sooner proposed but the E. of Shattsbury a Man as daring but more Able though of principles and interest Diametrically opposite to the other presently closed with it and perhaps the opportunity I have had by my conversation with them both who were Men of diversion and of free and open Discourses where they had a confidence may give you more light into both their Designs and so by consequence the aimes of their Parties then you will have from any other hand My L. Clifford did in express Terms tell me one day in private Discourse That the King if He would be firm to Himself might settle what Religion He pleased and carry the Government to what height He would for if Men were assured in the Liberty of their Conscienceâ— and undisturbed in their Properties able and upright Iudges made in Westminster-Hall to judg the Causes of Meum and Tuum and if on the Other hand the Fort of Tilbury was finished to bridle the City the Fort of Plymouth to secure the West and Armes for 2â—000 in each of these and in Hull for the Northern parts with some addition which might be easily and undiscernedly made to the Forces now on foot there were none that would have either Will Opportunity or Power to resist But he added withall he was so sincere in the maintenance of Propriety and Liberty of Conscience that if he had his Will though he should introduce a Bishop of Durham which was the Instance he then made that See being then vacant of another Religion yet he would not disturb any of the Church beside but suffer them to dye away and not let his change how hasty soever he was in it overthrow either of those principles and therefore desired he might be thought an honest Man as to his part of the Declaration for he meant it really The L. Shaftsbury with whom I had more freedom I with great assurance asked what he meant by the Declaration for it seemed to me as I then told him that it assumed a Power to repeal and suspend all our Laws to destroy the Church to overthrow the Protestant Religion and to tolerate Popery He replyed half angry That he wondered at my Objection there being not one of these in the Case For the King assumed no power of repealing Laws or suspending them contrary to the will of his Parliament or People and not to argue with me at that time the power of the King's Supremacy which was of anoâ—her nature then that he had in Civills and had been exercised without exception in this very case by His Father Grand Father and Queen Elizabeth under the Great Seal to Forreign Protestants become subjects of England nor to instance in the suspending the Execution of the two Acts of Navigation and Trade during both this and the last Dutch War in the same words and upon the same necessity and as yet without Clamour that ever we heard But to pass by all that this is certain a Government could not be supposed whether Monarchical or other of any sort without a standing Supream Executive power fully enabled to Mitigate or wholly to suspend the Execution of any penal Law in the Intervalls of the Legislative power which when assembled there was no doubt but wherever there lies a Negative in passing of a Law there the address or sense known of either of them to the contrary as for instance of either of our two Houses of Parliament in England ought to determine that Indulgence and restore the Law to its full execution For without this the Laws were to no purpose made if the Prince could annull them at pleasure and so on the other hand without a Power always in being of dispensing upon occasion was to suppose a constitution extreamly imperfect and unpracticable and to cure those with a Legislative power always in being is when considered no other then a perfect Tyranny As to the Church he conceived the Declaration was extreamly their Interest for the narrow bottom they had placed themselves upon and the Measures they had proceeded by so contrary to the Properties and Liberties of the Nation must needs in short time prove fatall to them whereas this led them into another way to live peaceably with the dissenting and differing Protestants both at home and abroad and so by necessary and unavoidable Consequences to become the Head of them all For that place is due to the Church of England being in favor and of neerest approach to the Most powerful Prince of that Religion and so always had it in their hands to be the Intercessors and Procurers of the greatest Good and Protection that partie throughout all Christendom can receive And thus the A. Bishop of Canterbury might become not only Alterius Orbis but Alterius Religionis Papa and all this addition of Honor and Power attaind without the least loss or diminution of the Church It not being intended that one living Dignity or Preferment should be given to Any but those that were strictly Conformable As to the Protestant Religion he told me plainly It was for the preserving of That and that only that he heartily joyned in the Declaration for besides that he thought it his Duty to have care in his Place and Station of those he was convinced were the People of God and feared Him though of different persuasions he also knew nothing else but Liberty and Indulgence that could possibly as our case stood secure the Protestant Religion in England and he beg'd me to consider if the Church of England should attain to a rigid blind and undistputed Conformity and that power of our Church should come into the hands of a Popish Prince which was not a thing so impossible or remote as not to be apprehended whether in such a case would not all the Armes and Artillery of the Government of the Church be turned against the prâ—sent Religion of it and should not all good Protestants tremble to think what Bishops such a Prince was like to make And whom those Bishops would condemn for Hereticks and that Prince might burn Whereas if this which is now but a Declaration might ever by the Experience of it gain the Advantage of becoming an Established Law the true Protestant Religion would still be kept up amongst the Cities Towns and Trading places and the Worthyest and Soberest if not the greatest part of the Nobility and Gentry and People As for the toleration of Popery he said It was a pleasant Objection since he could confidently say that the Papists had no advantage in the least by this Declaration that they did not as fully enjoy and with less noise by the favor of all the Bishops before It was the Vavity of the L. Keeper that they were named at all for the whole advantage was to the dissenting Protestants which were the only Men disturb'd before and yet he confest to me that it was his opinion and always had been that the Papists ought to have no other
dangerous thing to secure by Oath and Act of Parliament those in the exercise of an Authority and power in the King's Country and over His Subjects which being received from Christ himself cannot be altered or limitted by the King's Laws and that this was directly to set the Mitre above the Crown And it was farther offered that this Oath was the greatest attempt that had been made against the King's Supremacy since the Reformation for the King in Parliament may alter diminish enlarge or take away any Bishoprick He may take any part of a Diocess or a whole Diocess and put them under Deans or other Persons â—or if this be not lawful but that Episcopacy should be jure divino the maintaining the Government as it is now is unlawful since the Deans of Hereford and Salisbury have very large tracts under their jurisdiction and several Parsons of Parishes have Episcopal jurisdiction so that at best that Government wants alteration that is so imperfectly settled The Bishop of Winchester affirmed in this debate several times that there was no Christian Church before Calvin that had not Bishops to which he was answered that the Albigenses a very numerous People and the only visible known Church of true beleivers of some Ages had no Bishops It is very true what the Bishop of Winchester replyd that they had some amongst them who alone had power to ordain but that was only to commit that power to the Wisest and Gravest Men amongst Them and to secure ill and unfit Men from being admitted into the Ministery but they exercis'd no jurisdiction over the others And it was said by divers of the Lords that they thought Episcopal Government best for the Church and most suitable for the Monarchy but they must say with the Lord of Southampton upon the occasion of this Oath in the Parliament of Oxford I will not be sworn not to take away Episcopacie there being nothing that is not of Divine Precept but such circumstances may come in humane affairs as may render it not Eligible by the best of Men. And it was also said that if Episcopacy be to be received as by Divine Precept the King's Supremacy is overthrown and so is also the opinion of the Parliaments both in Edw. 6. and Queen Elizabeths time and the constitution of our Church ought to be altered as hath been shewd But the Church of Rome it self hath contradicted that Opinion when She hath made such vast tracts of ground and great numbers of Men exempt from Episcopal jurisdiction The Lord Wharton upon the Bishops claim to a Divine Right asked a very hard question viz. whether they then did not claim withall a power of Excommunicating their Prince which they Evading to answer and being press'd by some other Lords said they never had done it Upon which the Lord Hallifax told them that that might well be for since the Reformation they had hitherto had too great a dependance on the Crown to venture on that or any other Offence to it and so the debate passed on to the third Clause which had the same exceptions against it with the two former of being unbounded How far any Man might meddle and how far not and is of that extent that it overthrew all Parliaments and left them capable of nothing but giving Money For what is the business of Parliaments but the alteration either by adding or taking away some part of the Government either in Church or State and every new Act of Parliament is an alteration and what kind of Government in Church and State must that be which I must swear upon no alteration of Time emergencie of Affairs nor variation of humane Things never to endeavor to alâ—er Would it not be requâ—site that such a Government should be given by God himself and that withall the Ceremonie of Thunder and Lightening and visible appearance to the whole People which God vouchsafed to the Chrildren of Israel at Mount Sinaj and yet you shall no where read that they were sworn to it by any oath like this nay on the Contrary the Princes and the Rulers even those recorded for the best of them did make severâ—l variations The Lord Stafford a Noble Man of great Honor and Candour but who had been all along for the Bill yet was so far convinced with the debate that he freely declared there ought to be an addition to the Oath for preserving the freedom of debates in Parliament This was strongly urged by the never to be forgotten Earl of Bridgwater who gave reputation and strength to this Cause of England as did also those worthy Earls Denbigh Clarendon and Aylisbury Men of great Worth and Honor. To Salve all that was said by these and the Other Lords The Lord Keeper and the Bishops urged that there was a Proviso which fully preserved the Priviledges of Parliament and upon farther enquiry there appearing no such but only a Previous vote as is before mention'd they allowâ—d that that Previous vote should be drawn into a Proviso and added to the Bâ—ll and then in their opinion the Exception to the Oath for this cause was perfectly removed but on the other side it was offered that a positive absolute Oath being taken a Proviso in the Act could not dispence with it without some reference in the body of the Oath unto that Proviso but this also was utterly denied untill the next day the debate going on upon other matters the Lord Treasurer whose authority easily obtained with the major Vote reassumed what was mentioned in the Debates of the proceeding days and allow'd a reference to the Proviso so that it then past in these words I A. B. do swear that I will not endeavor to alter the Protestant Religion now by Law Establisht in the Church of England nor the Government of this Kingdom in Church or State as it is now by Law established and I do take this Oath according to the meaning of this Act and the Proviso contain'd in the same so help me God There was a passage of the very greatest observation in the whole debate and which with most clearness shewd what the great Men and Bishops aimed at and should in order have come in before but that it deserved so particular a consideration that I thought best to place it here by it self which was that upon passing of the Pâ—oviso for preserving the Rights and Priviledges of Parliaments made out of the Previous Votes It was excellently observ'd by the Earl of Bullingbrook a Man of great Abilitie and Learning in the Laws of the Land and perfectly stedfast in all good English Principles that though that Proviso did preserve the freedom of Debates and Votes in Parliament yet the Oath remain'd notwithstanding that Proviso upon all Men that shall take as a prohibition either by Speech or Writing or Address to endeavor any alteration in Religion Church or State nay also upon the Members of both Houses otherwise then as they speak and vote in
open Parliaments or Committees for this Oath takes away all private Converse upon any such affairs even one with another This was seconded by the Lord De la mer whose Name is well known as also his Worth Piety and Learning I should mention his great Merits too but I know not whether that be lawful they lying yet unrewarded The Lord Shaftsbury presently drew up some words for preserving the same Rights Priviledges and Freedoms which Men now enjoy by the Laws established that so by a side Wind we might not be deprived of the great Liberty we enjoy as English Men and desired those words might be inserted in that Proviso before it past This was seconded by many of the forementioned Lords and prest upon those terms that they desired not to countenance or make in the least degree any thing lawful that was not already so but that they might not be deprived by this dark way of proceeding of that Liberty was necessary to them as Men and without which Parliaments would be renderd useless Upon this all the great Officers showd themselves nay the D. of Lauderdail himself though under the Load of two Addresses opened his mouth and together with the Lord Keeper and the Lord Treasurer told the Committee in plain terms that they intended and design'd to prevent Caballing and conspiracies against the Government that they knew no reason why any of the King's Officers should consult with Parliament Men about Parliament business and particularly mention'd those of the Armie Treasury and Navy and when it was Objected to them that the greatest part of the most knowing Gentry were either Justices of the Peace or of the Militia and that this took away all converse or discourse of any alteration which was in truth of any business in Parliament and that the Officers of the Navy and Treasury might be best able to advise what should be fit in many cases and that withall none of their Lordships did offer any thing to salve the inconvenience of Parliament Men being deprived of discoursing one with another upon the matters that were before them Besides it must be again remembred that nothing was herein desired to be countenanced or made lawful but to preserve that that is already Law and avowedly justified by it For without this addition to the Proviso the Oath renderd Parliaments but a Snare not a Security to the People Yet to all this was answerd sometimes with passion and high words sometimes with Jests and Raillery the best they had and at the last the major Vote answered all objections and laid a side the addition tendered There was another thing before the finishing of the Oath which I shall here also mention which was an additional Oath tendered by the Marquess of Winchester who ought to have been mentioned in the first and chiefest place for his conduct and support in the whole debate being an expert Parliament Man and one whose Quallity Parts and Fortune and owning of good Principles concurr to give him one of the greatest places in the esteem of good Men. The additional Oath tenderd was as followeth I do swear that I will never by Threats Injunctions Promises Advantages or Invitation by or from any person whatsoever nor from the hopes or prospect of any Gift Place Office or Benefit whatsoever give my Vote other then according to my Opinion and Conscience as I shall be truly and really persuaded upon the debate of any-business in Parliament so help me God This Oath was offerd upon the occasion of swearing Membâ—rs of Parliament and upon this score only that if any new Oath was thought fit which that Noble Lord declared his own Judgment perfectly against this certainly was all considerations and circumstances taken in most necessary to be a part and the nature of it was not so strange if they considerd the Iudges Oath which was not much different from this To this the Lord Keeper seemed very averse and declared in a very fine Speech that it was an Vseless Oath for all Gifts Places and Offices were likelyest to come from the King and no Member of Parliament in either House could do too much for the King or be too much of His side and that Men might lawfully and worthily have in their Prospect such Offices or Benefits from Him With this the Lords against the Bill were in no tearms satisfied but plainly spoke out that Men had been might and were likely to be in either House too much for the King as they call'd it and that whoever did endeavour to give more power to the King then the Law and constitution of the Government had given especially if it tended to the Introducing an Absolute and Arbitrary Government might justly be said to do too much for the King and to be corrupted in his judgment by the prospect of advantages and rewards Though when it is considered that every deviation of the Crown towards Absolute power lessens the King in the love and affection of his People makeing Him become less their Interest A wise Prince will not think it a Service done Him And now remains only the last part of the Bill which is the the penalty different according to the quallifications of the Persons All that are or shall be Privy Counsellors Iustices of the Peace or possessors of any beneficial Office Ecclesiastical Civill or Military are to take the Oath when summoned upon pain of 500 l. and being made uncapable of bearing Office the Members of both Houses are not made uncapable but lyable to the penalty of 500 l. if they take it not Upon all which the considerations of the Debate were That those Officers and Members of both Houses are of all the Nation the most dangerous to be sworn into a mistake or change of the Government and that as to the Members of both Houses the penalty of 500 l. was directly against the latter of the 2. Previous Votes and although they had not applied the penalty of Incapacity unto the Members of both Houses because of the first Previous Vote in the Case of the Lords neither durst they admit of a Proposition made by some of themselves that those that did not come up and Sit as Members should be lyable to the taking the Oath or penalty untill they did so Yet their Ends were not to be compassed without invading the latter Previous Vote and contrary to the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament enforce them to swear or pay 500 l. every Parliament and this they caâ—ried through with so strong a Resolution that having experienced their misfortunes in replys for several hours not one of the party could be provoked to speak one word Though besides the former arguments it was strongly urged that this Oath ought to be put upon Officers with a heavier penalty then the Test was in the Act of the immediate preceding Session against the Papists by which any Man might sit down with the loss of his Office without being in the darger of
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
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
of the great Men of the other side yet nothing could enforce them to secure themselves by a standing force But I cannot believe that the King Himself will ever design any such thing for He is not of a temper Robâ—st and Laborious enough to deale with such a sort of Men or reap the advantages if there be any of such a Government and I think He can hardly have forgot the treatment his Father received from the Officers of his Army both at Oxford and Newark 'T was an hard but almost an even choice to be the Parliaments Prisoner or their Slave but I am sure the greatest prosperity of his Armes could have brought him to no happier condition then our King his Son hath before him whenever he please However This may be said for the honor of this Session that there is no Prince in Christendom hath at a greater expence of Money maintained for two Months space a Nobler or more useful dispute of the Politiques Mistery and seeâ—eâ—s of Government boâ—h in Church and State then this hath been Of which noble design no part is owing to any of the Countrey Lords for they several of them begg'd at the first entrance into the Debate that they might not be engaged in such disputes as would unavoidably produce divers things to be said which they were willing to let alone But I must bear them witness and so will you having read this that they did their parts in it when it came to it and spoke plain like old English Lords I shall conclude with that upon the whole matter is most worthy your consideration That the design is to declare us first into another Government more Absolute and Arbitrary then the Oath of Allegience or old Law knew and then make us swear unto it as it is so established And less then this the Bishops could not offer in requiâ—al to the Crown for parâ—ing with its Supremacy and suffering them to be sworn to equal with it self Archbishop Laud was the first Founder of this Device in his Canons of 1640. you shall find an Oath very like this and a Declaratory Canon preceding that Monarchy is of divine Right which was also affirmed in this debate by our Reverend Prelates and is owned in Print by no less Men then A. Bishop Vsher and B. Sandâ—rson and I am afraid it is the avowd opinion of much the greater part of our dignified Clergie If so I am sure they are the most dangerous sort of Men alive to our English Government and it is the first thing ought to be lookâ— into and strictly examin'd by our Parliaments ' â—is the leaven that corrupts the whole lump for if that be true I am sure Monarchy is not to be bounded by humane Laws and the 8. chap. of 1. Saâ—uel will prove as many of our Divines would have it the Great Charter of the Royal Prerogative and our Magna Charta that says Our Kings may not take our Fields our Vineyards our Corn and our Sheep is not in force but void and null because against divine Institution and you have the Riddle out why the Clergy are so reâ—dy to take themselves impose upon others such kind of Oaths as these they have plaâ—ed themselves and their possessions upon a better and a surer bottom as they think then Magna Charta and so have no more need of or concern for it Nay what is worse they have trâ—ckt away the Rights and Liberties of the People in this and all other countries wherever they have had opportunity that they might be owned by the Prince to be Iure Divino and maintain'd in that Pretention by that absolute power and force they have contributed so much to put into his hands and that Priest and Prince may like Castor and Pollux be worshipt together as Divine in the same temple by Us poor Lay-subjects and that sense and reason Law Properties Rights and Liberties shall be understood as the Oracles of those Deities shall interpret or give signification to them and ne'â— be made use of in the world to oppose the Absolute and Freewill of either of them Sir I have no more to say but begg your Pardon for this tedious Trouble and that you will be very careful to whom you Communicate any of this FINIS