Certain considerable and most material Cases of CONSCIENCE, wherewith divers well-affected in this Kingdom are much perplexed, the clearing whereof would worthily deserve the pains of the Assembly at London.  
I. WHether there be any clear evidence of Scripture, wherein the conscience of a Christian may safely rest for taking up of Arms against his Prince?  
If it had not been forbidden, there had been the less doubt, but there being so many places of Scripture so evidently and so directly against it, how shall ordinary capacities that are but ordinarily enlightened, be sure that in joining with the two Houses now at Westminster, he doth not transgress God's Commandment, and draw upon himself damnation? There are three things pretended, but they do not satisfy tender consciences.  
First, it is said, This was is not against the King. What it is in God's fight. God knows; but to any humane understanding it seems to be against the King. It was first undertaken to fetch the King to Parliament; it is prosecuted still that we may obtain our desires of the King; and when we send to Treat about Peace, we send to Treat with the King; and if the King should chance to miscarry by a Bullet in these Wars (which God forbidden) who then, that hath contributed any assistance to the Parliament, could have any comfort in his soul, that he were free from the guilt of killing the King?  
A second pretence is, That this is a defensive war. Indeed if our Armies did always retreat and go back from the King, we should think so too; but now when we see our Armies still pursue him as at first time also, when we sent to fetch him to the Parliament, it seems to be against all sense and reason to count this War a defensive War.  
Thirdly, it is pretended, A Parliament may do that which private men cannot do. And that is certainly true without all doubt; but yet the question doth still remain, whether the two Houses (which make not a full Parliament) can lawfully take up Arms against their King? It hath been always observed in this kingdom, That a Parliament cannot be till the King call it, and if it cannot lawfully be without him, it is not easy to be believed that it may lawfully Act without him, much less against him; and it seems something strange, that the King of his goodness having continued this Parliament, should now be distressed by that unto which he himself hath given life: And here it is to be considered from whence the Parliament hath that power which they have; if it be said, From the King, without question he gave them not power to take up Arms against himself: if it be said, From the People (which is in deed our Pachamentary doctrine) our own do do convince us, for our hearts tell us, That the people, for the major part, are Enemies to our proceed, else why have we sent for the Scots?  
There is another thing pretended also, at least amongst the vulgar, whereby we would, many of us, quiet and still our consciences, and yet it will not do. It is said, That the King and Parliament are one, others express it thus (to give it the better colour) That the Parliament is a part of the King: And that which is inferred thereupon is this, That the Parliament can do nothing against the King, and that whatsoever any man doth for the Parliament, he doth for the King, because the King and Parliament are one. Now it is true indeed, the King and Parliament are one, one body politic, whereof the King is head; and so it is true too that the husband and the wife are one body, whereof the husband is the head, and the union between them is so near, that a nearer cannot be imagined between the King and Parliament, and yet, it follows not, because the husband and the wife are one, that it is impossible for the wife to miscarry herself towards her husband: who knows not that there are some untractable women in the world, that carry themselves most unchristianly towards their husbands, both with froward words, and cross actions? and if any man shall take the wife's part in such away, it cannot be said of him, he is for the husband and the wife; for while he is for the wife in such a way, surely he is against the husband: So for the difference in hand, though the King and Parliament be one, it follows not that it is impossible for the Parliament to be disloyal, and they carrying themselves in such a way, whosoever shall be for them, it cannot be said of him he is for the King and Parliament, for while he is for them in such a way, he must needs be against the King. This inference therefore follows not. Indeed thus we may rightly argue, The husband and the wife are one, therefore the wife ought not to be injurious and disloyal to her husband; and so, the King and Parliament are one, therefore the Parliament ought not to be disloyal to the King; this Argument will hold, but we see the other holds not. And as the only way for a man to show himself a friend both to the husband and the wife in such a case as is mentioned, and to make peace in the family, is to let the wife know her duty; so the only way for a man now to show himself a friend both to King and Parliament, is to let the Parliament know their duty, and to endeavour to reduce them thereunto. This comparison doth make the business plain, only in one thing the comparison holds not. If the wife at any time pretends her husband doth her wrong, there is a Judge on earth above them to end the strife, namely the King, or his Deputy: But if at any time the Parliament conceives the King doth them wrong, there is no higher Judge on earth to fly unto, they must seek unto heaven by their Prayers, and wait on the Lord for a redress of their injuries.  
TWO Whether he that offers violence to the King's Person, can be free from the sin of Rebellion, because he pretends to defend the King's Power?  
What violence hath been offered to his person is too evident. The unworthy and dishonourable words that have been uttered of the King, in Pamphlets, in Declarations, yea, and in Pulpits also, to humane reason seem no small indignities, but much more to be excluded from his Houses, to have his Revenues withheld, to be pursued with Armies, and shot at with Bullets, etc.  
III Whether we do not oppose the King's Power, when we got about by force to diminish his Power?  
As in Election of his Counsellors, his negative voice, etc.  
IIII Whether the practice of any former Parliaments, held in time of thick and dark Popery, may be a sufficient warrant for Parliaments now to walk by?  
Some former Parliaments have been too bold with Kings (as our Chronicles show, neither may we think all that out Parliaments have done in that behalf to be lawful, because it is recorded in our Chronicles) some former Parliaments indeed have been too bold with Kings, but they were Popish Parliaments: & though it be true, all that is, or hath been done by Papists is not unlawful, yet it becomes not us, who intent to root out Popery, to tread in their steps, nor depend on their opinions, much less to make them our precedent, unless we have other warrant for our do by the word of God.  
V Whether the practice of any of the Saints walking contrary to the rule of the word, and yet approved of God, may be a warrant for us to wolke in the same way, unless the circumstances be in all things the very same, and we ourselves sure we have the same spirit that they had?  
The examples of Saints in those ways, wherein they have walked besides, or contrary to the word, and yet without censure, they are at the most, but as it were, particular exceptions from the common rule, granted only to them and for that time; and if we make bold to follow them, not having the same occasions that they had, or not the same accidents and circumstances enforcing & accompanying the occasion, or not observing the method and manner of their proceeding, or not having the same extraordinary motion and direction (which in these days is not usual) if we pretend to follow them, and fail in any of these particulars, we do not follow them indeed, neither can we say we take the exception we find in Scripture, but we make to ourselves an exception from the common rule, and this can no way be safe, nor warrantable for us. As for instance; The example of the people rescuing jonathan 1 Sam. 14.45. is much insisted on for the justifying of this War; but there are so many doubts in it, that the conscience of a Christian cannot safely without doubting and danger rest on it. As, 1. whether they did rescue him with entreaty and Petitions, or with force and violence, it is not plainly expressed. 2 If they did it with violence, yet it doth not follow, because they did it that therefore 'twas justifiable. Doctor Taylor speaking of this Scripture in his Comment on Tit. 3.1. pag. 554. doth plainly confess, That it cannot justly be collected from thence, whether jonathan were delivered by intercession, or by mutiny and sedition, and withal he adds, that if it were done by opposition it is to be condemned. There is in that Scripture a narration of the thing done, but no Testimony given that it was well done. These same people at the self same time as is recorded in the same Chapter, ver. 33. did most palpably sinne against Almighty God, and they that did not stick to transgress against the Majesty of Heaven, shall we think it impossible for them to miscarry themselves towards his Vicegerent here on earth? they that were so guilty in the one, how can we be confident they were not faulty in the other? surely there is nothing in the Text that can persuade a man they were not faulty, but only his own willingness so to apprehend it; nay, is it not plain they carried themselves like swearing Ruffians even in the very rescue itself? (though this doth not hinder but they might petition too) as the Lord liveth, say they, etc. certainly it cannot but be a great blemish to the Action, where there is so little care of conscience even in the very Acting; but suppose the whole work to be done out of pure conscience, and to be approved of God too, which yet hath no such evidence, yet it is a question, whether there be an exception granted to us from the common rule of the fifth Commandment, because there was an exception granted unto them, for special facts are no warrant for us. 4 If their example do grant us an exception too, why then we must not digress from their example; their example must be to us an example indeed; but between their case and ours at present, see what a manifold difference there is. First, jonathan was the heir apparent to the Crown, and the hope of the future age, for aught the people as yet knew, and it would trouble a Nation to have the hope of their settlement cut off in the very bud; there is no such thing here with us. Secondly, it was most manifestly evident, that jonathan was most innocent, and had not deserved to die at all, and it would trouble religious people (as the Jews pretended to be) to have the guilt of innocent blood brought upon the Kingdom; there is no such thing with us. Thirdly, they proceed not on bare jealousies and fears, the thing was most certain, Saul had vowed his death; there is no such vowed destruction threatened to us or ours. Fourthly, they were now already Armed before there was occasion of this rescue; they did not put themselves into Arms of purpose for that service, but being Armed, upon a sudden this business happened, and to the view of man, that may be somewhat tolerable upon a sudden motion or passion, which both in the sight of God and man is intolerable to be done upon deliberation. In all these particulars we see there is a great difference; the like may beshewed in all other examples, as of David and others that are produced to the like purpose And what assurance such examples that differ so much from our condition, can give to the conscience of a Christian, may justly be doubted by all that in sincerity make conscience of their do.  
VI Whether there can be in any Christian State or government, so much as any pretence of any fundamental law, which is contrary to the law moral, all, and to the express Commandments of the written word of God?  
There is much speech of a fundamental Law, but plain and simple hearted Christians know not what to make of it, nor where to find it; and that it should have power to enable us to that which Gods word so expressly forbids, is cause of no little wonder and astonishment.  
VII Whether it be lawful in the sight of God or man, for a company of people that hath gotten head in any Kingdom, and made a strong party, by the force of Arms, not by he Ancient orderly way of that state, to overthrow the known laws, and change the Ancient government of that Kingdom?  
This is the course of beasts, among which the stronger always beareth sway; And besides, there should then be no certainty of Peace in any Nation, for still as any faction groweth strong, so it should be lawful for them still to frame a new government, though it were never so well settled before. The Presbyterians now may bear the sway, but in a short time, the Independents may be more powerful, and then we must have new Wars, and after that, who knows how soon may arise a Sect of a higher strain? (as the Devil is always busy) and then we must go to cutting of throats again; thus we shall never have Peace, if this course be lawful.  
VIII Whether they that have sworn to the King's Supremacy and now hold any coequal and coordinate power are not forsworn?  
To him that is supreme there can be no equal; neither will it help to say, The oath hath reference to foreign powers, for though in the process of it, it hath reforence indeed to foreign powers, yet in the beginning of it, we do testific and declare in our consciences, that the King is the only supreme Governor etc. absolutely, and generally without any exception or limitation at all; and who can give us a power to understand the oath with a limitation, when we have all taken it without a limitation?  
IX Whether it be not contrary to the such, to go about to Wrist the Militia out of the King's hand, when we have in the same oath of Supremacy declared in our consciences, That the King is supre can Governor, etc. in all things or causes both spuituall and temporal?  
If the Militia be a temporal business (temporal or spiritual) the King by this oath, must be supreme therein; And here it is to be considered, whether the Militia be not already sttled by Act of Parliament; if yea, why is not that course followed, which by Law is prescribed? if no, why then it is to be thought it belongs to the Kings prerogarive, which we have all bound ourselves to maintain, both by our oath of Allegiance, and also by our late Protestation, and indeed how can he else be a King? for without it he cannot afford that Protection which he owes to his Subjects as he is their King.  
X Whether all we that do not take up Arms in behalf of the King, having taken the Oath of Allegiance to him, be not forsworn?  
The words of the Oath are these, I will bear faith and true Allegiance to His Majesty, his heirs and successors, and him & them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against him or their persons, their Crown and Dignity, etc. These are the very words of the Oath; now whether our disregard of his Commands, our depraving his Government, our fight against his Armies, & our endeavour to take him captive, in the sight of the Almighty will be esteemed, as tending to the defence of his Person, Crown, and Dignity, is such a scruple, that the Malignants, who take up Arms for him, seem more directly to follow the words of the Oath, and think that none do rightly perform this Oath but themselves.  
Neither will it serve the turn to say, That Oath was made to prevent all encouragements of Rebellion that might be brought from Rome; for divers reasons show that the intent of the Oath, is to bind the Subjects to true Allegiance, whatsoever encouragement from any power might be presented to them, (though because the Romanists or Papists were at that time principally suspected, the Oath doth principally bend its Forces against them;) for first, there was an Ancient Oath of Allegiance before, which did bind the Subjects indefinitely, that is, generally to bear to their Sovereign truth and faith, both of life and member, without application to any particular power from whence Rebellion might be suspected, and it were a vain thing to imagine, that in an Oath newly framed, there should be a gap left open to endanger the Prince, which had been prevented in the old. Secondly, in this latter Oath we are bound to defend the King's Person, etc. against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made by reason of any encouragement from Rome, or otherwise. Thirdly, it is acknowledged by us in that Oath, That neither Pope nor any other person whatsoever, hath power to absolve us of this Oath, or any part thereof; whereby it is evident, the Oath doth bind us to perfect Allegiance, without digressing upon any occasion whatsoever.  
XI Whether all we that have taken the Protestation, to maintain the Privileges of Parliament do not violate our Protestation so long as we join with the two Houses at Westminster.?  
It is one Privilege of Parliament, That none of the Members should be excluded thence, or hindered from Voting there, and that freely: it is another privilege, that no foreigners, Scottish Commissioners, or others should have any power there; whiles both these things are done, and suffered by the two Houses at Westminster, how are the privileges of Parliament maintained by them? and how do we keep our Protestation while we consent unto and join with them?  
XII Whether a man who hath subscribed, that there is nothing in the Book of Homilies contrary to the word of God, as all Beneficed men, and Lecturers have done, (as will appear if the 3. Article of subscription in the 36. Canon be compared with the 35. Article of Religion) whether he that hath thus subscribed, can join with the two Houses, but that he must make not only them, but himself also guilty of Rebellion?  
There be four Homilies against Rebellion, or rather four parts of one Homily, wherein these ways of taking up Arms against the Prince are wholly condemned, and this must needs be consented to for sound and orthodox by all Ministers in the Kingdom, or else they must say, they subscribed merely in a colour, that they might hold a Lecture or a Benefice.  
XIII Whether we all that have vowed by our late Protestation, with our Lives and Estates, to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England, as it is opposed to Popery, do not violate our Protestation, if we maintain not all the Doctrine contained in the Homily against Rebellion?  
Who knows not that the Homilies against Rebellion, were compiled purposely against Popery, the Popish Priests in those days being so busy to stir up Rebellion? it being also one special point of Popery, to justify the Arms of Subjects against their Sovereign. The fashood of such tenets and the iniquity of such practices is fully declared in the Homily against Rebellion and if any Doctrine may justly be said to be established in the Church of England, surely this is one part of it, because by Act of Parliament in the 13. of Elizabeth, the Articles of Religion are confirmed, among which Articles this is one, viz. Article 35. That the Book of Homilies doth contain Godly and wholesome Doctrine, etc. The Doctrine then that forbids the taking up of Arms against the Prince, is Godly Doctrine, established in the Church of England by Act of Parliament, and so established as opposite to Popery; and if we maintain not this Doctrine, what care do we take of our Protestation? pay that which thou hast vowed. Eccles 5.4. if we maintain not this Doctrine, what care do we take of Acts of Parliament?  
XIIII Whether those Ministers that have taken the oath of Canonical obedience, can safely take the new Scottish Covenant, or yield to a change of the present Government of the Church of England, so long at least as these Bishops are living?  
And yet if the oath of Canonical obedience be not enough, see how the Ministers are all bond not only to the present Liturgy, but also to the present Government, both by their subscription, and also by a vowed promise, with a calling of God to witness and help thereunto. As for the Act of Parliament, whereby the Liturgy is confirmed, (in which Liturgy the Bishops by a prescribed Order more than once or twice are appointed to be prayed for) it binds all the Subjects as well as Ministers. It is the Law of the Kingdom established by Sovereign Authority, and this Authority the Apostle saith we must be Subject unto, both for fear of wrath, and also for conscience sake. This doth concern all the Subjects of the Kingdom; but the Ministers, Assembly men, and all are yet somewhat further bound. For at their Ordinations they have put it under their hands (and that willingly and ex anima, as they professed at least) that the Book of Common Prayer containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God, and that they themselves will use the form in that Book prescribed, and none othen. And to this they have subscribed not once only, but again and again, some of them when they took degrees in the Universities, all of them when they were admitted into Orders both of Deaconty & Priest hood, and also at their several Institutions to their Live, and admissions into Lectures as appears by the 36. Canon forementioned, & yet besides all this, they made a vowed promise at their Ordination; for a question being thus demanded of them, will you reverently obey your Ordinary, & c? This Answer was returned by them, I will so do; the Lord being my helper. Now whether men that have so often bound themselves willingly and with all their heart, and have lived accordingly, some of them 20. some 30. some 40. years, may lawfully endeavour by the sword to free themselves from this bond, or encourage others by the sword to procure a liberty for them, or enter into a Covenant, quite contrary to this bond; is a case of conscience so deservedly considerable, that all who have any conscience, or do believe there is a Heaven or Hell to go to hereafter, cannot but startle at the very first hearing of it, & that so much the rather, because all Mimsters of the Kingdom have yet besides made another solemn Vow, to their power to maintain quietness and Peace; for at their Ordination this question being demanded of them, Will you maintain and set forwards (as much as lieth in you) quietness, peace, and love among all Christian people, & c? The Answer they have all returned is this, I will so do, the Lord being my helper. O God that art the helper of all them that do not forsake thee, make them all that fear thee mindful of their Vows, and careful to perform them.  
XV Whether the tampering so much with Oaths undertaking to dissolve some, and impose others, viz. new Covenants contrary to our former Oaths, whereby the consciences both of Prince and people cannot but be ensnared, whether this doth seem to argue any sincerity of zeal and purity of Religion, or rather whether it doth not argue a wilful purpose and resolution to compass our own ends, if possible, though it be with the wrack of men's souls as well as of their Estates and Lives?  
XVI Whether there be any reason or conscience, the Clergy only among all the Subjects of the Kingdom, should be excluded from Voting about those Laws, to the observance whereof it is expected they should be bound as well as the rest of the Subjects?  
What a singular encouragement is here to be a Clergyman in the Kingdom of England?  
XVII Whether the Assembly of Divines at London have any lawful calling?  
Justly doubted; for an ordinary calling all the Kingdom knows they have not, they were not chosen by the voices of the Clergy; neither were they gathered together by the Kings will and Commandment, without which there can be no such Ecclesiastical Assembly, as they themselves have put under their hands; (compare the third Article of subscription before mentioned with the 21. Article of Religion, and it will easily appear;) and besides, there is an Act of Parliament against such Assemblies, as have not the King's consent thereunto, in the 25. of Henry 8. An ordinary calling then they have not; & an extraordinary, by any supernatural inspiration, it is to be thought, they will not assume to themselves, and so they have no lawful calling at all. However, the guides of the Kingdom they have taken upon them to be, and therefore they may do well, briefly and plainly to resolve these perplexing doubts, with some Manifesto, that we may know it is done or approved by them. If we be misled, woe be to us, we shall perish in our iniquity, Isay 9.16. but our blood shall be required at our watchman's hands. Ezek. 3.18.  
XVIII Whether men lawfully possessed of temporal Estates, and having by their last will and Testament or any other lawful means bestowed the same to the maintenance of the Clergy with fearful curses, some of them, and imprecations on those that should divert it from that use; whether those Estates, can safely be alienated from the way, which the Doners themselves devised, without sacrilege?  
True the curse causeless will not come, but that these curses are such, who can say? nay, and if there were no curse, yet who can say it is not sacrilege! if Ananias and Saphira might not alienate what themselves had given, who hath power to alienate that which is given by another man? To rob Peter and pay Paul will not be sufficient to excuse the business. A man had need be sure of his warrant, before he take upon him to be a divider. Luk. 12.14.  
XIX Whether we who endeavour to change the government of the Church, that we may procure liberty of conscience, & yet exercise cruel Tyranny upon men's Consciences ourselves, by requiring them to join with us, though there be so many scruples of conscience against; it by plundering and imprisoning them, if they will not join with us; and by imposing new Covenants contrary to former Oaths; whether we seem not to the Malignants too justly to be guilty of deep Hypocrisy, espying a mote that was in the Bishop's eyes, and not discerning the beam that is in our own?  
XX Whether we that cried out upon the Papists, for endeavouring to bring in the Spaniards, and upon the King for intending as we conceived, to bring in the Danes, be not unexcusable before God and man, for doing that ourselves, in bringing in the Scots which we condemned in others? Rom. 2.1 &c Item whereas we complained of the Tyranny of the Bishops, that many thereby were driven to forsake their Native Country, and yet we by our cruelty shall do the self same, are we not in this behalf also unexcusable? many more such Items may be added.  
XXI Whether it can stand with the quiet of Christian consciences, to make such an effusion of Christian blood, as now hath been spilt, and yet is in spilling merely upon carnal motives?  
Religion is indeed partly pretended, but draw this fair Curtain aside, and behind it there stands the carnal care of selfseeking, seeking to save our Skins and Purses; we are unwilling to suffer for Religion, and therefore we would establish a Religion, according to our own minds; we would willingly prevent Ship-money, and other burdens, and therefore we desire to have more power in our own hands, and less in the Kings; so this War in the up shot, is altogether to save ourselves from trouble; which we know not whether it will ever come upon us; and yet here it is to be considered withal, whether the good that is aimed at in it, will justify all the evils that have been committed by it? nay whether, if all that was feared by our overforward jealousies had been brought upon us, we could possibly have been in so bad a condition as this War hath put us? so doth the wise Lord justly Cross men's carnal proceed.  
XXII Whether it be not extreme rashness to affirm, That the whole Catholic Church, in the point of Episcopacy was in an error, all the world over 1500. years together?  
That the whole Church was governed by Bishops all the world over, till Mr. calvin's time of late at Genevae is known to all; and amongst those Bishops, to reckon up how many burning and shining lights, how many zealous propagators and propugnators of the truth, how many learned Professors, how many constant Confessors, how many glorious Martyrs, have been found from time to time (though amongst them as amongst men of all callings, there have been some faulty) were a work large enough to fill a spacious volume; and if, notwithstanding all this, we shall blemish them and the whole Church of God, that not only tolerated but honoured them, if we shall blemish them all with an error about the lawfulness of their calling, shall we not take more upon us, than the Psalmist durst to take upon himself? he did not dare to condemn the generation of God's Children, Psal. 73.15.  
XXIII Whether our party being so divided, some being Presbyterians, and some Independents, and both sides contending strongly that each of their several disciplines is that discipline, which Christ hath ordained and appointed in his Church, whether it be not apparent to all the world, that one of them must be in an error?  
Two contraries can never be both true, and while one maintains a dependency, and the other an Indepency, there is between them a contrariety.  
XXIIII Whether, it being undeniable rashness to condemn Episcopary, as before, and an error being avoidable acknowledged in one branch of our party, both branches also being equally confident of their assertions and both introducing novelty, whether there be not just cause to suspect them both as erroneous and less agreeing to the word of God than is Episcopacy?  
XXV Whether the case being so uncertain and disputable, there be any necessity so much blood should be spilt, and so many lives lost, for the removoll of the old, and bringing in of a new government?  
It was David's Prayer, and he uttered it with some sense oa heavy burden that was upon him, deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God; and he had killed but one Vriah and a few more with him but so many thousand being lost amongst us, and so much blood spilt for the change of a government, if it be without necessity, Oh how intolerable will this guilt be, on whom soever it lights, whether on the Parliament that begun it, or on the assembly that did not since warn them of it, or on us all that have been their wellwishers and abettors in it?  
XXVI Whether Christ did ever prescribe such a way as this for setting up his throne, viz. the use of the bloody sword?  
Our Saviour doth enjoin his Disciples to take up the Cross and follow him, so far is he from commanding them to impose the Cross on others; and when the Samaritans would not receive him, he did not allow his Disciples to execute vengeance upon them; yea, when his Enemies came to apprehend him, yet he forbids Peter to use a sword for his own defence; neither will it help, to say that our Saviour was at that time to suffer for our Redemption, and that therefore he did forbid Peter to use a sword in his defence; had our Saviour aimed at nothing else, it had been enough to have rebuked Peter for his present action, without mention of a rule for perpetuity; but when our Saviour doth not only rebuke him but also as a reason of his rebuke, doth annex the establishment of a perpetual Law, all that take the sword shall perish by the sword, he doth thereby show that not only at that time, but also at all times, he forbids a sword to be taken up against the civil Magistrate for his sake.  
XXVII Whether in our consciences, we be not persuaded that the State of the Kingdom might without war, and with his Majesty's good leave and furtherance, have been reduced from its deviations unto the happy condition, wherein it flourished in the blessed days of good Queen Elizabeth?  
About the beginning of this Parliament, there was some such thing commended by His Majesty in his speech unto the Parliament for a Reformation, not an Alteration; and never did any Nation live more happy, than the people of England did in those golden days, (which were since continued also, though some eclipses of that happiness, a just judgement upon us for the abuse of our long Peace and Plenty, have of late befallen us;) Religion flourished, Souls were saved, & every man sat under his own Vine in safety: and if we might have obtained so happy a condition without War, let all the world judge whether that which we desire beyond the condition of those times, be worthy of the loss of so much as one man's life or no; and if not of one, much less of so many thousands. The Parliament-men were chosen, & sent up out of their several countries' respectively, for the good of the Kingdom, and Oh that they would seriously consider, as they expect to answer it before God's tribunal seat at the great Judgement day, whether would be better for the Kingdom to have been restored to the condition it enjoyed in Queen Elizabeth's days, or to be reduced to the plight in which now it stands? I, but though it be bad now, yet it will be better, when we have wrought a perfect reformation, hereafter! Be it so, and let us feed ourselves with those hopes; but yet the question doth still remain. The happy condition of Queen Elizabeth's Reign we might have had freely, the glorious contentment which we dream of, beyond the condition of that Queen's days hath already cost much blood; the question is whether that glorious contentment, which we think to obtain, God knows when, will be a sufficient recompense for all the lives that have and shall be lost in the obtaining of it? neither is this all, the loss of so many thousand friends, and Countrymen slain by the sword; but unexpressible also are the calamities under which they groan that are yet alive. It is with them at London, as once it was with Samaria, the Metropolis, when time was, of the Kingdom of Israel. They trusted in the Mountain of Samaria, a strong place, and being in safety and plenty themselves, they took not to heart the affliction of joseph, that is, the miseries of their Brethren and Countrymen that lived abroad in other parts of the Kingdom, and for this cause there is a sharp judgement, woe be to them, denounced by the Prophet Amos 6.1.6. There is no place so strong that woe may not enter; and therefore O God that art the God of mercy, and delightest in the prosperity of thy people, give unto our Parliament a desire to be like unto thyself, and to put on bowels of mercy both towards themselves, and towards their miserable, yea, now gasping Country, that we may accept of, and be contented with, and thankful for so much as we had under the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, rather than out of a desperate resolution of having more, to lose all, and bring a total desolation upon the whole Kingdom.  
XXVIII Whether they that hold the head, The head of the body politic, and the head of the body mystical, are justly to be persecuted by us?  
job saith not; These are his words, Ye should say, why persecute we him? seeing the root of the matter is found in me, Job. 19.28. Nay, we should say, why persecute we him that is the head of the body politic, and holds the head of the body mystical? the root of the matter (that is, the profession of the true Christian Faith) being found in him. The true Circumcision, that is, the true Children of Abraham, as the Apostle doth declare Phil. 3.3. are they who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. And this is the Religion professed by the Church of England; this is the doctrine of the Church, That for salvation they depend only on Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in their own works: And as for those Ceremonies used by them in the external worship of God, they have no confidence in them neither, nor reckon them a part of the worship This may well be esteemed to be the root of the matter (though job indeed applies this phrase peculiarly to the faith of the Resurrection through Christ, which as being a particular, is comprehended in this general, of embracing Christ by Faith with all his benefits) and to slur this profession, the root of the matter, with the odious imputation of Popery, what is it less than Blasphemy? and to pursue the professors of this Religion with the sword, as Papists, (though neither Papists nor Brownists, for their Religion are thus to be pursued) what is it less than a bloody prosecution of the truth?  
XXIX Whether in the sight of God and all indifferent men they are not to be accounted factious and seditious who by the power of the sword endeavour any where the subversion of the Ancient government and known Laws contrary to the will and liking of the Supreme Magistrate?  
Indeed among us at this day, they that are for Peace are esteemed factious, and they that are for innovation even by the sword are accounted Peaceable; the strangest paradox that ever was heard of. But the counsel of the Holy Ghost is this (and good it is for Christians to follow his counsel) Fear thou the Lord and the King: and meddle not with them that are given to change. Pro. 24.21. The knitting together of these duties in this place is very observable: for the Holy Ghost hereby shows, That they fear not God, who fear not the King; & that one evidence of the want of the fear of God, is to study or endeavour any innovation without or against the King; with such he wishes us not to join, and a reason he adds in the next verse, for their calamity shall rise suddenly, etc. To the like purpose is that in Eccles. 10.8, 9 If this Scripture be Scripture still, we know not how to join with the Parliament for an alteration against the Kings will; nay, besides these two places, the Scripture doth frequently require subjection, and forbids resistance; who knows not those eminent places Rom. 13.1, 2, 5. Tit. 3.1. and 1. Pet. 2.13, 14. We have all protessed to defend the privileges of Parliament; but that the Parliament hath any privilege more than private men to walk contrary to the word of God, or that they have any dispensation granted from walking according to Scripture rules, is not yet made evident; if this privilege were once clearly manifested, we should never make any more doubt at all.  
XXX Whether to have such thoughts as this, I will go on in the way I have chosen, even to the effusion of Rivers of blood, though I see so many doubts (doubts that seem unanswerable) though my conscience have no warrant out of Scripture for it, whether this be not the resolution of a man, whose salvation is desperate?  
For the Apostle tells us, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom. 14.23. and whosoever doth wilfully continue in any sin, is not yet in the state of Salvation; for the Lord will not be merciful to them that offend of malicious wickedness.  
XXXI Whether it be not more suitable to Christian Religion, & safer for a Christians soul, upon these grounds, even to suffer under the King, if he should prove Tyrant or persecuter (which upon many evidences, we have good cause to hope he never will, and should with our Prayers, endeavour to obtain he never may) rather then upon no grounds, but bare fears and jealousies taken up by an implicit faith pinned upon the sleeve of a few men not privileged from error, contrary to God's word, to Acts of Parliament, to subscriptions, Oaths, and Vows, to Rebel against him?  
Upon these considerations and such like, many have fallen off already from the Parliament, and unless some clear satisfaction be hereunto speedily given, (if at least any satisfactory reason may be given how we should break all these sacred bonds and not be guilty) it is to be thought, many more will fall off. Great is the truth and will prevail. And O thou that are the God both of truth and peace, direct our hearts, that we may understand the truth, and incline our minds to follow those things that make for Peace, yea, Lord grant unto us all with settled purpose and serious resolution, to walk in those ways that are most suitable to the Gospel, as knowing that those are the ways that make most for the glory of thy name, and most for the comfort of our own, otherwise erring and endangered souls.  
— Turpe haec opprobria nobis  
Et dici potuisse & non potuisse refelli.  Satius est de media via recurrere quam semper currere male. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Gal. 6.7. 
FINIS. 1645.