedience, and Subjection to their Magistrates according to law; but not that they were bound to let them do what mischief they pleased.  
Neither is there any more in the new Testament; there indeed are full and frequent exhortations to submit ourselves to Magistrates, to be subject to the higher Powers which are ordained of God, and not to resist the Ordinance of God; but not one word that we may not resist the tyranny of men, no colour for it, unless any will say that tyranny is God's Ordinance, that Tyrants bear the sword for the punishment of evil doers, are the Ministers of God, &c. full proof there is that we must be under the authority of Rulers, that is, under their legal Commands; not one word of being at the dispose of their illegal wills: 
●● Chry●… Mathias po●●… lib. 3. Sect 3.  The word used there is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, derived ab {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, licet, to show as one observes, that the Text binds subjects to obey superiors not ablibitum, but ablicitum, not to obey their lawless lusts and wills, but their lawful authority, without resisting. And surely it were strange, that if God had laid this yoke of subjection to the illegal will of Rulers, that neither the Jews under their Kings, nor under Antiochus, nor the Churches of Christ, nor the primitive Churches after once their religion and liberties were established by Laws, nor any of the Reformed Churches have took themselves, concluded under it: which of all the Reformed Churches have not by their practice manifested, that religion binds them not to give their throats to be cut, or their liberties and states to be spoiled at the mere will of their Princes and their Instruments, contrary to their own Laws and Edicts? Were not the Lutheran Churches put to it, and defended themselves against the Emperor Charles the fifth, when the Smalchaldian confederacy was entering? 
Sleid. hist l●b. 18.  Did not both the Divines and Lawyers being consulted with, agree, that the inferior Magistrates might at some time resist the superior? Have not the States and Churches of the Netherlands done the like constantly against the King of Spain? the Protestants in France against their Kings? How often and how lately have our brethren in Scotland done the same? And although since the Reformation England was never put to it, until these unhappy differences, yet how constantly have our most learned Divines, Bishops as well as others, defended by their Pens, and our Princes and States by their aids of men and money, their distressed and oppressed Brethren and Neighbours in the like case; and now in our own sight both the King and States have acquitted the Scots, as having done nothing in their late defence, but what became good Subjects. 
Abbot 〈◊〉 Laliso. d●mon stra●… Antichr●… 6. 7. Bils●… differ. between Christia●…  And what the judgement of this Nation was in the time of Popery is plain enough by their practice, in their usual taking of arms, and not leaving till they had compelled their Princes to ratify their privileges and Charters, which through ill Counsellors they had infringed 
Bed●…s letter to Wadsworth  And observable it is, that because the Bishops and clergy of those times saw the Princes go about to take down their pride, they were ever the most forward to justify the proceeding of the State; and I suspect, in case the Tables were turned, and we had a King endeavouring to take down the Bishops, to take away Pluralities, Non-Residents, &c. and a Parliament seeking to maintain them, the world would hear another Divinity from many of them, who now cry out, that all our defence is damnable.  
But lest I might be thought not to have weighed the Scripture and reasons of both sides equally, I will give you a further account what my thoughts were and are concerning the Scriptures usually pleaded against this resistance, and the reasons deduced from them. The strongest hold they pretend to, is built upon Romans 13. 1. &c. 1 Peter 2. 13, 14. 
Rom. 13. 1. ● Pet. 2. 12.  where we are enjoined subjection to the Higher Powers, especially to the King as Supreme, and all know that Nero the then supreme governor, was no better than a Tyrant. Answ. First, it is observable that this objection and almost all the rest taken out of the Scripture make the case of all Subjects in all Kingdoms to be alike; that although (as I touched before) there are hardly two Kingdoms in the world but do differ in Laws Customs and Constitutions bounding the King's authority and the Subjects obedience, yet if any of these would change the the bounds of his authority (for instance, If the King of Denmark, or Sweden or Polonia would invade the liberty of his Subjects, and make himself as absolute, (not only as the King of England, but) as the King of France, or Spain, or the Great Turk) this argument ties all their Subjects from resisting; let any man show an outgate for the Subjects of the one, which will not let out others, and for my part I will yield the cause: If they say these Kings took their Crowns upon those terms, and the Subjects indented to have liberty of resistance in such cases, than they grant that where the Laws of the Kingdom allow a liberty of resistance, resistance may be used notwithstanding these texts, which is as much as we plead for: If any people have covenanted in no case to resist let them seek another answer, in the mean time these Texts tie not those from resisting (by their own answer who have not tied themselves.  
Secondly, I appeal to their own judgements, whether these Texts forbid all forcible resistance; Suppose a Prince in his rage should go about to kill himself, or run some innocent man thorough with his sword, might no man take the sword out of his hand? and if it be lawful for a private man to disarm him of the weapons wherewith he would kill one, may not the State take such weapons out of his or the hands of his Instruments, wherewith they go about to destroy all. Thirdly, both Texts lay the same charge for subjection to inferior Magistrates, who likewise have their authority from God, though under the superior: As our Saviour said to Pilate, who was but a Deputy, thou couldst have no {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, no power at all against me, if it were not given thee from above. And may no resistance be made against the unjust violence of inferior Officers; if there may, it is sufficient; sure I am, the Texts have not one word to allow the one and prohibit the other. Fourthly, what one syllable in either of these Texts so much as looks towards the forbidding of a people to resist tyranny, but only that we resist not the Magistrates in the rightful exercise of their authority given them by God: the Texts speak not of their persons, but of their power; not of their dictates, but of their legal commands; no more of Kings than of an higher Power in an aristocracy or democracy, binding all persons to subject themselves to that Power and authority which in the several places where they live is the Highest or Supreme power.  
Object. But Nero was a Tyrant.  
Answ. Not in his five first years, nor secondly, was he a Tyrant in all things; he had authority to rule according to Law, that was not his tyranny; his tyranny was, what he usurped contrary to the Law: nor thirdly, were all his under-Officers Tyrants, many of them could say with Festus, Acts 25. It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accuser's face to face, and have leave to answer for himself; and would accordingly dismiss them, if they had done nothing worthy of death, or of bonds.  

Object●  Object. 2. But doth not the thirteenth Chapter of the Romans plainly bind men's hands from resisting the Supreme Power.  

Answ.  Answ. By the Supreme power must be meant, that power, which by the original and fundamental Constitution of any People and Nation, hath authority to make laws which shall bind the whole Nation, to dispose of the estates and lives of any person or persons for the good of the Nation to judge every person and persons in the Nation determinatively and conclusively, so as from that judgement there is no appealing, that power itself being subject to the judgement and authority of none but God: 
〈…〉  and Aristotle makes three distinct Branches of this power.  
1. The power of making and repealing laws, a Legislative power.  
2. The power of making war and Peace, of imposing customs and Tributes.  
3. The power of judging Causes and Crimes ultimately and decisively: 
〈…〉  where these three meet, and make their residence, whether in one person, as in absolute Monarchs; or in many, as in mixed Monarchies or Aristocracies; or in the body of the people, as in the ancient Roman Government, there is the highest power which every soul is forbidden to resist: But now what ever be the higher power in England, most certain it is, that the King's absolute or illegal will, is not the highest power, that hath neither power to make Laws, nor repeal Laws; that hath not power to acquit or condemn; nor may men appeal from the King's lawful judgement seat to the King's absolute will; but his legal will in the highest Court, or the King and Parliament may make laws or repeal laws, may engage the whole Nation in a war, and command both the Bodies and Purses of men unto the service, is the highest Court of judicature, to which all may appeal, and from which none may appeal, and consequently against which there is no resistance. So that if men would read this Text of the thirteenth to the Romans, in plain English, it amounts directly to thus much, Let every soul in England be subject to King and Parliament, for they are the higher powers ordained unto you of God, whosoever therefore resisteth King and Parliament, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. I would desire no other Text but this to confound the great Chaplains and Champions of the Antiparliamentary cause, or to strike terror into their loins, if their long conversing with god-dammees, hath not drawn such a Kawl over their hearts, that to them damnation is ridiculous.  

Ob. 3.  Object. 3. But doth not Saint Peter say expressly, the King is Supreme, 1 Pet. 2. 12.  

Answ.  Answ. 1. It may as well be translated superior, as Supreme, the same word in the 13 of the Romans is translated superior, higher, not highest. 2. It is plain, the Apostle is not there constituting Governments, but giving direction to people to obey the Government they lived under; and the Text hath as much strength to enforce subjection to aristocracy, as to Monarchy: If the people of Pontus, Asia, Cappadocia, Bythinia, were under an absolute Monarchy, as sometimes they were, being petty Kingdoms crumbled out of the great Monarchy of Alexander; and it may be did retain yet the same form of Government, if not of their own, yet as lately received from the Romans; all that can be enforced from thence is, That the Apostle names the Kings of those particular Countries to be such as they were, and commands subjection to them, but no ways ties other Kingdoms to be like unto them.  

Ob. 4.  Object. 4. But we in England by our oaths, do acknowledge the King to be Supreme.  

Answ.  Answ. 1. We willingly grant Him to be Supreme, to judge all persons in all causes according to His Laws, and the established Orders of the Kingdom; but not at or by His absolute will or pleasure. 2. Whoever considers the title, scope, and words, both of the Oath and the Act of Parliament that enjoins it, will easily see that both the Act and Oath were intended in opposition to that supremacy which the Pope sometimes challenged and usurped in this Kingdom of England, and no more: And this to be the true intent and meaning of it, appears more fully by that explication or limitation of the Oath, made the next Parliament, 5. Eliz. Wherein it is declared, That that Oath made, 1. Eliz. shall be taken and expounded in such form, as it is set forth in an admonition added to the Queen's Injunctions published, Anno 1. of Her reign, viz. To confess or acknowledge in Her, Her Heirs and Successors, no other Authority then that which was challenged and lately used by King Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth. And by this time you may see how little offensive these two (so much boasted) Texts are to our defensive Arms.  

Object.  Other places of Scriptures the adversaries seem not much to confide in, therefore I will pass them over the more briefly; yet let us a little consider of them, Matth. 26. 52. 
Matth. 26. 52.  They that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Where Christ seems to rebuke Peter for using defensive Arms against the Officers that came with a pretext of authority to apprehend Christ.  

Answ.  Answ. 1. This is not a reproof of the sword taken for just defence, but of the sword taken for unjust oppression, and a comfort to those that ●…re oppressed by it; for Origen, Theophylact, Titus, Euthimius, interp●●● the meaning to be, That Christ doth not rebuke Peter for using defensive Arms, but to let Peter know that he need not snatch God's Work out of his hand; for God would in due time punish those with the sword, that came thus with the sword against him; and that these words are a prophecy of the punishment which the Roman sword should enact of the bloody Jewish Nation; according with the like expression, Revel. 13. 10. He that kills with the sword, must be killed with the sword, here is the patience, and faith of the Saints, that is, This may comfort the Saints in their persecutions, that God will take vengeance for them. But Secondly, Suppose it was a reproof of Peter's using the sword; then the plain meaning is to condemn Peter's rashness, who drew his sword, and never stayed to know his Master's mind, whether he should strike or not; and so reproves those who rashly, unlawfully, or doubtingly use the sword: add this, That now was the hour come of Christ's suffering, and not of his Apostles fighting, wherein Christ would not be rescued, no, not by twelve Legions of Angels, much less than by the sword of man; Therefore he saith to Peter, put up thy sword, &c. But intended not that it should always be unlawful for his people to use the sword in their just defence, against unjust violence; for than he would never have commanded them, but a little before, that he that hath two Coats, let him sell one and buy a sword.  

Object.  Eccles. 8. 2. &c. 
Eccle. 8. ● &c.  I counsel thee to keep the King's Commandment, &c. He doth whatever he pleaseth, &c. Where the word of a King is, there is power, and who may say to him what dost thou?  

Answ.  Answ. 1. No man can understand it literally in all things, as if every Commandment of the King must be kept, as if no actions of the King might be scanned, nor reproved by any man, as the Canonists say of the Pope, That if he lead thousands to hell, none may say, why dost thou so? Surely, if Saul command to murder the Lord's Priests, that commandment need not be kept? If David lie with his neighbour's wife, Nathan may say, why dost thou so? If Ahab murder Naboth, and swallow his Inheritance, worship Baal, persecute and kill the Prophets of the Lord, Elijah may reprove him; notwithstanding this Text, Who can say unto him what dost thou. Secondly, The Text plainly enough interprets itself, Keep the King's Commandment, according to the Oath of God, stand not in an evil thing against him, he hath power to do what ever he will. Siscelus patraveris effugere non poteris, 
Mercer. ad Locum  If you commit evil, you cannot escape punishment, where the word of a King is, there is power. viz. To punish them that do evil, and none to call him to account for doing it, and who can say unto him, what dost thou.  

Object.  Another Text is, Prov. 8. 15. 
Prov. 8. 15.  By me Kings reign, &c. Whence they plead, That because Kings and Princes receive their authority only from God, and the people at the utmost only design the Person, but give him none of his power; therefore they may in no case, take away his power from him.  

Answ.  Answ. 1. It saith no more of Kings, then of Nobles, Senators, and all other Judges of the earth; for it follows, By me Princes rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth. Secondly, Although no such thing is in the Text, That the people give no power to the Magistrate, yet we will suppose it to be true, what then will follow more than this, That although they may not take from the Magistrate that power which God hath given him; yet they may defend themselves against such unjust violences, as God never gave the Magistrate power to commit. A woman hath power to design the person of her husband to herself, but the authority of a husband is from God; now though the wife may not take away the husband's just authority, she may defend herself against oppression and injury.  
Some allege God's judgement upon the two hundred and fifty Princes, Numb. 16. 
Num. 16   
Answ. They were rebels against their lawful governors, ruling exactly, according to the express will of God, and may all those perish with them who will plead for such as they are.  

Object.  Others allege, 1 Sam. 8. 11. 
1 Sam. 8. 11.  Where the people are let to understand how they shall be oppressed by their Kings; yet for all that, have no just cause of resistance; for they shall have no other remedy left them, but preces & lachrimae, crying to the Lord, verse. 8.  

Answ.  Answ. But saith the Text so? Let us read the words a little, and you shall cry out in that day, because of the King, which you have chosen, and the Lord shall not hear in that day. Is this to say, they have no just cause of resistance, nor no remedy left, but complaining; indeed, if the Holy Ghost had said, you shall not resist, nor fight for your liberties, &c. There had been some show of reason for such a deduction, as some would extort from them; but yet, even then, why might not the words have been a prediction of the curse of God upon the people, giving them up to such a base degenerate ignoble spirit, that they shall have no heart to stand up in the defence of their liberties and lives, rather than a prohibition of such resistance. The Lord foretells the people, Ezek. 24. 21. Of calamitous times, in which he tells them, verse. 24, That they should not mourn or weep; Will any man interpret this, as if God made it unlawful for them to mourn, or to weep, or was it not rather a prediction of their stupidity of spirit, when they should pine away under these calamities, so Jere. 27. God said they should put their necks under the yoke of the Kings of Babylon; Will any man thence gather, That other People are bound to put their necks under the yoke of a foreign enemy invading them. In one word, the plain meaning is, That this people should dearly rue it for casting off the form of Government which God had chosen for them; and when they should mourn under their own choice, God would not take the yoke from off their necks; and so it is a threatening of a judgement, not an imposition of a duty.  

●bject.  But David durst not lift up his hand against the Lord's Anointed, though he did tyrannically persecute him; yea, though it were sometimes in his power to have killed him.  
Answ. No man pleads that any David should kill the Lord's Anointed; yet he may defend himself against his unjust violence, as David here did.  
Object. But if they may not kill him, who can be secured, That in a battle (as at Keynton field) his bullet may not hit the Lord's Anointed.  
Answ. Is this their fault, who have so often Petitioned His Majesty to withdraw Himself from such dangerous ways, as both the Parliament and his excellency hath done; if their Petitions would have been received, or rather theirs? Who (the worse subjects they, and the more accursed they) have led Him into these unnatural wars, and do in a manner enforce His presence in them; did they bear that affection to His majesty as they pretend, They would with David's men, Swear, thou shalt no more go out with us to battle, lest thou quench the light of Israel, 2 Sam. 21. 17. We have heard much of the Cavaliers swearing, but I never yet heard that one of them had the honesty to swear this; nay they are wronged in reports, if some of them have not sworn the contrary.  
Object. But David would not fight against him.  
Answ. Indeed he never did fight against him, because his numbers never were considerable till towards the last, but he would have fortified the City of Keilah against him, and it had been a strange madness to have had 600 men with him, if his conscience would have suffered him to have done nothing but flee, sure one might more easily be hid then 600. But there is a plain Text assuring us that David and his men would have done more than run up and down, if occasion had served, 1 Chron. 12. 16. and so forward. When divers of the children of Judah and Benjamin came to join with him, David went out to meet them, and said, If ye be come to help me, &c. But if ye come to betray me to my enemies, I being innocent, the God of our fathers look upon it, and rebuke it. Now mark their answer, the spirit came upon Amasa the chief Captain, and he said, Thine are we David, and of thy side, peace be to thee, and peace to thy helpers, than David received them, and made them Captains of the band: Can any man imagine their meaning was to run up and down the Countries with him, if they were able to cope with any number that Saul should bring, or send against them, especially adding this to it, That they fell to him from the several Tribes day by day, till his host was like an host of God. Now by these men's arguiment, if David's host had been forty thousand, and Saul come against him but with five or six hundred they must all have fled from him, and not have put it to a battle. Credat Judaeus Appella, non ego.  

Ob  Object. But the Fathers of the Primitive times knew no defence but preces & lachrymae in all their unjust sufferings.  

Ans.  Answ. 
〈◊〉 Go●●●●… A●●●●… 〈◊〉 Demon stra●●● Antichr. c. 7.  1. It follows not, because they knew it not, therefore we cannot know it: there might be special reasons of God's dispensations towards them. 2. Their Liberties and Religion were not established by Law, and this was the cause saith Abbot Bishop of Salisbury why the Christians in the Primitive times before their Religion was established by Law, caedebantur non caedebant, would rather be killed then kill: But after the times of Constantine, when Religion was established, they shook off the yoke of persecution from the Church, & caedebant non caedebantur, they did kill rather than be killed. 3. Where did any of the Fathers ever oppose this opinion, and condemn this practice, that is, declaring it unlawful especially for a representative body to defend themselves against the unjust violence of their misled Princes: I believe if any such testimonies were to be found, the Parliament should have heard of them before this time. 4. We want not examples of such defence in the Primitive times, when once Religion was established by Edict of the Roman Empire, and Licinius the Emperor of the East (legum violator maximus, contrary to Law and his Covenant) would persecute the Christians, they defended themselves by Arms, and Constantine the great joined with them; And as Eusebius saith, 
Euseb. 10. c. 8. 9  held it his duty, infinitum hominum genus, paucis nefariis hominibus, tanquam quibusdam corruptelis è medio sublatis, in columes servare. To deliver an infinite multitude of men, by cutting off a few wicked ones, as the pests and plagues of the time. The Christians living under the Persian King, and wronged by him, sought for help from the Roman Emperor Theodosius, and were assisted by him, and when the King of Persia complained that Theodosius should meddle in affairs of his Kingdom, 
Niceph.  Theodosius answered, that he did not only protect them because they were suppliants, but was ready to defend them, and no way to see them suffer for Religion, it being the same with their own. It seems they thought it as lawful to help an innocent people against the oppressions of their own Prince, as for one neighbour to succour another against thieves and robbers. The Macedonians obtained of the Emperor Constantius, four thousand armed men to help them drive out the Novatians from Paphlagonia, 
Niceph. 9 42  the Orthodox assisted the Novatians against the unjust violence, and were armed falcibus, clavis, & securibus, with scythes, clubs and hatchets, and cut off almost all the soldiers, and many of the Paphlagonians. At Constantinople the Orthodox defended Paulus his Election against Macedonius and his abettors, though assisted with the military Forces, and the Historian 
Socrates 2. c. 10.  blames them only for killing the Commander Hermogenes. 
Socrates l. 5. c. 11.  Justina Valentinianus mother, infected with Arianism, commanded to banish Ambrose, but the people resisted, and for a while defeated the plot of them who would have sent Ambrose into banishment. The inhabitants of Armenia the greater professing the Christian Faith, 
Zo●omen. 7. 13. Evagri. l. 5. c. 7.  were abused by the Persians (among whom they lived) especially for their Religion, they entered into a league with the Romans for their safety. You see here are some examples where the ancient Christians used defensive Arms, and I doubt not but such as are well read in the stories of those times might produce many more.  

Object.  But there is one doctor who goes about to prove by reason, that oppressed Subjects should not defend themselves against their Princes, though bent to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties, because (forsooth) such resistance tends to the dissolution of Order and Government, that is, to disable Princes from subverting Religion, Law, and Liberty (which is the very dissolution of all Order and Government) tends to the dissolution of all Order and Government; as if hindering a man from pulling down his house, were the pulling down the house: As if the hindering the Pilot from dashing the Ship against the rock, tended to dash the Ship against the rock; If any man else see any colour of reason in this reason, I desire them to make it appear, for for my part I can see none.  
And indeed the case is so clear, that most of them who cry down defensive Arms, though they use such Scriptures and Arguments to work upon the consciences of people, yet when they come to dispute it, will hardly endure to have the Question rightly stated, (as being unwilling to dash against the rock of most learned Divines, whether Protestants or Papists, and I think of almost all Politicians) but fall to discuss matters of fact, charging the Parliament with invading the King's just Prerogative, usurping an exorbitant power and authority, &c. yea His majesty in all his Declarations insists only upon this, never suggesting that in Conscience they are prohibited to defend themselves, in case he should violently invade their Liberties, yea, expressly grants that there is power sufficient legally placed in the Parliament to prevent tyranny.  
And therefore now I leave the case of divinity, and shall more briefly give you an account what satisfied me in the second, I mean matter of fact, that His majesty being seduced by wicked council did leafy war against the Parliament: My great evidence was, the Parliament judged so; the judgement of a Parliament of England was never questioned till now by a people of England: all Patents, Charters, Commissions, Grants, Proclamations, and Writs of the Kings of England, receive their judgement, and are often repealed and made null by a Parliament: all controversies betwixt the King and Subject receive their final determination in the Parliament; the judgements of all other Courts are ratified or nullified by a Parliament. I have heard some wise men say, that a Parliament in England (like Paul's spiritual man) judgeth all, and itself is judged of none, and therefore if I should give you no other account of my entering upon my Office in the army (which was not to fight, nor meddle in the council of War, but only to teach them how to behave themselves according to the Word, that God might be with them) should I (I say) give no other account but the determination of that wise assembly, I should be acquitted by indifferent men. But although I had learned that no dishonourable thing should be imagined of that Honourable Assembly, yet I held it my duty not to yield blind obedience, or go by an implicit Faith, but search whether the things were so, and the rather because both sides have appealed to heaven to that God, who no doubt in due time will clear the righteous cause: And upon my search these things were quickly apparent.  
It was very clear that the persons too much prevailing with His Majesty had long before this Parliament a design for overthrowing our laws, enslaving our Liberties, and altering our Religion, and it had so far prevailed that we were tantùm non swallowed up, and when through the good Providence of God, this Parliament was called, and many hopes conceived that now his Majesty seeing the mischief of adhering to such ill Counsellors, would for the time to come be wholly guided by the great council of his kingdom, alas it soon appeared that the same kind of Counsellors were still most prevailing, insomuch that (Soon after the pacification with Scotland) the Northern Army should have been brought up to London, as appears by the very Oaths of some who should have acted it, a thing than thought so pernicious, that not only the chief actors fled beyond the Seas, but many real Courtiers earnestly solicited their friends in both Houses, that this our in excusable error might be passed over, and now to begin upon a new score. But that which made me the more suspect their prevailing with his Majesty was, that the horrid Rebellion broken out in Ireland, the Rebels pretending His Majesties and the Queen's Commission for their warrant, it was at least three months after, before they were proclaimed traitors, and when it was done no Copies of the Proclamations to be got for love or money; whereas when the Scots were proclaimed Rebels and traitors, it must speedily be published in all the Churches of England. I must acknowledge this made me to think that the Parliament had just cause to be jealous of great danger. But when His Majesty returned from Scotland, discharged the guard which the Parliament had set for their own safety, & an other denied except under the charge of the Queen's Chamber-lain, and His Majesty himself entertained divers captains as a supernumerary guard at Whitehall, went to the House of Commons after that manner to demand the five members to be delivered unto Him; The Earl of Newcastle (now general of the army of Papists in the North) sent to Hull, attempting to seize it and the Magazine there, His Majesty according to the Lord Digby's Letters retiring from the Parliament to a place of strength, and the Queen going beyond Sea to raise a party there; I must have shut my eyes if I had not seen danger, and thousands of thousands would have thought he Parliament altogether senseless if they had not importuned His Majesty (as they did) to settle the Militia, all former settlings of it by Commissions of lieutenancy being confessedly void: His Majesty refusing this in that manner as they thought necessary for security, they Voted the putting of it into the hands of persons whom they thought the State might confide in (though alas many of them since have discovered to us how vain is our hope in man,) And secured the Town of Hull and the Magazine there: soon after this His Majesty in the North seized Newcastle and under the name of a guard begun to raise an Army; all this was done before the Parliament Voted that His Majesty seduced by wicked council, &c. And when His majesty's Army was more increased, he then declared that he was resolved by strength to recover Hull and the magazine and to suppress the Militia: After this indeed the Parliament began to make vigorous preparations by their propositions for Plate, Money, Horse, &c.  
This being the true progress and state of the business, I saw clearly all along, the kingdom and Parliament were in danger, that it was therefore necessary to have the Militia and Navy in safe hands, which His Majesty also acknowledged; That he refused to settle it for a time in the way they conceived necessary, and that by the judgement of both Houses when they were full, they had power by the fundamental laws of the kingdom to settle it especially for a time upon His majesty's refusal; That His Majesty raised force, and declared it was to suppress the Militia, and recover Hull and the magazine is as clear, and made pregnant preparations both at home and beyond the Seas: And the civil Lawyers say that pregnant preparations are the beginning of a War. The only Question remaining was, whether the Parliament did justly in ordering the Militia, and securing the Magazine and Navy, in a confessed time of danger upon such His majesty's refusal.  
What the King's power and prerogative, and what the Parliaments power was for securing the Militia in time of danger according to the laws of England was out of my profession, and in great part above my skill; But certainly unless I was bound rather to believe the Votes of the Papists and other Delinquents about his Majesty, who hitherto had prevailed to bring upon us all the miseries that we have lain under, than the Votes and Judgements of the highest Court of Judicature in England, (which so far as I have heard was never by Common Law or Statute Law presumed to be guilty of, or charged with the overthrow of the King's prerogative, or the laws and Liberties of the Subjects until now, and who have given us so much evidence of their wisdom, watchfulness and faithfulness) I was bound to be concluded under their Testimony, and so consequently that His Majesty was seduced, &c. And surely if men who serve upon Justice between Prince and People, party and party, in matters of life or State, may rest in the resolution of the learned judges that this, or that is Law when themselves know it not: well might I rest in the judgement and resolution of that Court, which is the judge of all the judicatures in the Land. And in case I were unsatisfied to whom should I appeal in whose judgement I might more safely rest, especially when I saw their Vote agreeable to that which is the supreme Law of all Nations, namely, that public safety is the highest and deepest Law, and that it is requisite that every State have a power in time of danger to preserve itself from ruin? and no Law of England more known, then that the Parliament is the highest Court from whence there is no appeal. This satisfaction I had then, and since by the Declarations and Remonstrances of the Parliament concerning these Military matters, and by other books lately published, it is most apparent that they have not usurped upon His majesty's Prerogative, but what they have done is agreeable to the practice of former Parliaments, In putting the Militia, Forts and Navy into safe hands in these times of danger; And that it was therefore lawful for them, yea, necessary to take up these defensive arms, and consequently to call in for supply from all such who should share with them in the benefit of preservation, and to disable such from hurting them who were contrary minded: I spend no time to answer the Objections that some make, that His Majesty could not tarry at LONDON with safety of His Person, that the Lords and Commons that are with Him, were driven away by popular Tumults, and could not enjoy freedom of their Votes, &c. Because I think these things are now believed by none, but such as would believe no good of the Parliament though one should rise from the dead again.  
Thus Sir you have a just account of the grounds that first induced me to own this Cause; you desire to know whether I see not yet reason to repent of what I have done, I confess I never undertook any thing but I saw cause to repent of my miscarriage through the corruption which cleaves to me, and great cause I have to bewail my many failings in this great work, but for the work itself, I as solemnly profess, I never saw cause to repent of my appearing in it; the Cause is a right Cause, the Cause of God, my call to it, a clear call, and though the work prove harder and longer than at first it was thought, yet the Cause is far clearer than at the first,  
The work indeed is harder than I expected, for whoever could have believed he should have seen in England so many Lords and Commons even after their solemn Protestation, to defend the privilege of Parliament, And their own Vote; that His Majesty seduced by wicked council intended War against the Parliament, so shamefully to betray the trust committed to them? so many of the Protestant Profession joining with an Army of Papists (under pretence of maintaining the Protestant Religion against a Protestant Parliament) to fight themselves into popery? so many unworthy Gentlemen fight to destroy a Parliament, and thereby fight themselves and posterity into slavery? so many Papists in arms contrary to so many known Lawer, and armed with Commission, to disarm Protestants contrary to their known Liberties, and the Protestants who exceed their number an hundred fold not to rise as one man to subdue them? And who would have believed that he should have seen after all this an Army raised by the Parliament in such an extremity, for such an end, (having hazarded their lives, undergone all these hardships, performed all these services, and whose untimely disbanding may prove our irrecoverable ruin) strai●…ed for want of pay while England is worth a groat. Behold, regard, and wonder marvellously, I relate a thing which many will not believe though it be told unto them. Hab. 1. 5.  
But though the work be harder, the case is still clearer, both in regard of the intentions of the Parliament and also of their adversaries. For the Parliament, multitudes would not believe, but that they had further aims then their own and the public safety, that they intended it not to depose His Majesty, yet by force of arms to compel him to that which is not fit for a King to yield to; But now by their frequent petitioning of His Majesty especially by the reasonableness of their late Propositions and Instructions, wherein they desire a present disbanding of all arms, even before any other bills were past, and were willing to have the Ports, Forts and Sh●●s, etc Of the kingdom resigned up into His majesty's hands, provided only that in these times of danger they might, Pro bac vice, be put into the hands of such as the State might confide in; The sincerity of their intentions are now so plain, that I think Malignity itself cannot but be convinced of them.  
And the intentions of the contrary counsels are as plain, their mask now falling off, and their design more than ever discovered to be the overthrow of Parliament, liberty, laws and Religion. For at first we had Declarations to preserve all the just privileges of Parliament, but now we see men proclaimed traitors for executing the Commands of the two Houses, and the two Houses themselves, if not in direct, yet in equivalent terms proclaimed traitors, yea denied to be a Parliament, because His Majesty withdraws himself, and after multitudes of Petitions refuses to return, and because many of their Members have deserted them, and are protected by His Majesty from the Houses who have sent for them. Yea, they are required to recall their Votes as illegal, and that such as they have fined and imprisoned may bring their Habeas Corpus to be tried in an inferior Court. Yea, people provoked to scorn them, and thereupon multitudes not fearing to trample upon, and cast as vile scorn and contemptunjustly upon that thrice-honorable Court, as ever was cast justly upon the Commissaries Courts.  
We have heretofore been assured that the known laws of the Land should be the only rule of government: but (to name no other instances) now we see the Commission of Array to be justified to be Law, which the Parliament hath not only declared, but demonstrated, and the Countries (where ever it hath prevailed) found, to be the utter destruction of all the laws made for the Subjects liberty.  
Heretofore Proclamations were put out that no Papists should be entertained into His majesty's Army, because the resolution was to maintain the Protestant Religion; But now we see them armed, and armed with Commission, and Protestant Doctors in their writings justifying it, and being armed dare profess their Religion publicly, set up their mass in the second City of the kingdom, cutting 〈◊〉 pieces, and burning Bibles, and as multitudes of reports come from beyond the Seas, (and the supplies that come from thence confirm it) all the Papists in Christendom contributing to this War as to the Catholic cause. Heretofore the Liberty of the Subject seemed to be stood for, yea defended against the Parliament, (as if it were possible the representative body should enslave itself) and in the mean time while these things are promised, hundreds, yea thousands of his majesty's Subjects plundered with His majesty's Proclamations against plundering, in the hands of diverse of the plunderers. And their persons led away in Ropes and chains like Turkish Gallyslaves, and many cast into Prisons and Dungeons only for detending themselves against robbers and murderers abusing His majesty's Name: where their jailers use them worse than the Turks do their Christian slaves, or one that hath any thing of man in him could use a dog.  
And when all these things are now done, the Parliament not only sitting, but having so much strength in the Field, what can we expect when these men have prevailed, when at the putting on of their harness their usual language is nothing but blasphemy against God, (not to be mentioned,) and against His people calling all that adhere to his and the kingdom's Cause, Parliament dogs, and Parliament rogues? what language will you expect to hear if once they come triumphantly to put it off? If while the event is uncertain they cut us out such kind of laws, Liberties, and parliament-privileges as these are, if God for our sins sell us into their hands, think if you can, what laws, Liberties, and parliament-privileges our posterity shall find Recorded in our blood; for ourselves alas, who shall live when God doth this, nay who would desire to live? I would rather with holy Austin make it my humble suit to that God whose are the issues of life and death, that he would rather take me from the Earth, then let me live to see His dear Church, and my native country delivered into the hands of such Blasphemous, and barbarous Men.  
So that in stead of repenting and withdrawing from the work, I could wish that my voice were able to reach into every corner of the kingdom, and that I could awaken all people to see the danger and misery that is flowing in upon them. That every soul might be quickened up to make his own, and help to make England's, bleeding, dying England's peace with God, and every one who hath any interest in Heaven to cry mightily unto that God in whose hand the hearts of Kings are, and who rules in the kingdoms of men, that the power of our God might be great towards us, in turning away these imminent calamities, and turning the heart of our King towards His great and faithful council, and rescuing Him out of the hands of this Generation of men who delight in blood. Our God hath nor yet said, pray not for this people, but if the Lord say he hath no delight in us, Righteous art thou O Lord, and just are all thy judgements: only let us not be accessary to our own destruction, and the destruction of so flourishing a kingdom; let us not through our covetousness or cowardice, self-love or sloth, betray our laws, Liberties, Lives, Religion into the hands of men from whose hands, we befool ourselves if we expect more mercy, or less misery, than the poor Christians of Constantinople found with the Turks, when thanks to their own niggardliness (O let it never be so with England) they fell into their hands. Oh let us labour to prevent their Swords thrusting into our bodies, and their Swords into our souls, let our God do with us what he will, let us do what we should, and while we have any money in our purses, any blood in our veins, or any spirits in us, devote all to the maintenance of this rightful cause, and if we perish, we perish.  
Nor do I fear to be for this condemned by any right discerning man as an incendiary to a civil War, I know the miseries of a civil War: war is the severest of all God's judgements, and civil War the cruelest of all wars, where is the greatest hatred, the deepest treachery, the most unnatural butcheries, where the father murders the son, the son the Father, the brother embrues his hands in his brother's blood, and whoever gains, all are losers: Quis suror O cives, quae tanta licentia belli? Oh the madness of our age and country, if England have such a lust to War can we find no foreign Enemies, but we must war against ou● selves, and at this time too, Cumque superba foret Babylon Spoliand● trophaeis. When the proud Turrets of the whore of Babylon are to be leveled with the Earth: when Germany, when Jreland are to b● rescued out of her bloody paws? Can we find no fitter Obj●●● for the fury of the Cannon, than our towns, Houses, Bodies? Bu● alas! The Generation with whom we have to deal had rather ● thousand times see the glory of England in the dust, than the pride o●Rome: And though a civil War be miserable, yet no such misery as the peace which they would beteeme us, a Sicilian vesspers or a Parisian massacre, from which good Lord deliver us, Save Lord let the King hear us when we call.  
Thus Sir, you have my thoughts at large, you may either lay this Letter by you, or communicate it for the satisfaction of others at your own pleasure, I bless God I am gathering strength, and hope ere long by my return to my Lord and the Army (if God please not to smile upon us with a safe accommodation in the mean time) to give a real proof that my judgement is the same that formerly it hath been, and I hope you believe my affection is the same still to you, and therefore without further trouble, I subscribe myself.  
Your loving friend, Stephen Martial.  
FJNJS.