scope of the design was opened clearer, and more distinct to every man's capacity.

The second was, " And that I do abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against his person." To this was objected, that if by this be meant an explanation of the oath of allegiance, to leave men without pretence to oppose where the individual person of the king is; then it was to be considered, that the position, 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 traitorous, which was the case of the long parliament, made perpetual by the king's own act, by which the government was perfectly altered, and made inconsistent with itself; 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 occur, wherein this position is so far from traitorous, that it would prove both necessary and our duty. The famous instance of Henry VI, who, being a soft and weak prince, when taken prisoner by his cousin Edward IV, that pretended to the crown, and the great earl of Warwick, was carried 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 pitched battle against him in person, and retook him. This was directly "taking up arms against his person, and against those that were commissioned by him:" and yet to this day no man hath ever blamed them, or thought but that, if they had done otherwise, they had betrayed their prince. The great case of Charles VI. of France, who being of a weak and crazy brain, yet governed by himself, or rather by his wife, a woman of a passionate and heady humour, that hated her son the dauphin, a vigorous and brave prince, and passionately loved her daughter, so that she easily (being pressed by the victory of Henry V. of England) complied 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 arms and force by the dauphin and all good Frenchmen, even in his father's lifetime. A third instance is that of king James, 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 safety. And if the case should be put, that a future king of England, of the same temper with Henry VI. or Charles VI. of France, should be taken prisoner by Spaniards, 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; where it not suitable to our loyalty to join with the son of that king, for the defence of his father's crown and dignity, even against his person and commission? In all these and the like cases, it was not justified, but that the strict letter of the law might be otherwise construed; and when wisely considered, 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 sworn 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 politics. To this the aged bishop of Winchester* replied, to take up arms, 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 left it upon the old oath of allegiance, than made such a wide gap in this new declaration.

The third and last part of the declaration was, "or against those that are commissioned by him." Here the mask was plainly plucked off, and arbitrary government appeared 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 king's commission be not opposed by the king's authority, then a standing army is law, whenever the king pleases; and

* George Morley. He was then 78 years old.

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 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 obtained by the interest of the person to command some soldiers 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 arms by the king's authority against those who are commissioned by him." And it is the same case, if the soldiers had been commissioned to defend the house against the sheriff, when he first endeavoured to take 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 county 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 levy money by privy seal, or otherwise, and cause soldiers to enter and distrain for such-like illegal 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 somewhat rough, and not with the usual reverence

VOL. X.

towards the crown; but they alleged they were to be excused when all was concerned; and without speaking thus plain, it is refused to be understood; and, however happy we are now, either in the present prince, or those we have in prospect, yet the suppositions are not extravagant, when we consider kings are but men, and compassed with more temptations than others: and as the earl of Salisbury, who stood like a rock of nobility and English principles, excellently replied to the lordkeeper, who was pleased to term them remote instances; that they would not hereafter prove so, when this declaration had made the practice of them justifiable.

These arguments enforced the lords for the bill to a change of this part of the declaration; so that they agreed the second and third parts of it should run thus, "And I do abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against his person, or against those that are commissioned by him according to law, in time of rebellion or war, acting in pursu ance of such commission." Which mends the matter very little; for if they mean the king's authority and his lawful commission to be two things, and such as are capable of opposition, then it is as dangerous to the liberties of the nation, as when it ran in the former words, and we are only cheated by new phrasing of it. But if they understand them to be one and the same thing, as really and truly they are; then we are only to abhor the treason of the position of taking arms by the king's authority against the king's authority, because it is nonsense, and not practicable. And so they had done little but confessed, that all the clergy, and many other persons, have been forced, by former acts of this present parliament, to make this declaration in other words, that now are found so far from being justifiable, that they are directly contrary to Magna Charta, our properties, and the established law and government of the nation.

The next thing in course was the oath itself, against which the objection lay so plain and so strong at the first entrance, viz. That there was no care taken of the

doctrine, but only the discipline of the church. The papists need not scruple the taking this oath; for episcopacy remains in its greatest lustre, though the popish religion was introduced; but the king's supremacy is justled aside by this oath, and makes better room for an ecclesiastical one. Insomuch that, with this and much more, they were enforced to change their oath, and the next day bringeth it as followeth :

"I do swear, that I will not endeavour to alter the protestant religion, or the government either of church or state."

By this they thought they had salved all, and now began to call their oath, "A security for the protestant religion, and the only good design to prevent popery," if we should have a popish prince. But the country lords wondered at their confidence in this, since they had never thought of it before; and had been, but the last preceding day of the debate, by pure shame, compelled to this addition. For it was not unknown to them, that some of the bishops themselves had told some of the Roman catholic lords of the house, that "care had been taken that it might be such an oath as might not bear upon them." But let it be whatever they would have it, yet the country lords thought the addition was unreasonable, and of as dangerous consequence as the rest of the oath. And it was not to be wondered at, if the addition of the best things, wanting the authority of an express divine institution, should make an oath not to endeavour to alter, just so much worse by the addition. For, as the earl of Shaftsbury very well urged, that it is a far different thing to believe, or to be fully persuaded of the truth of the doctrine of our church, and to swear never to endeavour to alter; which last must be utterly unlawful, unless you place an infallibility either in the church or yourself; you being otherwise obliged to alter, whenever a clearer or better light comes to you. And he desired leave to ask, where are the boundaries,