that they justly and rightly claim And therefore neither our Ancestors nor any other Country free like ours whilst they preserv'd their Liberties did ever suffer any mercenary or standing Guards to their Prince but took care that his Safety should be in Them as theirs was in Him Though these were the Objections to this Head yet they were but lighty touch'd and not fully insisted upon until the debate of the second Head where the Scope of the Design was opened clearer and more distinct to every Man's capacity The second was And that I do abhorr that Trayterous Position of taking Armes by His Authority against His person To this was objected That if this be meant an Explanation of the Oath of Allegiance to leave men without pretense to oppose where the individual person of the King is then it was to be considered that the proposition as it is here set down is universal and yet in most cases the position is not to be abhorred by honest or wise men For there is but one case and that never like to happen again where this position is in danger to be Trayterous which was the Case of the Long Parliament made perpetualâ— by the King 's own Act by which the Government was perfectly altered and made inconsistent with its self but it is to be supposed the Crown hath sufficient warning and full power to prevent the falling again into that danger But the other cases are many and such as may every day occurr wherein this position is so far from Traiterous that it would prove both necessary and our duty The Famous instance of Hen. 6. who being a soft and weak Prince when taken Prisoner by his Cousin Edward 4. that pretended to the Crown and the great Earl of Warwick was carryed in their Armies gave what orders and Commissions they pleased and yet all those that were Loyal to him adhered to his Wife and son fought in a pitcht battel against him in person and retook him This was directly taking up Armes by His Authority against his person and against those that were Commission'd by Him and yet to this day no Man hath ever blamed them or thought but that if they had done other they had betray'd their Prince The great Case of Charles 6. of France who being of a weak and crazie Brain yet govern'd by himself or rather by his Wife a Woman of passionate and heady humour that hatâ—ed her Son the Dolphin a vigorous and brave Prince and passionately loved her Daughter so that She easily being pressed by the Victory of Hen. 5. of England comply'd to settle the Crown of France upon Him to marry her Daughter to Him and own his Right contrary to the Salique Law This was directly opposed with Armes and Force by the Dolphin and all good French Men even in his Father's life time A third instance is that of King Iames of blessed Memory who when he was a Child was seized and taken Prisoner by those who were justly thought no friends to His Crown or Safeâ—y and if the case should be put that a future King of England of the same temper with Hen. 6. or Charl. 6. of France should be taken prisoner by Spaniard Dutch or French whose overgrowing power should give them thoughts of vast Empire and should with the person and commission of the King invade England for a Conquest were it not suitable to our Loyalty to joyn with the Son of that King for the defence of His Fathers Crown and Dignity even against his Person and Commission In all these and the like Cases it was not justified but that the stâ—ict Letter of the Law might be otherwise coâ—strued and when wisely considerd fit it should be so yet that it was not safe either for the Kingdom or person of the King and His Crown that it should be in express words Sworâ— against for if we shall forswear all Distinctions which ill Men have made ill use of either in Rebellion or Heresy we must extend the Oath to all the particulars of Divinity and Politiques To this the aged Bishop of Winchester reply'd That to take up Armes in such cases is not against but for the person of the King But his Lordship was told that he might then as well nay much better have leâ—t it upon the Old Oath of Allegiance then made such a wide gapp in his new Declaration The thâ—rd and last part of the Deâ—laration was or against those that are Commissioned by him Here the mask was plainly pluckt off and Arbitrary Government appear'd bare-faced and a standing Army to be established by Act of Parliament for it was said by several of the Lords That if whatever is by the Kings Commission be not opposed by the King's Authority then a standing Army is Law when â—ver the King pleases and yet the King's Commission was never thought sufficient to Protect or justify any man where it is against his Authority which is the Law this allowed alters the whole Law of England in the most essential and Fundamental parts of it and makes the whole Law of property to become Arbitrary and without effect whenever the King pleases For instance if in a Suit with a great Favourite a man recovers House and Lands and by course of Law be put into Possession by the Sheriff and afterwards a Warrant is obtain'd by the interest of the person to command some Souldiers of the standing Army to take the possession and deliver it back in such a case the man in Possession may justify to defend himself and killing those who shall violently endeavour to enter his house the party whose house is invaded takes up Armes by the King's Authority against those who are Commissioned by him And it is the same case if the Souldiers had been Commissioned to defend the House against the Sheriff when he first endeavored to take the possession according to Law neither could any Order or Commission of the King 's put a stop to the Sheriff if he had done his duty in raising the whole force of that Count to put the Law in execution neither can the Court from whom that Order proceeds if they observe their oaths and duty put any stop to the execution of the Law in such a case by any command or commission from the King whatsoever Nay all the Guards and standing forces in England cannot be secured by any Commission from being a direct Riot and unlawful Assembly unless in time of open War and Rebellion And it is not out of the way to suppose that if any King hereafter shall contrary to the petition of Right demand and levie Money by Privy-Seal or otherwise and cause Souldiers to enter and distrain foâ— such like illegall Taxes that in such a case any Man may by Law defend his house against them and yet this is of the same nature with the former and against the words of the Declaration These instances may seem somwhat rough and not with the usual
without Reordination but no Protestant Minister not Episcopally ordain'd but is required to be reordain'd as much as in us lies unchurching all the forreign Protestants that have not Bishops though the contrary was both allowâ—d and practis'd from the beginning of the Reformation till the time of that Act and several Bishops made of such as were never ordain'd Priests by Bishops Moreover the Vncharitableness of it was so much against the Interest of the Crown and Church of England casting off the dependency of the whole Protestant partie abroad that it would have been bought by the Pope and French King at a vast summ of Money and it is difficult to conceive so great an advantage fell to them meerly by chance and without their help so that he thought to endeavor to alter and restore the Liturgy to what it was in Queen Elizabeths days might consist with his being a very good Protestant As to the Catachisme he really thought it might be mended and durst declare to them it was not well that there was not a better made For the Homilies he thought there might be a better Book made and the 3. Hom. of Repairing and keeping clean of Churches might be omitted What is yet stranger then all this The Canons of our Church are directly the old Popish Canons which are still in force and no other which will appear if you turn to the Stat. 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19 confirmed and received by 1. Eliz. where all those Canons are establish'd untill an alteration should be made by the King in pursuance of that Act which thing was attempted by Edward the 6th but not perfected and let alone ever since for what reasons the Lords the Bishops could best tell and it was very hard to be obliged by Oath not to endeavour to alter either the English Common-Prayer book or the Canon of the Mass. But if they meant the latter That the Protestant Religion is contein'd in all those but that every part of those is not the Protestant Religion then â—e apprehended it might be in the Bishops Power to declare ex post facto what is the Protestant Religion or not or else they must leave it to every man to judge for himself what parts of those books are or are not and then their Oath had been much better let alone Much of this nature was said by that Lord and Others and the great Officers and Bishops were so hard put to it that they seemed willing and convinced to admit of an Expedient The Lord Wharton and Old and Expert Parliament Man of eminent Piety and Abilities beside a great Friend to the Protestant Religion and Interest of England offer'd as a cure to the whole Oath and what might make it pass in all the 3 parts of it without any farther debate the addition of these words at the latter end of the Oath Viz. as the same is or shall be establish'd by Act of Parliament but this was not endured at all when the Lord Grey of Rollston a worthy and true English Lord offered another Expedient which was the addition of words by force or fraud to the beginning of the Oath and then it would run thus I do swear not to endeavor by force or fraud to alter this was also a cure that would have passed the whole Oath and seemed as if it would have carried the whole House The Duke of York and Bishop of Rochester both secondâ—ng it but the Lord Treaâ—urer who had privately before consented to it speaking against it gave the word and sign to that party and it being put to the question the major Vote answered all arguments and the L. Grey's Proposition was laid aside Having thus carried the question relying upon their strength of Votes taking advantage that those expedients that had been offered extended to the whole Oath though but one of the 3 Clauses in the Oath had been debated the other two not mentioned at all they attempted strongly at nine of the Clock at night to have the whole Oath put to the question and though it was resolutely opposed by the Lord Mohun a Lord of great courage and resolution in the Publick Interest and one whose own personal merits as well as his Fathers gave him a just title to the best favors of the Court yet they were not diverted but by as great a disorder as ever was seen in that House proceeding from the rage those unreasonable proceedings had caused in the Country Lords they standing up in a clump together and crying out with so loud a conâ—inued Voice Adjourn that when silence was obtain'd Fear did what Reason could not do cause the question to be put only upon the first Clause concerning Protestant Religion to which the Bishops desired might be added as it is now established and one of the eminentest of those were for the Bill added the words by Law so that as it was passed it ran I A. B. do swear that I will not endeavor to alter the Protestant Religion now by Law established in the Church of England And here observe the words by Law do directly take in the Canons though the Bishops had never mentioned them And now comes the consideration of the latter part of the Oath which comprehends these 2 Clauses viz. nor the Goverment either in Church or State wherein the Church came first to be considerd And it was objected by the Lords against the Bill that it was not agreeable to the King's Crown and Dignity to have His Subjects sworn to the Government of the Church equally as to Himself That for the Kings of England to swear to maintain the Church was a diffeâ—ent thing from enjoyning all His Officers and both His Houses of Parliament to swear to them It would be well understood before the Bill passed what the Government of the Church we are to swear to is and what the Boundaries of it whether it derives no Power nor Authority nor the exercise of any Power Authority or Function but from the King as head of the Church and from God as through him as all his other Officers do For no Church or Religion can justify it self to the Government but the State Religion that ownes an entire dependency on and is but a branch of it or the independent Congregations whilest they claim no other power but the exclusion of their own members from their particular Communion and endeavor not to set up a Kingdom of Christ to their own use in this World whilest our Saviour hath told us that His Kingdom is not of it for otherwise there would be Imperium in imperio and two distinct Supream Powers inconsistent with each other in the same place and over the same persons The Bishops alâ—eadged that Priesthood and the Power thereof and the Authorities belonging thereunto were derived immediately from Christ but that the license of exercising that Authority and Power in any Country is derived from the civil Magistrate To which was replied that it was a
House untill they â—ad gone through with the Bill and so report all the Amendments together This they thought a way of more Dispach and which did prevent all Protestations untill it came to the House for the Votes of a Committe though of the whole House are not thought of that weight as that there should be allowed the entering a Dissent of them or Protestation against them The Bill being read over at the Committee the Lord Keeper objected against the form of it and desired that he might put it in another Method which was easily allowed him that being not the Dispute But it was observeable the Hand of God was upon them in this whole Affair their Chariot-wheels were taken off they drew heavily A Bill so long design'd prepared and of that Moment to all their Affairs had hardly a sensible Composure The first part of the Bill that was fallen upon was whether there should be an Oath at all in the Bill and this was the only part the Court-Partie defended with Reason for the whole Bill being to enjoyn an Oath the House migâ—t reject it but the Committee was not to destroy it Yet the Lord Hallifax did with that quickness Learning and Elegance which are inseparable from all his Discourses make appear that as there really was no Security to any State by Oaths so also no private Person much less States-Man would ever order his Affairs as relying on it no Man would ever sleep with open Doors or unlockt up Treasure or Plate should all the Town be sworn not to Rob So that the use of multiplying Oaths had been most commonly to Exclude or disturb some honest Consciencious Men who would never have prejudiced the Government It was also insisted on by that Lord and others that the Oath imposed by the Bill contained Three Clauses the two former Assertory and the last Promissory and that it was worthy the Consideration of the Bishops Whether Assertory Oaths which were properly appointed to give testimony of a matter of Fact whereof a Man is capable to be fully assured by the evidence of his Senses be lawfully to be made use of to Confirm or Invalidate Doctrinal Propositions and whether that Legislative power which imposes such an Oath doth not necessarily assume to it self an Infallibility And as for Promâ—ssory Oaths It was desired that those Learned Prelates would consider the Opinion of Grotius de jure Bellj pacis lib. 2. cap. XIII who seems to make it plain that those kind of Oaths are forbidden by our Saviour Christ Mat. 5. 34 37. and whether it would not become the Fathers of the Church when they have well weighed that and other places of the New Testament to be more tender in multiplying Oaths then hitherto the great Men of the Church have been But the Bishops carried the Point and an Oath was ordered by the major Vote The next thing in Consideration was about the Persons that should be enjoyned to take this Oath and those were to be all such as enjoyed any beneficial Office or Employment Ecclesiastical Civil or Military and no farther went the Debate for some hours until at last the Lord Keeper rises up and with an eloquent Oration desires to add Privy Counsellors Iustices of the Peace and Members of both Houses The two former particularly mentioned only to usher in the latter which was so directly against the two Previous Votes the first of which was enroll'd amongst the standing Orders of the House that it wanted a Man of no less assurance in his Eloquence to propose it and he was driven hard when he was forced to tell the House that they were Masters of their own Orders and Interpretation of them The next consideration at the Committee was the Oath it self and it was desired by the Countrey Lords that it might be clearly known whether it were meant all for an Oath or some of it a Declaration and some an Oath If the latter then it was desired it might be distinctly parted and that the Declaratory part should be subscribed by it self and not sworn There was no small pains taken by the Lord Keeper and the Bishops to prove that it was brought in the two first parts were only a Declaration and not an Oath and though it was replyed that to declare upon ones Oath or to abhorr upon ones Oath is the same thing with I do Swear yet there was some difficulty to obtain the dividing of them and that the Declaratory part should be only Subscribed and the rest Sworn to The Persons being determin'd and this division agreed to the next thing was the parts of the Declaration wherein the first was J A. B. do declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Armes against the King This was lyable to great Objections for it was said it might introduce a great change of the Government to oblige all the Men in great Trust in England to declare that exact Boundary and Extent of the Oath of Allegiance and inforce some things to be Stated that are much better involv'd in Generals and peradventure are not capable of another way of expression without great wrong on the one side or the other There is a Law of 25 Edw. 3. that Armes shall not be taken up against the King and that it is Treason to do so and it is a very just and reasonable Law but it is an idle question at best to ask whether Armes in any case can be taken up against a lawful Prince because it necessarily brings in the debate in every Man's mind how there can be a distinction then left between Absolute and Bounded Monarchys if Monarchs have only the fear of God and no fear of humane Resistance to restrain them And it was farther urged that if the chanâ—e of humane Affairs in future Ages should give the French King a just Title and Investiture in the Crown of England and he should avowedly own a design by force to change the Religion and make his Government here as Absolute as in France by the extirpation of the Nobility Gentry and principal Citizens of the Protestant Party whether in such or like Cases this Declaration will be a Service to the Government as it is now establisht Nay and it was farther said that they overthrow the Government that suppose to place any part of it above the fear of Man For in our English Government and all bounded Monarchys where the Prince is not absolute there every individual Subject is under the fear of the King and His People either for breaking the Peace or disturbing the common Interest that every Man hath in it or if he invades the Person or Right of his Prince he invades his whole People who have bound up in him and derive from Him all their Liberty Property and Safety As also the Prince himself is under the fear of breaking that Golden Chain and Connexture between Him and his People by making his interest contrary to