question. Now in our extreme distractions – when foreign forces threaten, and probably are invited, and a malignant and popish party at home offended – the devil has cast a bone and raised a contestation between the king and parliament touching the militia. His majesty claims the disposing of it to be in him by the right of law; the parliament saith, rebus sic stantibus, and nolenti Rege: the ordering of it is in them.

answer. Which question may receive its solution by this distinction: that there is in laws an equitable, and a literal, sense. His majesty (let it be granted) is entrusted by law with the militia, but it's for the good and preservation of the republic against foreign invasions or domestic rebellions. For it cannot be supposed that the parliament would ever by law entrust the king with the militia against themselves, or the commonwealth that entrusts them, to provide for their weal, not for their woe. So that when there is certain appearance or grounded suspicion that the letter of the law shall be improved against the equity of it (that is, the public good, whether of the body real or representative) then the commander going against its equity, gives liberty to the commanded to refuse obedience to the letter. […]