[2131 'it binds not becaufe we were antecedently bound to all that is good by other bonds, and therefore not by this. But others truly fay, that this is a xn;,ft inrollriable rcafbn and would nullihe our Baptifmal Vow, and all our facramental Vows renewed; and all Covenants that ever man can make to God of any duty. For Gods on Laws firf bind as to every ditty : Bat for all that our own Vows, Covenants and promifes f cossdaa ily bind us alit : And a man may have many ooliga- tions to one dtatys Yea indeed the Covenanters ordinarily profefs that they think not that a man Mould Vow any thing to God but what God firft hath made his duty. And they are againft the Papifls for making .Religions and duties to themfelves which God never made: And there- fore they profefs that if fame things in the Covenant were not their duty before, they would not think that they are bound to it now : And they profefi that if they had never taken that Vow they had been bound to all that by it they are bound to : And therefore condemning that Vow loth no whit fecure the Gov' rnment of the Church (e. g. Lay Chaicellours tfe of the Keys, or the d ftruttion of dfc pbne ) from their Lawful endeavours to alter it. And they profefs that Peeing the King hath power to command them Lawful things, if they had Vowed any thing meetly Indiiferent it would not have bound them ag'inif the Kings Commands ; Becaufe it is not in fubjeas power, by Vows to withdraw themfelves from their obedience to authority. Some fay that the Proclamation ofKing Charles the firft againft the Covenant null'd theobligation. But others truly fay, i. That it could null no lP 3 more
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=