Of course, questions arose as to the meaning of the words, in many cases, no doubt, after they had been sealed by oath. Episcopalians took the declaration to mean defending the Protestant religion, as in the Church of England by law established. No such thing, said the Puritan majority of the Lower House; it includes not the hierarchy. It is _against_ all popery and popish innovations, not _for_ the discipline worship and ceremonies of the Church as they stand at present.[172] The Commons, having so explained their own measure, afterwards passed a Bill for its universal enforcement, which however was objected to by the Lords. A conference between the two Houses followed, conducted by Denzil Holles, who defended the imposition of the oath, as a shibboleth to distinguish Ephraimites from Gileadites. With his reasons, "after some debate, the Lords seemed satisfied."[173] The proceeding shewed the alarm of the representatives of the people, lest they should be checkmated by their opponents. It indicated a determination to abide by what had been done, and further to grapple with all Papistical tendencies; whilst the Protestation itself anticipated the more famous Covenant of an after year, much to the joy of Robert Baillie, who, writing from his house in St. Antholin's, on the 4th of May, informed a Scotch brother: "After much debate, at last, blessed be the name of the Lord, they all swore and subscribed the writ, which here you have, I hope in substance, our Scottish covenant."[174] The intolerance and injustice of the imposition could not be seen in those days as it is in ours. Intended to secure liberty for such as were counted its only friends, it in fact partook of that very injustice, which, when exercised on the other side, appeared intolerable. [Sidenote: _Debates in the House of Commons._] The resolute temper of the House of Commons, in resolving upon the enforcement of the Protestation in spite of the Lords, is to be ascribed very much to the new position in which the House had placed itself. Mistrusting the intentions of the King, fearful of another dissolution, which would frustrate all patriotic plans, the representatives of the people had passed a Bill to render Parliament indissoluble until it should dissolve itself. The Bill was read a third time on the 7th of May, and such was the ascendancy of the Commons, that the King--either struck for a moment, as if by the eye of a basilisk, or intending to violate the Act, should it be in his power; or influenced by "his own shame and the Queen's consternation at the discovery of the late plot"[175]--gave his assent to the fatal measure only two days after it had passed the Lords. [Sidenote: 1641, May.]