of CONFORMITY. I47 as fore ; yet here it is affirmed, that it leaves you not fo much as a judgment of Difcretion, as to force of them. Nothing is plainer than that the reafon and defign of this Oath reftrains it to the Future Commands of one particular Bithop ; yet we have it maintain'd, that it fuppofes an Obligation to comply with the things an- tecedently required by others. Where, I be- feech you, is this fuppofed ? What words are here in this Oath that do plainly, nay, that canpoffìbly, refer to any thing antece- dently required ? Or, is thisfuppofed in the Reafon of the Oaths? That, I am Pure, is apparently againft you. If neither in the Reafon, nor the Words of it, where elfe can this Obligation be fuppofed z For my part, I am convinc'd that no Arts, or Me- taphyfics, in the world can be fufficient to make good this part of your charge. And indeed you feem to me to confute your own Accufation in this place. For after you have acknowledged that there is in the Oath a Limitation of this Obedience to things lawful and hone, you grant this Limitation is to be extended only to Future Commands. From whence I argue (and, I recommend the Argument to your Confideration) that the Oath it felf can L^ be
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=