A26924:574
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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.
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 Iustice for Possessions or Dis-possessions, tho' any should shew Commissions to the contrary, and to overthrow the Iudges Oaths.
M. I can no way judge what they meant, but by what they did. I find they have absolutely denied all right of defensive Arms in the Subject or Parliament, and that's all that I speak of: From whence I must needs suppose, that their sense was, that all men have Propriety in Estates, Wives, Children and Lives, and that the King ought to Govern them by Law, and wrong no Man, and that Judges ought to do right by Sentence, tho' the King forbid them. And that Sheriffs and Justices must ordinarily execute the Law: But if the King by force restrain them, or give Commission to any Subject by force to violate any Law or Sentence, or to take away any Mens Lives or Estates, it is not lawful by defensive Arms, for any Sheriff, Justices, or any others to resist. This is plainly the sense of the Militia Act, and of our Oaths.