COMPLAINTS AND QUERIES upon England's Misery: Acted Octob. 13, 1659.  
BY SOME OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, AGAINST The Parliament of the commonwealth of ENGLAND.  
By a true Lover of the laws and LIBERTIES of ENGLAND. E. D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. C. 1659.   

COMPLAINTS and QUERIES upon England's Misery, acted Octob. 13 1659.  
Complaint. O How dolefully different is this day from this day seven-night? when Parliament, and council os State, Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-Council of the City of London, with the Officers of the Army, met at their sacred Solemn devotions of singing, praying, praising and preaching the praises of God, for the late deliverance from the Northwest Insurrection; marching afterwards in great State with sound of Trumpets, atrendance of Armed soldiers, and aspect of innumerable people, to a most sumptious Dinner, where they eat and drank of all choice varieties and rarities, with great welcome, and rare music, and all interchangeable signs and significations, of integrated unity and amity. But now the Army hath (they say) dissolved the Parliament; And is not this day's sorrow far greater than that day's joy; sad enough to break more hearts then on that day were made merry?  
Query. Say ye the Parliament is dissolved, How can that be, when by an Act of the people in Parliament, this Parliament was never to be dissolved, without an Act of their own. Nor did those Representatives of the the people of England ever consent to their dissolution? So that let come never so many pretended Parliaments, Conventions, Forms pretending supreme Power; yet will not the supremacy of this parliament still impend over them? Will not the Authority of this Parliament be still in force, to call all the said Pretentioners to an account, and to stick in their sides, when ever the free people of England, (continually watching their opportunities) shall bring them back to sit in Parliament?  
Compl. However, if the Army have not dissolved, yet sure enough they have interrupted, and put off the Parliament; which is sad enough. It being all one with not having a remedy, as not to have Liberty to use it: So that the cry of the good people is; The Parliament is gone, and we in probability for ever undone.  
Quaere. Whether we shall do well, so to conclude? For did they not so once afore, in Oliver's time; some of them assisting him in that evil, others of the Army afterwards, strengthening him keeping out the Parliament till many of the Commander, and some of the soldiers troubled in Conscience left the Army; and others so manifested their dissatisfaction, that they were lifted out by Oliver? And is not this last evil in this second interruption greater than the former? And therefore like to cry louder against their Consciences, to cause them (if God please) to return? I say, I Query whether this second interruption be not greater than the former, all things considered? For, did not the remaining Officets of the Army (pretending to godliness) refuse to take warning of treasuring up an evil Conscience, by the trouble of Conscience that befell the others? Did they not assist in the Proclaiming Richard Protector? not knowing any sufficient ground? And had they not the patience, and connivance at least▪ if not giving some assistance to the said Richads callin a Free Pauliament (as they named it); so free, that besides (through notorious patching and shuffling) the most of them were English Cavelleers, arch Royalists; there were called in 60 Scottish and Irish▪ Representatives; against all Law, custom, Ordinance or show of Authority whatsoever; to the dangerous prejudice of this Nation of England (they being a third part more than the Quorum of an English Parliament) able to make laws upon us without our consents, if at any time 40 of ours should not be in the House?  
And moreover did not the complexion of that Parliament (as they call it) appear as looking towards a Kings At least did not the Army suspect so much, whereby they feared the reverting of Kings, Queens, Lands, and Fee-FarmRents? And did not the Officers of the Army upon these and the like considerations, set forth in Print their repentance for all their aforesaid evils, of May 6, 1659. Saying, The public concernment of this Commonwealth being through a vicisitude of dangers and backslidings of many brought into that state and posture wherein they now stand, AND ourselves also contributing thereunto, by wandering divers ways, from righteous and equal paths; and also observing to our great grief that the good SPIRIT which formerly appeared amongst us in the carrying on of this great work did daily decline, so as the GOOD OLD CAUSE became a reproach, & c.? And did not they and some of the former Commanders troubled in Conscience as aforesaid joining with them, earnestly entreat in the said Printed Declaration, (That this Parliament formerly interrupted by Oliver) would return to the exercise and discharge of their trust, promising them (in the said Declaration) that they would be ready in their places, as becomes them to yield them their utmost assistance to sit▪ in safety, in settling and securing the peace and freedom of this Commonwealth.  
And when this Parliament with much self-denial, ventured themselves divers ways to sit and act, and now the conscentious Officers that afore relinquished, or were ejected out of Command are restored to their respective Commands; did not the generality of both sorts of the Officers aforesaid, (all pretending to godliness) now again stop this Parliament from going to the House, and therein seem to vomit up their repentance (repenting of that repentance) and to lick up that Vomit which formerly they had spewed out. And did not the Same men herein fare worse than before; not only in transgressing against their former self-conviction, former examples of Conscience, former repentings, former repentance of their endangering the whole Commonwealth, but against the Sage Patriots of their country and pious (for the generality) towards God, and some of them brave Soldiers; and that after they had sat half a year, mainly doing their Drudgery, getting Laws of Excise and Custom, raising Taxes, and paying soldiers by Sea and Land? Yea in the very Act of stopping the Speaker in Kings-street, when a Lieut. Col. bustling in the business, was asked why▪ he did these things? Did he give any other answer, but this? That he had received a Command so to do. And doth not such an answer as this make a considered man astonished what might be the GODLINESS (so much cried up) of a soldier, that out of the business of War, and resistance of the supreme Legislative Power obey an unrighteous command (his Conscience being witness) without dispute.  
Compl. They were necessiated (they say) thus to stop the Parliament, for self-preservation.  
query. Is there any doubt but that self was mainly in it? But is there any necessity? Can there be any necessity (if we believe that GOD Governs the World) of sinning? Or was there such a stress to be put upon Nine men's losing their Commissions, wherein were embarked only a little future airy honour, and dirty riches, they having had enough already to make them of Low-men to live like Lords? Or is not the truth of the story, that they brought themselves into that damage▪ if they count it so great a damage, as to tear up all, rather than to fall into it? For, did not forty Commanders of the North-West expedition presently after their compassing things about Chester, subscribe a Petition, or some such paper to have a general, and general Officers? And when the Parliament (having private notice of it) Voted that the granting that request was Needless, Chargeable, and Dangerous to the commonwealth, did not 230 Officers anon after subscribe a Representation and Petition, wherein (besides many shrewd reflections on the Parliament hinted, as it were of their ingratitude, their oblique admonitions of the Army, etc:) desiring of the Parliament nine Proposals; in the sixt and seventh whereof they Petition that no Officer might be put into the Army but by a committee of Nomination, nor put out of the Army without a due proceeding at their Court Martial; and in the eighth they neatly couch that their Commander in chief might be more fixed in his Commission, than the condition of the Parliament itself was, according to a certain Vote that they had formerly passed, touching the length of their sitting? And were not these Proposals obvious to be interpreted (as some did interpret them) That the Army could better trust the said committee of Nomination, and Court Martial, than the Parliament; and looked more after their own Establishment then that of the Parliament? And to grasp at a power to change the Complexion of the Army (the Parliaments Servants,) as they the Officers should see cause, without the Cognizance of the Parliament their Master? Yet because in the said paper of Proposals they did so often mention themselves to be the Parliaments faithful Servants (which title did they make good) did not the Parliament strain hard to squeeze out so much out of the said paper as to give them thanks for the good expressions of their affections, and faithfulness; and to tell them they had already taken into consideration some of the particulars in the said Representation; and that they would the rest on Saturday next? And did not the Parliament keep their promise? And within few days were come to the sixt proposal afore-named? But mean while, did not nine of their Officers, not staying for the Parliaments answer subscribe a Letter, sending it about to the rest to subscribe it, to be sen to the Army in Scotland and Ireland, that the Officers in both these places might subscribe to the said Representation and proposal, which, with the said Letter (mentioned therein) they accordingly sent the said Letter? which attempt did it signify less than that they were resolved here in England to adhere (and to get the rest in Scotland and Ireland to adhere if they could) to those proposals what ever answer the Parliament should give them? This original Letter with the said nine hands, being brought by a Commander to whom it was sent to subscribe, unto the Parliament, was it not a sufficient cause to make the Parliament the same day it was brought in, after long debate (for they sat late) to vote the Commissions of those nine Officers void? And thereby to experience whether the Army, or Parliament were in chief rule? And whether the Parliament were not better to die in honour, then to live and lose their Authority? Now doth this story merit such a self preservation, as must be attained with an universal desolation of the safety of three Nations? Are nine men's pomp and riches, or rather only the continuance of addition of those two (for there was nothing but parchment voted away from them) balanceable against the peace and prosperity of three Nations? If they say anon the Parliament might vote out nine more and nine, etc, etc: Is this imaginably possible (unless so many would be as disobedient as the first nine) seeing the Parliament cannot be without an Army? And could the Officers of the Army, yea and some of the said ejected Officers brook it to be uncommissionated by Oliver or the other so dealt with from time to time▪ for their faithfulness to the Parliament; and are they now afraid to be voted out of Commission from time to time, whilst they stand faithful to the Parliament? If they say (as some of them did that Octob. 13.) that they were forced so to rout or stop the Parliament, that they might know whether they were to live or die: Is not this a strange Ceimaera, phantisied merely in the brain, unbecoming men of valour, that had so often boldly looked death in the face? Had the Parliament had that in their hearts, might they not as easily have voted them to be seized upon? Did this Parliament execute the King without unkinging of him; and could they not imprison or punish Commanders of an Army, without first uncommissionating them? Did not therefore these Officers in opposing the Parliaments sitting, seek a self-preservation rather from their own jealousies, then real dangers? However, may not any Malefactor as Lawfully, if not more Lawfully, offer violence to an Officer of the magistrate, sent by authority to arrest, or imprison that Malefactor, alleging he did it out of Self-preservation?  
Compl. But they did put this cessation upon the Parliament (as they say themselves) for another reason, viz: because the voting out of nine Officers at once did put a disreputation upon the Army.  
Que. Did not the Earl of Essex and hundreds of men of quality submit to the Parliament to be laid aside and took it not to heart, as these men have done? Were they not rather honoured for their self-denial.  
Que. Did not Oliver do near as much at one time; and much more at several times to the value of an 100? Yet had they any courage on that juster occasion, to extricate and deliver themselves? Yea could this one act, and but once acted since the Parliament sat, in slightly punishing nine for disobedience to them, put a disrepute on an Army of 5 or 6000? Did not they in their Address to Richard delivered (the former convention sitting in Parliament as they called it) importune that all Uuworthy men should be removed, in what place soever they were, whether among themselves or etc: and then ought it no disrepute to the army? If they say, but those they meant were indeed unworthy, but not the said nine: then the query will be, whether the Parliament are meetest to be the judge of that, or the Army; yea those nine, and that in their own case? But the main query touching this complaint of disreputation is, whether the revenge or remedy they took, in interrupting the Parliament of England (called together this second time by their own entreaty) were the right ready way to cure that their supposed disrepute? Or rather was not a direct course to accumulate more, and worse reproach upon themselves the longest day they have to live, in the eyes of all true Englishmen? and to leave it on record when they are dead in the Chronicles of England? Yea have not this supposed cure, wounded the repute and hearts of all the sober Godly people of England that adhered to the Parliament, by the taunts of Enemies at home, crying to them, where is now your Parliament? and by the rejoicings of the enemy abroad in all Nations round about us, animated (in all likelihood) hereby to invade us? yea whether the Officers by this breaking off of Parliament have not rendered themselves a scorn to their own Soldiers whiles they now jeer, saying, every month, or quarter they have a new Master?  
Compl. Others say, shall the Parliament Vote all the Godly out of the Army?  
query. Are those nine all your Godly ones? Yea are those nine all Godly? Cold we ever hear, or learn so much touching some of them, though it would have been joy to us to have heard it? Is not he Godly that doth Godly, Tit. 1. 11. 12? Or can true Godliness be separated from Righteousness by the same place? Or is he a Righteous man, that doth not that which is Righteous, 1 Joh. 3. 7? Or are these violences against the grand Government of a Nation, the fruits of Godliness, Jam. 3. 17? Is this to Learn meekness of Christ as we are commanded, Math. 11. 29? Do Soldiers herein as becomes Godly ones, obey the Command of God, Luk. 3. 14? And John Baptist said to the Soldiers Do violence to no man; neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages? Is this according to that rule, Dearly beloved, Avenge not yourselves, Rom. 12. 19? Can men be Godly according to the first Table, whilst unrighteous according to the second Table, Jam. 2. 10. Must these nine Godly ones (if so) be redressed at no cheaper a rate, then by pulling up the Foundation of the ancient only supreme Authority of this Nation, to the great grief of thousands of Godly people, to the stopping of the Trade of thousands of Tradesmen; to the preventing the timely relief of thousands of poor Prisoners, Orphans, and widows, for whom the Parliament were preparing to relieve them? Is this according to 1 Joh. 3. 16. to lay down our lives for the Godly Brethren? Or in it not rather like Matchiavels Maxim, Let our friends Perish so as our Enemies perish together with them? If ye from thence call to mind, and object your venturing your lives for the good people and Parliament of England; the query is, whether most of you did it not when ye had but little else to venture? And whether the Parliament and many of the good people of England did not venture their lives and great Estates, viz: hanging up and Confiscation, if the King had prevailed, besides venturing their lives (a many of them) in battle receiving many honourable wounds? And whether all the people of England have not well paid you ever since; thousands becoming very poor, to make you rich? And whether they making you their Servants, and thus daintily bringing you up, ye have not most ingratefully made yourselves their Masters?  
Compl, We will not, say others of them, serve the Parliament, or any form, contrary to the Common main interest, viz: Of freedom as Men, and freedom as Christians.  
query. Touching Liberty as Christians, that is Liberty of Conscience, what signs or tokens were there of the Parliaments infringing this? were there not many for one, in the Parliament for large Liberty of Conscience? Yea did they not manifest it in a Resolve at a committee for that purpose (and 'tis in print) for a larger allowance of Liberty of Conscience than the Army Petitioned for? Let us set down both, word for word, and then see whose expressions for that thing are larger. The humble Petition and Address of the Officers of the Army, to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, May 12. 1659. Proposal the sixt. That all persons who profess Faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His eternal Son, the true God, and in the holy Spirit▪ God coequal with the Father and the Son, one God blessed for ever, and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures 〈…〉 Testament, to be the revealed, or written word or will of God, shall not be restrained from their profession, but have due encouragement and equal protection in the profession of their Faith, and exercise of Religion, whilst they abuse not this liberty to the civil injuries of others, or disturbance of others in their way of Worship: So that this Liberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as shall practise, or hold forth licentiousness, or profaneness, under the profession of Religion. Thus the Army, in their Address afore●●d.  
The Committee of Parliament for Government, October the 8th 1659. Resolved, That the supreme deligated power is not entrusted to restrain the pro●●ssion of any person, or persons who profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus ●hrist God manifested in the Flesh, and in God the Holy Spirit, God blessed for ●vermore, And do acknowledge the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa●ent to be the revealed or written word, or will of God; but aught to give due en●●uragement, and equal protection to them in the profession of their Faith, and ●●cercise of Religion, whilst they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, 〈◊〉 disturbance of others, in their way of worship, Thus the Commttee of Pa 〈…〉 ment.  
Now the query is, Whether the Committee doth not express themselves in ●●ger and softer terms for Liberty of Conscience, than the said Officers of the ●rmy? And if any Reader cannot perceive it; Whether if he as a Quaker or a ●ocinian (to name no more, though more might be named) according to what hath ●een truly recited out of the said printed Copies) Whether we had not rather ●ubscribe to that of the Committee, then to that of the Officers of the Army? Yea 'tis quaeried further, whether this were the way to secure Liberty of Con●cience, to disperse the Parliament, the only Legislative power to restrain the Adversaries of Liberty of Conscience, by a Law to give way to the said Liberty? Yea, whether whilst we look on the present, and former breaches made on Parliaments, and invasion of worse things in their room, ushered in commonly with 〈◊〉 cry for Liberty of Conscience, do not render this cry very suspicious, that it is used only as a wizard to palliate every ugly design?  
2. Touching Liberty as men, that is of our persons. that we be not unlawfully ●mprisoned, and of our Purses and Estates, that they be not drained by illegal, ●awless Taxes, and of our Familes, that they be not molested with force and freequarter upon and in our Houses, and upon which the Quaere is, whether the way to attain this Liberty securely be, to take off the Parliament, (the only Legal Assertor of that Liberty) whilst there are 3 great Armies in England, Scotland and Ireland, that must (or at least will) be maintained? Yea, are not the Commanders of the Army by this course, in a fair way to make their Children, yea and themselves too, very slaves, in case they leave the Army, or the Army leaves them, and leave us in this condition?  
3. Touching non-serving the Parliament, or any Form, contrary to the said two Liberties; This query is, Whether the common use of this word Form, (of late years) in a disdainful sense, be not a Satanical invention, and Engine to keep men off at large, from any thing that should bound them to a closer conscientious walking, despisig all ways of Worship as Forms, contemning Parliaments 〈…〉 ny the Power thereof, whether this be to obey the Form of Doctrine (〈…〉.) the Form of sound words (2 Tim. 1. 13.) continued in the Scriptures 〈…〉 Command (1 Pet. 2. 13.) To submit to every Ordinance of man (in things Civil) for Conscience sake? Much more to a Parliament that is above Kings? And threatens us (Rom. 13. 1, 2.) That if we resist the HIGHER Powers, we resist the Ordinance of GOD; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation? Now is there any more natural and Genuine HIGHEST Power, than a Parliament chosen by the People, in whom the Original of supreme Powers r●dicated? query further, whether, though in some things there may be a form without substance, there can be any visible substance or Action without its Form▪ As, can there be Fire without Heat, Water without liquidity, kinds of Beasts and Birds and men without variety of Forms, True godliness without some Form of profession, a fighting Army without some form of Battallio? A Government set up by the people over themselves without a Parliament (or call it what you will) that doth present the people, by the people's choice, and consent? And is not the people's Agreement how they will be governed, a Fundamental Form of Government, both Intrinsical to the Constitution and Extrinsical to the Execution of the Legislative part?  
Comp. Others say this Parliament, consisting of these men, are not fit to a rule, as not refined enough; and therefore a more refined party is fitter for it. Not to excuse the want of that goodness as was desirable in some 3 or 4 of them; were not the generality of them learned, pious Godly men, for men of that rank and quality? If notwithstanding, the Officers of the Army and their Adherents, knowing them (I suppose) by name, would call them into the House, doth it not probably signify, that they called them to sit, only to do their drudgery, viz: To out Mr. Richard, to clear the way (for I know not who;) to make an Act of Indemnity for the Army; to lay two Taxes to be paid within half a year▪ to pay the Soldiery and Seamen; to make two Acts, the one for payment of excise, the other for payment of Customs, for them whom the Army should a 〈…〉▪ ter thrust into Government to gather up; dismissing this Parliament under th' 〈…〉 great odium of the people in the three Nations? It is queered further, if never 〈…〉 refined a party as can be had (afore Christ come, and make all the Inhabitants o 〈…〉 the Earth perfect Saints) should take upon them, the supreme Legislative power and rule, can they allow more Liberty of Conscience, then aforesaid? Can they defray the Commonwealths charges with less Taxes than will maintain a stron 〈…〉 Fleet at Sea, and pay 3 huge Armies in England Scotland and Ireland? or can they rule justly without punishing Offenders? If they cannot; where is the refined difference? yea where will there be any basis or Bottom of that refined Government if the people's consent concur not to their sitting? And if their consent doth not concur, where is our Civil Liberty as men, and our Liberty of conscience as Christians, liable to be imposed upon, to submit to we know not what refined fantasies.  
FINIS.