The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…

L. You stretch the sense of the Subscription and Oath further than the Parliament intended it. Do you think that if half a Dozen or more Irishmen had come into the Parliament House, and showed a Commission Real or Counterfeit to kill them all, Lords and Commons, that they would not have defended their Lives with their Swords? And do you think then that ever they meant to bind all the Subjects against that which they would do themselves.

L. You stretch the sence of the Subscription and Oath further than the Parliament intended it. Do you think that if half a Dozen or more Irishmen had come into the Parliament House, and shewed a Commission Real or Counterfeit to kill them all, Lords and Commons, that they would not have defended their Lives with their Swords? And do you think then that ever they meant to bind all the Subjects against that which they would do themselves.

M. And do you think that we should all Swear to that which they never meant to bind us to? Is there any limitation in the words? Or can any words be devised more to exclude exceptions than [not on any pretence whatsoever.] But self is near men, and is not so concerned in other mens cases as their own. For my part, I believe that they meant plainly and universally as they speak, tho' they might forget their own case: My proof is from the express words of the Militia Act, where they determine that neither the whole Parliament or part, hath any Power of offensive or defensive Arms against the Kings Commissioners: Much less have any single Persons.

L. Do you think that ever they intended to destroy all mens Property, and defence of Life or Goods, and to repeal all the Laws that bind Sheriffs by the Posse Comitatus to suppress Riots, and to execute the decrees of the Courts of Justice for Possessions or Dis-possessions, tho' any should show Commissions to the contrary, and to overthrow the Judges Oaths.