Page [unnumbered]
Argument VII.
IT appears by this, that the Article of Warre is the hinge upon which this sentence only moves, here is no Concomitant expression of Cowardize or Treachery, so as the guilt is externall, and not internall, a guilt of disproportion and want of Commensuration to the Article, and whereas there is this clause, That hee held not the same to the utmost extremity; that is according to the tenour of the Article, for extremity is here consi∣derable under a double notion; as extremity is common∣ly understood and received: hee held it to the height of that notion, as I have cleerly remonstranced, but as ex∣tremity is received in a Martiall interpretation, relating to the very Article of War there, and only there hee is criminall, and upon this hee was condemned for not comming up to the height of that extremity▪ and though the Martiall Justice allows of no plea in that disproportion, yet there is a morall equity to be conside∣red here, which qualifies his not c••mming up to the last extremity, and this his Excellency considered in his par∣don: First, he must have burned the second City of the Kingdome to the ground, contrary to the constant pra∣ctice and policy of War, to the principles and rules of the Parliaments Protestations and proceedings, and to all the violencies and villanies which are the sad conse∣quences of an enraged Enemy entring such a City by force, having been exasperated before by the losse of a∣bove a thousand of their men, and amongst them foure Colonels and divers of quality; besides by such an act a considerable body of horse & foot, must necessarily have been broken, which by terms of competition might,