A copy of a letter written by Mr. Stephen Marshall to a friend of his in the city, for the necessary vindication of himself and his ministry, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certaine 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 perpetuall infamy. In which letter the accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulnesse 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 controversie. — Plea for defensive arms.

A copy of a letter written by Mr. Stephen Marshall to a friend of his in the city, for the necessary vindication of himself and his ministry, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certaine 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 perpetuall infamy. In which letter the accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulnesse 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 controversie. — Plea for defensive arms.

A copy of a letter written by Mr. Stephen Marshall to a friend of his in the city, for the necessary vindication of himself and his ministry, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certaine 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 perpetuall infamy. In which letter the accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulnesse 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 controversie. — Plea for defensive arms.

Table of contents

Title page

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

SIR,

YOur letters brought not the first tidings of the continuance and encrease of those strange reports concerning me, they filled the City even while I was there, and I perceive pursue me into the Countrey: it is a lying spirit which God hath permitted to haunt me for my triall, 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 devill, and to confirm it, filled Italy with a rumour of his death, and that at his death hee 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 my self 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 carefull Physitian, finding that the too importune visits of my many loving friends, occasioned too much speech, and thereby too much expence of spirits, advised me to remove to the house of my Noble Lord of Warwick, where I should have more ayre, and lesse 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 warre: 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 Countrey, from England to forraign 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 dayes, no not a month [Page] 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 poore labours have been engaged. This rumour it seemes yet lives, and (as your letter confirmes) encreases; from my going down into the Countrey 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 beleeved by others; even thousands, you say, which makes you earnestly to presse me to write unto you, whether I have not (at least) changed my former judgement about our defensive armes, and this not (as you professed) to satisfie your selfe, but that you might have something under my owne hand to shew 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 publike cause might not suffer, doe all command me to be your servant in this thing.

I know it will satisfie you, that I solemnly protest unto you, that in all these fourteen weeks keeping in, I never had an houres sicknesse, nor lost a nights 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 Doctors prescriptions, out of an earnest desire to be sitted for my work, that I might returne to my most Honoured Lord, being fully resolved, if God say Amen to it, never to give it over, untill either there be an end of that work, or an end of my dayes. This I think will satisfie 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 himselfe; fateor & testor hâc meâ manu, &c. I professe and testifie under my hand that I entertained this fiction of my distraction and death, laetaque mente & hilari vul [...]; very chearfully.

But since your love hath compelled me to put pen to paper, I shall compell 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 entring [Page] upon my office, and how farre 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 my selfe 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 supposall of the truth of the Parliament votes. viz. That his Majesty seduced by wicked Councell, did levie warre against the Parliament; the Scripture did warrant them to take up defensive armes. Secondly, Whether the Parliament was not misinformed about such his Majesties 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 unlawfull violence of the Supream Magistrate, or his Instruments, Endeavouring (and that in matters of great moment) to deprive them of their lawfull liberties.

The Second is a question mearly 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 Gods will, that in all Countreys (especially when and where the people are numerous) Magistracie be set up, with a sufficiencie of power and authority to rule for the publike good; and that, even among them who are under the scepter of Christ, against the Anabaptisis. Secondly, that among the divers kinds of lawfull governments, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, no one of them is so appointed of God, as to exclude the other from being a lawfull government. Thirdly, That the bounds and limits of the Magistrates lawfull power of commanding, and the subjects necessary obeying, must be sound, and taken out of the severall Lawes, Customs, and Constitutions of those severall States, and Commonwealths: There are scarce two formes (especially of Regall 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 Countrey differs from the power of Magistrates in another Countrey, and how the duty of Subjects differs in each, must be found only in the lawes of the respective places: that no mans right must be detained from him, that Caesar should have rendred to him the things that are Caesars, and all people [Page] the things that are their own, the Scripture, and lawes of all Nations doe determine. But whether (for instance in England) Shipmoney be the Kings right, and so to be yeelded, or denyed; 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; goe therefore to the Lawes, 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 Lawes. And fifthly, (in particular) of Subjects it requires these four things. First, to render to their Governours, next under God the greatest fear, and honour, as being Gods vicegerents, as having the greatest beames 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 lawes themselves. Thirdly, maintenance with payment of all lawfull Customs, Tributes, and impositions. Fourthly, all manner of supplications, prayers, Intercessions, and giving of thanks, their usefullnesse 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 Supream, but in proportion to all inferior Governors, who are sent by God also for the punishment of evill doers, and for the praise of them that doe well, they being all the ministers of God for our good, and this is the first Commandement with promise. But sixthly, if our Governours (whether supream, 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 Gods sight, but severely threatening them for abusing his name, which they bear; nor any word binding the consciences of their subjects therein to yeeld them any active obedience. Thus farre 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 [Page] forms of Aristocracy, and Democracy were not approved by him: Yea, and have cryed up the power and authority of Princes to be such, as that they are absolved from all lawes; and that whatsoever the Subjects enjoy under them, is only by the Princes favour, which if they please to recall, how justly or unjustly soever, the Subjects are bound to yeeld all unto them, and have no plea against their Prince, only in the Court of Heaven; no law, no judg, 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 musike, often chanted in the eares of our Princes: and no doubt was one great occasion of these heavy yoaks we have of late groaned under. But these absurdities need no refutation. Egiptian Pharaoh claimed not the wealth of his people, till he had bought it. And Ahab himselfe, who durst not lay claim to Naboths vineyard, without purchase, or colour of confiscation, proclaims their ignorance sufficiently to the world. And among our selves, the constant proceedings of our Princes, even in their most heavy illegall exactions, borrowing allwayes a colour of law, and the known laws of the land, enabling the meanest subject to maintain his Propriety, even in a two-peny matter, against his Soveraign; And the innumerable verdicts in all Courts, passing for the Subject, against the King; assure me that unlesse God for our sins should give up our Parliament and S [...]ate to the vassallage which this Popish Army would bring it to, we shall heare no more of this Divinity.

The only Question now is about passive obedience; they who cry down our defensive Arms, confesse that the Magistrate cannot require any thing but by Law, and that the subject need not yeeld 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 sonnes to ea [...]e his ground, and our daughters to be his Confectioners, Cookes, 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 our selves by Armes against such tyranni; if we do (Say they) we resist the ordinance of God, and must receive to our selves damnation.

But if this opinion be weighed in the ballance of Reason, how much lighter than vanity will it be found; how absurd a thing is it, that these [Page] 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 mee, 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 yeeld 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 lawes of God and man, I may not secure with a good conscience. True it is, if in case it do (upon circumstances duly weighed) appeare that our receding from our right, and not resisting wrong, will tend to the promoving of a greater and a more generall good, or the preventing of a greater and more generall evill, it is agreeable to right reason, and our Saviours rule, Mat. 5. 39. that we should both remit of our right, and submit to wrong, whether sued or unsued, whether to superiours or inferiours, or equals. But that men should give a liberty of defence in Law, and yet absolutely condemn defence against unlawfull violence, is such an [...], 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 Armes against the violence of oppressing Governours and their instruments be unlawfull, either it must be because their Prince hath by conquest spoyled 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 supream Ruler according to Law, they must therefore bee interpreted to have yeelded up all their liberty so farre as to bee 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 mortall men, that all hands are by him bound from daring to resist them.

The first I finde not many pleading, that peoples being conquerd, makes it unlawfull for them to defend themselves against the unjust violences of their conqueror or his successors: Most of them grant, that the peoples right is to designe the person of their Prince. And indeed it is the most absurd reasoning in the world, that because a strong [Page] robber hath over powerd mee in my house, in conscience I am tyed to be his servant or slave for ever. Because Eglon Iudg. 3. hath mightily oppressed Israel for eighteen yeares, it is unlawfull for them to shake off his yoak 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 allowes me to recover it again as soon as I can. And I fear not to say, that had William Sirnamed the Conquerour taken and held this Crowne 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 our selves from that yoak, if we were able.

But though the sword begin the Conquest, yet many times the Consent of the people comes in, and makes their Conquerour their lawfull King; and then so farre as by Covenant or Lawes, they agree to be under him for the publike safety and good, they are bound up from any resistance. But that their parting with some of their liberty for the publike 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 expresly 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 compell him to them, some shew 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 goe 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 masters feet, as wholly prostitute to all his Imperious humours.

Secondly, can it be imagined, by reason that a people submitting to a lawfull 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 [Page] 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 Murtherer: If he who both in himselfe and instruments should be only for the punishment of evill and the praise of them that doe well, will goe, or send, or suffer a company of theeves or murtherers to goe in his name, and spoile 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 selfe-murther in suffering such a thing? For instance, some of our Historians relate of King Iohn, that he was transported with so deep a hatred against his Nobles and Commons, that he sent an Ambassadour to Miramumalin, entituled the great King of Africa, Morocco, and Spaine, wherein he offered to render unto him his Kingdome, and to hold the same from him by tribute as his Soveraigne Lord, to forgoe the Christian faith (which he held vaine) and receive that of Mahomet; like enough some Court-Chaplaine (may be the Clerk that went on the errand) might warrantize the Kings conscience, and tell him, that it was the more shame for them who profest the Christian Religion, to compell 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, scepters, and lives no further then they may advance the publike good, yet if they degenerate, and will be destroyers, the people should suffer all to be spoyled, 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 Generall purposely chosen (and to whom the souldiers have therefore sworne) for the safety of the whole Army, should yet turne the Cannon mouth upon his own souldiers, or deliver them all up into the hands of the enemy: the passengers and souldiers, yea the officers in [Page] the ship, and Councell of warre in the Army, should be morally disabled from doing any thing to prevent their own apparant destruction. By this reason the Bishop of Burgeu in the Councell of Basil proved the Councell 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 abhorre this, that whereas Princes are the publike fathers, and the people owe them the duty of children, that these children should be prohibited from keeping their publike fathers from the greatest evils: If our naturall 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 disarme them, yea we are tied not to suffer friend or foe to incurre the guilt of rapine or blood, if it lie in our power to hinder it; and (speak to my reason) what evill have Princes deserved, that if they go about to murder themselves, subjects, and children, not any of their people, no not the whole body politick 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, grantBarcl. lib contra [...] narchom. Grotius iure bel [...] l. 1. c. 4. [...]) how much more cleare, honourable, and safe must such a defence needs be, when done by the representative body of a State, who are Gods ordinance as well as Kings, the ministers of God sent by him to be a terrour to evill, 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 Christendome, Papists and Protestants when they have been put to it, have borne defensive Armes against the unlawfull violences of their misled Princes.

But now if notwithstanding all this faire shew of reason Gods 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 turne our reason (how specious soever) out of doores, when once it offers to oppose the least Iota of his revealed [Page] will. But where is this Scripture to be found? Certainly the good Subjects in the Old Testament knew it not. Sauls Subjects who swore that Saul should not kill Ionathan, nor pluck an haire from his head, though Saul had sworne 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 with-held their own, but Doegs 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 severall Tribes of Israel, among whom were some of Sauls 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 himselfe bound in conscience to render himselfe 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 Ʋzziah 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, unlesse in the extraordinarinesse and valiancy of their spirits: And for the extraordinary persons themselves, I know nothing why their examples may not be pleaded, for our Defensive Armes, as well as Davids eating the shewbread was pleaded by our Saviour, for his Disciples rubbing the ears of corn, unlesse they can first shew, that their practice was against a known law, I mean, unlesse 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 shewes they understood to bind them to yeeld Honour, Loyalty, Obedience, and Subjection to their Magistrates according to law; but not that they were bound to let them doe what mischeife they pleased.

[Page] Neither is there any more in the new Testament; there indeed are full and frequent exhortations to submit our selves 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 Tyrannie of men, no colour for it, unlesse any will say that Tyrannie is Gods Ordinance, that Tyrants beare the sword for the punishment of evill doers, are the Ministers of God, &c. full proof there is that we must be under the authoritie of Rulers, that is, under their Legall Commands; not one word of being at the dispose of their illegall wills: [...] Chry [...] Matthias po [...] lib. 3. Sect 3. The word used there is [...], derived ab [...], licet, to shew as one observes, that the Text bindes subjects to obey Superiours not ablibitum, but ablicitum, not to obey their lawlesse lusts and wills, but their lawfull authority, without resisting. And surely it were strange, that if God had laid this yoke of subjection to the illegall will of Rulers, that neither the Jewes 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 bindes them not to give their throats to be cut, or their liberties and states to be spoiled at the meer 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 Emperour Charles the fifth, when the Smalchaldian confederacie was entring?Sleid. hist l [...]b. 18. Did not both the Divines and Lawyers being consulted with, agree, that the inferiour Magistrates might at some time resist the Superiour? 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, untill 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 ayds 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 [Page] the judgement of this Nation was in the time of Popery is plain enough by their practice, in their usuall taking of Armes, and not leaving till they had compelled their Princes to ratifie their Priviledges and Charters, which through ill Counsellors they had infringedBed [...]s letter to Wadsworth And observeable it is, that because the Bishops and Clergie of those times saw the Princes go about to take down their pride, they were ever the most forward to justifie the proceeding of the State; and I suspect, in case the Tables were turned, and we had a King endeavouring to take downe 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 crie 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 enjoyned subjection to the Higher Powers, especially to the King as Supreme, and all know that Nero the then supreme Governour, was no better then 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 Kings authority and the Subjects obedience, yet if any of these would change the the bounds of his authority (for instance, If the King of Denmarke, or Sweden or Polonia would invade the liberty of his Subjects, and make himselfe as absolute, (not onely as the King of England, but) as the King of France, or Spaine, or the Great Turk) this argument tyes all their Subjects from resisting; let any man shew an outgate for the Subjects of the one, which will not let out others, and for my part I will yeeld the cause: If they say these Kings tooke their Crowns upon those termes, and the Subjects indented to have libertie of resistance in such cases, then 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 [Page] 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 tyed 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 himselfe, or runne some innocent man thorow with his sword, might no man take the sword out of his hand? and if it be lawfull for a private man to dis-arme 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 goe about to destroy all. Thirdly, both Texts lay the same charge for subjection to inferiour Magistrates, who likewise have their authoritie from God, though under the Superiour: As our Saviour said to Pilate, who was but a Deputy, thou couldst have no [...], 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 inferiour Officers; if there may, it is sufficient; sure I am, the Texts have not one word to allow the one and prohibite the other. Fourthly, what one syllable in either of these Texts so much as looks towards the forbidding of a people to resist Tyrannie, but onely that we resist not the Magistrates in the rightfull 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 legall commands; no more of Kings than of an higher Power in an Aristocracie or Democracie, binding all persons to subject themselves to that Power and Authoritie which in the severall 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 authoritie to rule according to Law, that was not his Tyrannie; his Tyrannie 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 Romanes to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have leave to answer for himselfe; and would accordingly dismisse them, if they had done nothing worthy of death, or of bonds.

[Page] Object [...] Object. 2. But doth not the thirteenth Chapter of the Romans plainely binde mens hands from resisting the Supreme Power.

Answ. Answ. By the Supreme power must be meant, that power, which by the originall and fundamentall Constitution of any People and Nation, hath authoritie to make Lawes which shall binde 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 it self being subject to the judgement and authoritie of none but God: [...] and Aristotle makes three distinct Branches of this power.

1. The power of making and repealing Lawes, a Legislative power.

2. The power of making Warre and Peace, of imposing Customes 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 soule is forbidden to resist: But now what ever be the higher power in England, most certain it is, that the Kings absolute or illegall will, is not the highest power, that hath neither power to make Laws, nor repeale Laws; that hath not power to acquit or condemne; nor may men appeal from the Kings lawfull judgement Seate to the Kings absolute will; but his legall will in the highest Court, or the King and Parliament may make Lawes or repeal Lawes, may engage the whole Nation in a Warre, and command both the Bodies and Purses of men unto the service, is the highest Court of Iudicature, 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 plaine English, it amounts directly to thus much, Let everie 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 [Page] to confound the great Chaplains and Champions of the Antiparliamentary cause, or to strike terrour into their Loynes, if their long conversing with God-dammee's, 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 expresly, the King is Supreme, 1 Pet. 2. 12.

Answ. Answ. 1. It may as well be translated Superiour, as Supreme, the same word in the 13 of the Romans is translated Superiour, 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 Aristocracie, as to Monarchy: If the people of Pontus, Asia, Cappadocia, Bithynia, 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 forme 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 wayes tyes 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 enjoynes it, will easily see that both the Act and Oath were intended in opposition to that Supremacie 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 Queens Injunctions published, Anno 1. of Her Raign, viz. To confesse or acknowledge in Her, Her Heirs and Successors, no other Authority then that which was challenged and [Page] 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 passe 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 Gods 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 Prophesie of the punishment which the Roman sword should enact of the bloudy 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 Peters using the sword; then the plain meaning is to condemn Peters rashnesse, who drew his sword, and never staid to know his Masters minde, whether he should strike or not; and so reproves those who rashly, unlawfully, or doubtingly use the sword: Adde this, That now was the hour come of Christs suffering, and not of his Apostles fighting, wherein Christ would not be rescued, no, not by twelve Legions of Angels, much lesse then by the sword of man; Therefore he saith to Peter, put up thy sword, &c. But intended not that it should alwayes be unlawfull for his people to use the sword in their just defence, against unjust violence; for then 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 counsell thee to keep the Kings 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?

[Page] 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 Lords Priests, that commandment need not be kept? If David lie with his neighbors 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 it self, Keep the Kings Commandment, according to the Oath of God, stand not in an evill thing against him, he hath power to do what ever he will. Siscelus patraveris effugere non poteris, Mercer. ad Locum If you commit evill, you cannot escape punishment, where the word of a King is, there is power. viz. To punish them that do evill, 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 raign, &c. Whence they plead, That because Kings and Princes receive their authority only from God, and the people at the utmost only designe 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 then 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 designe the person of her husband to her self, but the authority of a husband is from God; now though the wife may not take away the husbands just authority, she may defend her self against oppression and injury.

Some alleadge Gods judgement upon the two hundred and fifty Princes, Numb. 16.Num. 16

[Page] Answ. They were Rebells against their lawfull Governours, ruling exactly, according to the expresse will of God, and may all those perish with them who will plead for such as they are.

Object.Others alleadge, 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, Vers. 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 shew 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 then a prohibition of such resistance. The Lord foretells the people, Ezek. 24. 21. Of calamitous times, in which he tells them, Vers. 24, That they should not mourn or weep; Will any man interpret this, as if God made it unlawfull 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 forraign 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 threatning of a judgement, not an imposition of a dutie.

[...]bject.But David durst not lift up his hand against the Lords 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 Lords Anointed; [Page] 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 Lords Anointed.

Answ. Is this their fault, who have so often Petitioned His Majesty to withdraw Himself from such dangerous wayes, as both the Parliament and his Excellencie 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 unnaturall Warres, and do in a manner inforce His presence in them; did they bear that affection to His Majestie as they pretend, They would with Davids men, Swear, thou shalt no more go out with us to battle, least 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 madnesse 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 then 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 joyn 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, then 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 severall Tribes [Page] day by day, till his host was like an host of God. Now by these mens arguiment, if Davids host had been fourty 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 battell. 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 speciall reasons of Gods 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 then be killed. 3. Where did any of the Fathers ever oppose this opinion, and condemn this practise, that is, declaring it unlawfull especially for a representative body to defend themselves against the unjust violence of their misled Princes: I beleeve 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 establisht by Edict of the Romane Empire, and Licinius the Emperour 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 joyned with them; And as Eusebius saith,Euseb. 10. c. 8. 9 held it his dutie, 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 Romane Emperour Theodosius, and were assisted by him, and when the King of Persia complained that Theodosius should meddle in a [...]fairs of his Kingdom, Niceph. Theodosius answered, that he did not onely 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 [Page] their own. It seems they thought it as lawfull to help an innocent people against the oppressions of their own Prince, as for one neighbour to succour another against theeves and robbers. The Macedonians obtained of the Emperour 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 sithes, clubs and hatchets, and cut off almost all the Souldiers, and many of the Paphlagonians. At Constantinople the Orthodox defended Paulus his Election against Macedonius and his abettors, though assisted with the Militarie Forces, and the Historian Socrates 2. c. 10. blames them onely for killing the Commander Hermogenes. Socrates l. 5. c. 11. Justina Valentinianus mother, infected with Arianisme, 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 entred into a league with the Romanes for their safetie. 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 Doctour 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 hindring a man from pulling down his house, were the pulling down the house: As if the hindring 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 cleer, 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 [Page] 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 discusse matters of fact, charging the Parliament with invading the Kings just Prerogative, usurping an exorbitant power and authority, &c. yea His Majestie in all his Declarations insists onely upon this, never suggesting that in Conscience they are prohibited to defend themselves, in case he should violently invade their Liberties, yea, expresly grants that there is power sufficient legally placed in the Parliament to prevent Tyrannie.

And therefore now I leave the case of Divinitie, and shall more briefly give you an account what satisfied me in the second, I mean matter of fact, that His Majestie being seduced by wicked councell did leavie 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 finall 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 Pauls spirituall man) judgeth all, and it self is judged of none, and therefore if I should give you no other account of my entring upon my Office in the Armie (which was not to fight, nor meddle in the Councell of War, but onely 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 dutie not to yeeld blinde obedience, or go by an implicite 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.

[Page] It was very cleare that the persons too much prevailing with His Majesty had long before this Parliament a designe for overthrowing our Lawes, 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 mischiefe of adhering to such ill Counsellors, would for the time to come be wholly guided by the great Councell of his Kingdome, alas it soone appeared that the same kinde of Counsellors were still most prevayling, insomuch that (soone after the pacification with Scotland) the Northerne Army should have beene brought up to London, as appeares by the very Oaths of some who should have acted it, a thing then thought so pernicious, that not onely the chiefe actors fled beyond the Seas, but many reall 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 Queens Commission for their warrant, it was at least three moneths after, before they were proclaimed Traytors, 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 Traytors, 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 owne safety, & an other denied except under the charge of the Queenes Chamber-lain, and His Majesty himselfe entertained divers Captaines 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 Earle of Newcastle (now Generall of the Armie of Papists in the North) sent to Hull, attempting to seize it and the Magazine there, His Majesty according to the Lord Digbies Letters retiring from the Parliament to a place of strength, and the Queene going beyond Sea to rayse a party there; I must have shut my eyes if I had not seene danger, and thousands of thousands would have thought he Parliament altogether sencelesse if they had not importuned His [Page] Majesty (as they did) to settle the Militia, all former settlings of it by Commissions of Lievtenancy being confessedly voyd: 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 vaine is our hope in man,) And secured the Town of Hull and the Magazine there: soone after this His Majesty in the North seised New-Castle 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 councell, &c. And when His Majesties Army was more encreased, hee then declared that hee was resolved by strength to recover Hull and the magazine and to suppresse the Militia: After this indeed the Parliament began to make vigorous preparations by their propositions for Plate, Money, Horse, &c.

This being the true progresse and state of the busines, I saw cleerly all along, the Kingdome 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 fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome to settle it especially for a time upon His Majesties refusall; That His Majesty raysed force, and declared it was to suppresse the Militia, and recover Hull and the magazine is as cleare, and made pregnant preparations both at home and beyond the Seas: And the civill Lawyers say that pregnant preparations are the beginning of a War. The onely 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 Majesties refusall.

What the Kings power and prerogative, and what the Parliaments power was for securing the Militia in time of danger according to the Lawes of England was out of my profession, and in great part above my skill; But certainly unlesse 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 wee have laine under, then the Votes and Judgements of the highest Court of Judicature in [Page] 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 Kings prerogative, or the Lawes and Liberties of the Subjects untill now, and who have given us so much evidence of their wisdome, watchfulnesse and faithfulnesse) 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 betweene Prince and People, party and party, in matters of life or State, may rest in the resolution of the learned Iudges 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 Iudge of all the Iudicatures in the Land. And in case I were unsatisfied to whom should I appeale in whose judgement I might more safely rest, especially when I saw their Vote agreeable to that which is the supreame Law of all Nations, namely, that Publique safety is the highest and deepest Law, and that it is requisite that every State have a power in time of danger to preserve it selfe from ruine? and no Law of England more known, then that the Parliament is the highest Court from whence there is no appeale. This satisfaction I had then, and since by the Declarations and Remonstrances of the Parliament concerning these Military matters, and by other Bookes lately published, it is most apparent that they have not usurped upon His Majesties Prerogative, but what they have done is agreeable to the practise of former Parliaments, In putting the Militia, Forts and Navy into safe hands in these times of danger; And that it was therefore lawfull for them, yea, necessary to take up these defensive Armes, 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 freedome of their Votes, &c. Because I thinke these things are now believed by none, but such as would believe no good of the Parliament though one should rise from the dead againe.

Thus Sir you have a just account of the grounds that first induced [Page] mee to owne this Cause; you desire to know whether I see not yet reason to repent of what I have done, I confesse I never undertooke any thing but I saw cause to repent of my miscariage through the corruption which cleaves to mee, and great cause I have to bewaile my many failings in this great Worke, but for the Worke it selfe, I as solemnely professe, 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 cleare call, and though the Worke prove harder and longer then at first it was thought, yet the Cause is farre clearer then at the first,

The Worke indeed is harder then I expected, for whoever could have believed he should have seen in England so many Lords and Commons even after their solemne Protestation, to defend the Priviledge of Parliament, And their own Vote; that His Majesty seduced by wicked councell intended War against the Parliament, so shamefully to betray the trust committed to them? so many of the Protestant Profession joyning with an Army of Papists (under pretence of mantaining 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 Armes contrary to so many knowne Lawer, and armed with Commission, to disarme Protestants contrary to their knowne 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 raysed by the Parliament in such an extremity, for such an end, (having hazzarded their lives, undergon all these hardships, performed all these services, and whose untimely disbanding may prove our irrecoverable ruine) strai [...]ed for want of pay while England is worth a groate. Behold, regard, and wonder marvelously, I relate a thing which many will not believe though it be told unto them. Hab. 1. 5.

But though the Worke be harder, the case is still clearer, both in regard of th [...] intentions of the Parliament and also of their adversaries. For the Parliament, multitudes would not believe, but that they had further aimes then their own and the publique safety, that they intended it not to depose His Majesty, yet by force of Armes to compell [Page] him to that which is not fit for a King to yeild to; But now by their frequent petitioning of His Majesty especially by the reasonablenesse of their late Propositions and Instructions, wherein they desire a present disbanding of all Armes, even before any other bills were past, and were willing to have the Ports, Forts and Sh [...]s, &c Of the Kingdome resigned up into His Majesties hands, provided onely 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 plaine, that I think Malignity it self cannot but be convinced of them.

And the intentions of the contrary councells are as plaine, their mask now falling off, and their designe more then ever discovered to be the overthrow of Parliament, liberty, Lawes and Religion. For at first we had Declarations to preserve all the just priviledges of Parliament, but now we see men proclaimed Traytors for executing the Commands of the two Houses, and the two Houses themselves, if not in direct, yet in equivalent tearmes proclaimed Traytors, yea denyed to be a Parliament, because His Majesty withdrawes himselfe, and after multitudes of Petitions refuses to returne, 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 illegall, and that such as they have fined and imprisoned may bring their Habeas Corpus to be tried in an inferiour Court. Yea, people provoked to scorne them, and thereupon multitudes not fearing to trample upon, and cast as vile scorne and contemptunjustly upon that thrice-honorable Court, as ever was cast justly upon the Commissaries Courts.

We have heretofore been assured that the knowne Lawes of the Land should be the onely 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 Lawes made for the Subjects liberty.

Heretofore Proclamations were put out that no Papists should be entertained into His Majesties Army, because the resolution was [Page] to maintaine 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 professe their Religion publiquely, set up their masse in the second City of the Kingdome, cutting [...] pieces, and burning Bibles, and as multitudes of reports come from beyond the Seas, (and the supplies that come from thence confirme it) all the Papists in Christendome contributing to this War as to the Catholique 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 it selfe) and in the meane time while these things are promised, hundreds, yea thousands of his Majesties Subjects plundred with His Majesties Proclamations against plundering, in the hands of diverse of the plunderers. And their persons led away in Ropes and Chaines like Turkish Gallyslaves, and many cast into Prisons and Dungeons only for detending themselves against robbers and murderers abusing His Majesties Name: where their Jaylours use them worse then the Turkes doe 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 harnesse their usuall language is nothing but blasphemy against God, (not to be mentioned,) and against His people calling all that adhere to his and the Kingdoms Cause, Parliament dogs, and Parliament rogues? what language will you expect to heare if once they come triumphantly to put it off? If while the event is uncertaine they cut us out such kinde of Lawes, Liberties, and Parliament-priviledges as these are, if God for our sinnes sell us into their hands, thinke if you can, what Lawes, Liberties, and Parliament-priviledges our posteritie shall finde Recorded in our bloud; for our selves alas, who shall live when God doth this, nay who would desire to live? I would rather with holy Austin make it my humble suite to that God whose are the issues of life and death, that he would rather take mee from the Earth, then let mee live to see His deare Church, and my native Countrey delivered [Page] into the hands of such Blasphemous, and barbarous Men.

So that in stead of repenting and withdrawing from the Worke, I could wish that my voyce were able to reach into every corner of the Kingdome, and that I could awaken all people to see the danger and misery that is flowing in upon them. That every soule might be quickened up to make his owne, and helpe to make Englands, bleeding, dying Englands 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 Kingdomes 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 faithfull Councell, and rescuing Him out of the hands of this Generation of men who delight in blood. Our God hath nor yet sayd, 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: onely let us not be accessary to our own destruction, and the destruction of so flourishing a Kingdome; let us not through our covetousnesse or cowardize, selfelove or sloth, betray our Lawes, Liberties, Lives, Religion into the hands of men from whose hands, we befoole our selves if we expect more mercy, or lesse misery, then the poore Christians of Constantinople found with the Turkes, when thankes to their owne niggardlinesse (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 Soules, let our God doe with us what he will, let us doe what we should, and while we have any money in our purses, any blood in our veines, or any spirits in us, devote all to the maintenance of this rightfull cause, and if we perish, we perish.

Nor doe I feare to be for this condemned by any right discerning man as an incendiary to a Civill War, I know the miseries of a Civill War: Warre is the severest of all Gods judgements, and Civill War the cruellest of all Warres, where is the greatest hatred, the deepest treachery, the most unnaturall butcheries, where the father murders the sonne, the sonne the Father, the brother embrues his hands in his brothers blood, and whoever gaines, all are [Page] loosers: Quis suror O cives, quae tanta licentia belli? Oh the madnesse of our age and Countrey, if England have such a lust to War can we find no forraigne Enemies, but we must Warre 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 levelled with the Earth: when Germany, when Jreland are to b [...] rescued out of her bloudy pawes? Can we finde no fitter Obj [...] for the fury of the Cannon, then our Townes, Houses, Bodies? Bu [...] alas! The Generation with whom we have to deale had rather [...] thousand times see the glory of England in the dust, then the pride o [...] Rome: And though a civill War be miserable, yet no such misery as the peace which they would beteeme us, a Sicilian vespers or a Parisian massacre, from which good Lord deliver us, Save Lord let the King heare 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 blesse God I am gathering strength, and hope ere long by my returne to my Lord and the Army (if God please not to smile upon us with a safe Accomodation in the meane time) to give a reall proofe 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 my Selfe.

Your loving friend, Stephen Marshall.

FJNJS.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A Copy of A LETTER Written by Mr Stephen Marshall To a friend of his in the City, for the necessary vindication of himself and his Ministry, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certaine 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 perpetuall infamy. In which Letter the Accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulnesse 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 controversie.

HOSEA 4. 1, 2, 3.

1. Heare the word of the Lord, ye Children of Israel, for the Lord hath a controversie 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 mourne, &c.

LONDON Printed for JOHN ROTHWELL, at the Sunne in Pauls Church-yard, 1643.

Information about this book

Title statement

A copy of a letter written by Mr. Stephen Marshall to a friend of his in the city, for the necessary vindication of himself and his ministry, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certaine 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 perpetuall infamy. In which letter the accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulnesse 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 controversie.Plea for defensive arms.

Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.

Edition statement

1643

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A89562

ID [STC]

Wing M750

ID [STC]

Thomason E102_10

ID [STC]

ESTC R21572

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99871453

ID [PROQUEST]

99871453

ID [VID]

123864

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A89562)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 123864)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 18:E102[10])

Source

— A copy of a letter written by Mr. Stephen Marshall to a friend of his in the city, for the necessary vindication of himself and his ministry, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certaine 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 perpetuall infamy. In which letter the accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulnesse 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 controversie., Plea for defensive arms., Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655..

Extent

[2], 30 p.

Printed for John Rothwell, at the Sunne in Pauls Church-yard,. London :: 1643.. (Originally published in 1642 as: A plea for defensive arms.) (Annotation on Thomason copy: "May 18th".) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.