it any prejudice to this inference that mens consciences do oftentimes condemn them for those things that are no parts of the Law of Nature or any other For as we pretend not to infer the goodness or evil of any action in it self from the consciences either acquitting or condemning the person that doth it but only that there is such a thing as good or evil so cannot any reason be assigned of our consciences either accusing or condemning us if the notion of good and evil were not planted in the soul of man by that God who formed it For though tradition and education may perswade us to believe many things to be evil which are in themselves not so and consequently incline the conscience of him that committeth them to condemn or disquiet him for so doing yet could they not unless they could build without a foundation incline the man to be troubled for it but upon supposition that there is such a thing as evil Again when the main trouble of conscience proceeds from hence even from the doing of those things which that assures us to be evil what reason can be assigned of that trouble if it were not a truth implanted in our hearts that we ought not to do those things which our conscience assureth us to be bad For as it is evident no man could be troubled for acting against his conscience but upon supposition of his being bound to follow the dictates of it so is it not to be imagined that that supposition could have any other root than Nature For as for all frightful stories of Hell and the like which men who would be thought wise would have the ground of all Religion even those themselves if it be duly considered will be found to receive their force and efficacy from the conscience's foreperswasion of good and evil and particularly of its own obligation For setting aside the nature of good and evil as meer fancies and my conscience shall not so much be affrighted at the stories of vengeance as at the shaking of a reed because conscious of nothing that may deserve it I conclude therefore with S. Paul in that excellent discourse of his upon this argument Rom. 2.14 That though the Gentiles have not the Law that is to say no revealed one yet they are a Law unto themselves which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts their consciences also bearing witness and their thoughts in the mean while accusing or else excusing one another II. The being of the Law of Nature being thus demonstrated enquire we in the second place what the Precepts thereof are I do not mean to give account of every particular one for that were both an infinite and needless task but of the more general ones from which the other may be easily deduced Now there are two ways of investigating any truths as the forementioned Hooker hath well observed the one by the causes which constitute it the other by the signs and tokens which attend it The latter of these is without doubt the most easie but withall the most fallible and therefore quitting that at present I shall chuse rather to pitch upon the former and exemplifie the Precepts of this Law by it Now there are three things wherein our duty is comprehended according to those several relations we stand in our duty to God our Neighbour and our selves I begin with the last of these because nearest to us and therefore in all probability most easie to be discerned by us where the first capital Precept that presents it self to us is the preservation of our selves Now that this is a Precept of that Law which we call the Law of Nature beside our own natural propension to it will appear from God's giving us a being and means to support it For as the destruction of our being is a direct contradiction to that order which he hath set in Nature so our neglect to preserve it is though not a direct yet a consequential contradiction to that provision which he hath made for us in the world For what design can we suppose God to have had principally and chiefly I mean in those good things he hath given us but the support of our being by them If then it were the design of the Almighty in the good things of this world that we should receive support and comfort by them if this design of his appear from the nature of the things themselves the preservation of our selves is a branch of that Law and we consequently transgressors of it if we neglect it But from hence we may collect what we are to think of all self-murthers excesses or neglects for if the preservation of our selves be a duty incumbent on us by the Law of our Creation then must that be a sin which either destroys or impairs or neglects it and consequently all laying violent hands upon our selves all intemperance and sloth and idleness From the duty we owe to our selves ascend we to that which is terminated in God and see whether there be any footsteps of such a one in that Law whereof we are speaking Now there are two things wherein our duty to God may be comprehended our honouring him and obeying him The former of these is evident from that excellency which the soul assisted with the bare light of reason may discern in God For being it is a clear dictate of the light of reason that whatsoever is excellent is to be honoured God as being the most excellent essence yea the fountain of all others excellencies must be much more so by how much he transcends all others But from hence it is evident what we are to think not only of all manifest contempts of him but of adopting any thing else into equal honour with him for being God is not only to be honoured but to be honoured also above all other beings because so far surpassing them the adopting of any other into the like honour must be a diminution of his and consequently a breach of this fundamental Law as well as of that which saith Thou shalt have no other Gods beside me The same is no less evident concerning that other branch of our duty to God even our yielding obedience to all his commands for being as was before shown God is our maker and sustainer he has a right to our obedience and consequently we a necessity of obeying him But from hence will follow not only our yielding obedience to all other the Laws of Nature but to all positive and revealed ones for being the command of God is that which challenges our obedience and not the manner whereby it is made known to us whatsoever appears to be such must be equally our duty whether engraven in Tables of stone as that of Moses was or in the more noble Tables of our heart as this of Nature The only thing now remaining to be proved is what we commonly call our duty to our Neighbour and may be comprised in these
discover Thus when Moses had broken the two Tables of stone wherein God had written the Ten Commandments and thereby defaced the characters thereof the same reason which prompted him to write them at the first prompted him to write them a second time and renew that which Moses had defaced Which as it was no doubt a just obligation to the Jews to be doubly thankful to the Almighty so ought it to be no less to us that God hath written that Law in his Word which he had before graven in the Tables of our hearts these Tables being defaced not by an angry Moses but by our selves and by our own either neglect or perversness The reason of positive Laws being thus discovered pass we now on in the investigation of the Law of Moses and particularly of the Ten Commandments concerning which you may remember I proposed to enquire into these three things 1. By what Authority that Law stands 2. How it comes to oblige us and 3. What measures we are to proced by in finding out the full importance of it 1. To the first of these or at least so far as the Decalogue is concerned the Preface to it is a direct answer telling us that God spake all these words and indeed if any Law can pretend to be of divine Authority this of the Ten Commandments certainly may For first of all when Moses had by the commandment of God assembled all the people of Israel near Mount Sinai God by a voice from Heaven published all these Commandments in their ears and with all the signs and demonstrations of his Majesty Again when the same people terrified by the dreadful appearance of his Majesty desired to have this Law delivered to them by Moses God in compliance with their desires wrote the same words in two Tables of stone and transmitted them by him unto the people Exod. 31.8 Lastly when Moses had broken those two Tables and thereby put God upon a necessity of transcribing them anew he wrote upon other two Tables the same Ten Commandments as you may see Deut. 10.4 So that if the publishing of Commandments from Heaven or writing them with his own finger can entitle them to a divine Authority the Law of the Ten Commandments certainly may as being notified by both 2. But because it is not enough to make a Law obligatory to us that it hath God for its Author and Promulger unless it do also appear to have been intended for our direction and obedience therefore before we proceed to infer our own obligation by it we must enquire how it comes to do so and what appearance there is of Gods intending it for our direction and obedience And here in the first place it is manifest enough that what was before said concerning the Laws given to Adam and Noah cannot have place in those given to Moses and the Israelites those being not Representatives of mankind as Adam and Noah were but only of the Jewish state Now being the Gentiles were no part of that body nor descended from the Authors of it therefore what was given to them cannot be supposed to oblige us for that reason and consequently some other ground must be looked out for our obligation to it It is manifest secondly that as there is nothing in the persons to whom this Law was given to perswade our obligation to it so is there much in the Law it self to perswade Gods designing it for the Jews alone for pressing as he doth obedience to this Law upon the account of his delivering them out of Aegypt he doth consequently restrain the Law it self to those who were benefited by it which none but the Israelites were And indeed beside the Preface of the Almighty and that of Moses before the same Commandments Deut. 5.1 Hear O Israel the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day it is the known exultation of that People and of the most holy persons of it that these Constitutions were peculiarly theirs for What Nation is there so great saith Moses which hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day Deut. 4.8 And He sheweth saith the Psalmist his word unto Jacob and his statutes and judgments unto Israel he hath not dealt so with any Nation and as for his judgments they have not known them Psal 147.19 20. And truly thus much must be yielded to the fore-quoted Texts that the Law was intended for the Jews alone whilst the Church was confined to Palestine but as there was to be a time even by the Predictions of their own Prophets when all Nations should flow unto it Isa 2.2 So it is apparent thirdly from the same Prophet That the Law was then proportionably to extend its dominion and comprehend those new comers as well as its ancient subjects the design of their thus flowing into the House of the God of Jacob being that he might teach them of his ways and they walk in his paths as you may see v. 3. of that Chapter And accordingly as before this Law was thus to take effect it was in reason to have a new promulgation suitable to the extent of its dominion so if we consult the stories of those times we shall find God was not wanting in making it known to the Gentile world partly by the dispersing of the Jews among them but more especially by that signal act of his Providence in causing it to be translated by the Septuagint into Greek which was then the most known Language of the Gentile World By which means that Law which was before shewn only unto Jacob came unto the knowledge of the Heathen from whom it had been so long concealed Now though what hath been alledged from the Prophet Isay and this universal Promulgation be enough to establish what we have deduced from it yet because it may conduce much to our satisfaction to evidence it from the New Testament which is the immediate rule of our belief and practice I will therefore to remove all scruples endeavour to shew from thence that whatever it was whilst the Church was confined to Jewry yet after the coming in of the Gentiles the Law was intended to take in them also and oblige them to the several Precepts of it To begin with the Ceremonial Law because the most unlikely to concern us and therefore if well proved of more force to conclude the like of others Concerning which it may suffice to represent the use S. Paul makes of it 1 Cor. 9.8 Say I these things as a man or saith not the Law the same also For it is written in the Law of Moses thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the Corn. Doth God take care for Oxen Or saith he it altogether for our sakes for our sakes no doubt this is written that he that ploweth should plow in hope and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope For not
repent to become as righteous as those others were whom he there stiles so to make their righteousness exceed those others as he doth elsewhere * See the Sermon on the Mount insinuate to be chaste above their measure to abstain from anger as well as murder lastly to suffer injuries as well as do none and be contented not only with that which was their own but with the parting with it It being not his intention to destroy the Law and the Prophets those great measures of piety and justice but rather to confirm and add to them But not to stay any longer in the entrance to this discourse when there are so many weighty things which call for our regard and proof I shall without more ado proceed to shew I. That our Saviour came not to destroy but to confirm the Law of Moses and particularly that of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments II. That he came not to destroy that Law but to fulfill and add to it I. For the evidencing the former whereof I will begin with such precepts of it as were ceremonial and which because such have the least appearance of having been confirmed by him And here not to insist upon the agreeableness of our Saviours life to them because the question is not concerning his life but doctrine nor yet to stand to shew that that law did rather die of it self than was destroy'd by him because the question is whether or no and in what measure he confirm'd it I shall observe first of all that that which was mainly design'd in the several precepts of that law even the pure and pious veneration of God was confirm'd and establish'd by our Saviour As will appear past all contradiction from the Sermon on the Mount and other our Saviours discourses I say that which was mainly designed in them for that the pure and pious veneration of God was principally intended in them is acknowledg'd by one of the greatest Authority among the Jews even Maimonides * Maim Mer. Nev. part 3. c. 32. pag. 435. and is evident from the words of the Prophet Jeremy c. 7.21 22 23. For thus saith the Lord of Hosts the God Israel Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices and eat flesh for I spake not unto your Fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices But this thing commanded I them saying Obey my voice and I will be your God and ye shall be my people The meaning of which words is not that God gave the Jews no commandment at all concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices for he injoin'd that of the Paschal Lamb the very night they went out of Egypt and many other such like afterwards but that the principal thing requir'd by him was their piety and obedience and that he injoyn'd sacrifices and such like only as instances of obedience and figures of substantial and real piety And hence Gods insisting so much upon the circumcision of the heart even where the circumcision of the flesh was not wanting 3 upon the purity of the Soul as well as the cleanness of the body his preferring a broken heart before all burnt offerings and sacrifices his accounting of it as the only acceptable one for thou desirest not sacrifice else would I give it thou delightest not in burnt offering The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit a broken and a contrite heart O God thou wilt not despise Psa 51.16 17 I observe secondly that as our Saviour did confirm that which was principally design'd by God even in the law of a carnal commandment so he did also retain many of its ceremonies and usances and accommodated them to his own purpose I instance in both the Sacraments and Imposition of hands The latter whereof as it was us'd by the Apostles in their Ordinations who no doubt did what they did by commission or approbation from Christ so was it borrowed from the Jews whose Leader Moses consecrated to succeed him by this ceremony of Laying on of hands For thus we are told Num. 27.23 that after God had given Moses order for the consecrating of his successour he laid his hands on Joshua and gave him a charge as the Lord commanded by the hands of Moses The case is the same in both the Sacraments as we learn from the Jewish writers the Jewish women and their proselytes of both sexes being enter'd into covenant with God by the same rite of Baptism with us * Selden de Jure Nat. Gent. c. li. 2. c. 2. and having also a ceremony of distributing bread and wine upon their solemn feasts ‖ Paulus Fagius comment in Deut. 8. agreeably to that of ours in the Lords Supper For thus saith Paulus Fagius the father of the family among the Jews taking a cup of wine in his right hand and praying over it this prayer Blessed be thou O Lord our God King of the world who createst the fruit of the vine tastes of it himself and then gives it to all the guests And in like manner afterwards bread over which when he hath us'd this prayer Blessed be thou O Lord our God who bringest bread out of the earth he first eats a little of it himself and then gives a piece of it to each of the guests Indeed the foresaid Author relates this latter as the custom of the modern Jews but that it was also of the more Ancient is probable from our Saviours blessing and distributing a cup of wine among his disciples before that of the holy Sacrament adding thereto that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine which is the phrase that is us'd in the forementioned prayer of the Jews till the Kingdom of God should come Luke 22.17 18. I have one thing more to add in confirmation of the former ceremony which we learn from * Iren. adv haeres li. 4. c. 32. sect 4. Justin Mart. in Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. edit Paris Irenaeus and other the ancient Fathers To wit that the bread and wine which was consecrated into the Sacrament of our Saviours passion was also offer'd to God agreeably to our Saviours precept and example by way of thanksgiving for those creatures themselves Which makes it more than probable that the forementioned custome was both of ancient date among the Jews and transcribed by our Saviour in the institution of his holy Supper If then he did not only confirm that which was principally design'd but retain'd many of the usances of the Jewish law he ought in reason not to be look'd upon as an enemy to it but rather as he himself saith of himself as one who came not to destroy but to fulfil it From the Ceremonial Law pass we to the Moral the principal thing intended by our Saviour as will appear if we consider what he both premiseth and subjoineth to his assurance of confirming the Law and the several precepts he
us to take heed of it Luke 12.15 and his Apostle to content our selves with food and rayment 1 Tim. 6.8 So that in this particular it is evident Christ had no design to thwart the dictates of Nature or Moses the precepts of the Law or the wholsome advices of the Prophets The only thing remaining to be enquir'd into is whether he came to destroy the precepts of justice and charity the two last branches of the Moral Law Concerning the latter hereof I shall say nothing at present both because I may have occasion to resume it when I come to intreat of our Saviours fulfilling the Law and because the Evangelists and Apostles as well as the Law and the Prophets are full fraught with Precepts concerning it That which I shall bestow the remainder of my discourse upon is the Precepts of justice even that justice which commands us to give Caesar and all other our Superiours their due Which I shall the rather do because this hath been too often accounted a part of that bondage from which our Saviour came to set us free I begin with Fathers because their authority as it was the first so the foundation even of Regal power Concerning whom if the Law be express that we should give them honour and obedience the Gospel of our Saviour is no less Witness his faulting the Scribes and Pharisees for evacuating that Royal Law by a foolish tradition of their own Mat. 15.4 His Apostle S. Paul's pressing the Ephesians with the letter of it Eph. 6.2 His calling upon children in the verse before to be obedient to their parents his commanding the children of the Colossians to be obedient to them in all things Col. 3.20 His instructing the children of widows to requite their parents 1 Tim. 5.4 His reckoning disobedience to parents amongst the foulest crimes of the Gentiles Rom. 1.30 Than which what more could be said to shew our Saviour's detestation of that crime and his concurrence with the Law and the Prophets in the contrary vertue From the Authority of a Father proceed we to that of a Master and compare the doctrine of the Gospel with the Law of Nature and that of Moses And here indeed is a manifest difference but which is to the advantage of the Gospel for whereas the Law of Moses doth rather suppose obedience to Masters than go about to enjoin it the Gospel is full of precepts to this purpose Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh so S. Paul Eph. 6.5 Servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh so the same Apostle Col. 3.22 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour 1 Tim. 6.1 And exhort servants saith the same person to Titus to be obedient unto their own masters and to please them well in all things Tit. 2.9 To the froward as well as the gentle to the believing master and the infidel with all chearfulness with all simplicity out of a regard to Christ whose will it was they should obey to his Gospel which would be otherwise blasphem'd Lastly if the Law and the Prophets call'd upon the Jews to honour the Fathers of their Countrey as well as the Fathers of Families to fear the Lord and the King to speak no evil of the Ruler of the people to curse him no not in their heart the holy Jesus on the other hand reminds his of giving unto Caesar that which is Caesar's Mat. 22.21 His Apostle S. Peter of fearing God and honouring the King 1 Pet. 2.17 Submitting themselves to every ordinance of man or as the Greek reads it to every humane creature whether supreme or subordinate and not making use of that liberty which Christ hath purchased for a cloak of disobedience Thus in every particular doth our blessed Saviour rather confirm than destroy those Moral Precepts which are deliver'd by Moses and the Prophets And therefore let men pretend what they will upon the account of their faith and Baptism He is no Christian who is not a devout adorer of the Divine Majesty chast and temperate in his converse a dutiful child an obedient servant and a faithful subject to his Prince DISC. IV. That Christ came not to destroy but to fulfil and add to the Law of Moses General proofs hereof from the Sermon upon the Mount where moreover is shewn that the opposition there made by Christ is between his Law and that of Moses The Law of Moses considered as the Common Law of their Nation and in what respects Christ added to it A discourse concerning the same Law as intended for a rule of life where is shewn wherein Christ either did not or did add unto it That the additions Christ made to the Law in that latter notion of it do not entrench upon the esteem either of it or of its Author The allegation of the imperfection of Moses's Law both answered and disproved LET the Libertine and the Antinomian be from henceforth for ever silent they whose Life or Doctrine or both proclaim the ever blessed Jesus to have abrogated the Law and Prophets for beside that instead of justifying that wisdom whose children they pretend to be they shew themselves as forward as any in condemning her giving countenance to that calumny which was sometime fastend on our Saviour by the Jews behold a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber a friend of Publicans and sinners they do directly oppose his own vehement asseveration and doctrine as well as the Law of Moses unless to destroy and not to destroy be one and the same thing or to abrogate the Law and the Prophets and to fulfil But so Hercules in the Fable added to the Serpent Hydra's monstrous heads by going about to take them off each wound he gave it becoming strangely prolifical and two heads starting up where there was one lopt off For setting aside the Ceremonial that shadow of good things to come and which therefore was to vanish at the appearance of the Son of Righteousness all the Law and the Prophets beside have rather received an increase than any diminution by his Doctrine Can any one pretend that he hath abrogated the Law concerning adultery who hath substituted two in its room which are no less dreadful than the former The one forbidding all outward uncleanness the other the adultery of the heart If the Law concerning murther be alledged as destroyed by him he hath forbidden calumnies as well as that the wounds of a malicious Tongue as well as the piercing of a Spear II. Having shewn in the foregoing discourse that our Saviour came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets but on the contrary to confirm and establish them it remains that we shew it to have been his design to fulfil or add to them according as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place so often referr'd to is generally understood by the Antient Fathers the Law in their opinion being
like a picture rudely drawn which our Saviour afterwards finished and gave life and colour to Wherein how far they were from erring and much more from speaking impiously I come now to shew and that both in the lump and the retail 1. My general proof shall be taken from the opposition that our Saviour makes in the fifth Chapter of S. Matthew between his own Doctrine and the Precepts of Moses For if the opposition be between Moses Precepts and Christs then can there be no doubt at all of Christs adding to them because it is certain he requires something more than those Precepts to which he does oppose them As will appear by considering either the Precepts themselves or the opposition that is made I instance for the former in that which we meet with v. 43. of that Chapter For ye have heard saith he that it hath been said Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy But I say unto you Love your enemies bless them that curse you c. For is it not more to love an enemy as well as a neighbour than to love our neighbour only nay is it not a point of greater perfection And if it be doth not Christ add to the former Precept by enjoining us so to do when the other requires only the love of a neighbour Again what opposition can there be between what was said to them of old and that which Christ saith if Christ did not add unto thefor mer especially when in his intrance upon this argument he disclaims the publishing of any thing that might tend to the destruction of it If therefore there be any opposition it must be that the one enjoins somewhat more than the other will be found to do The only thing therefore remaining to show is that Christ makes the opposition between his own Doctrine and that of Moses which accordingly I come now to prove To begin with that which is first in order Ye have heard saith our Saviour that it hath been said to them of old time for so indeed it should be rendred and not as we by them of old the Syriack and other versions so rendring it secondly the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a dative case annex'd to it being ‖ Vid. Rom. 9.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. 6.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever us'd in this sense in the New Testament and thirdly and lastly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render them of old time signifying as much * Vid. Luc. 9.8.19 Act. 15.21 2 Pet. 2.5 Rev. 12.9.20.2 and referring usually to the times of Moses and the Prophets but no where in the New Testament set to signifie Elders Scribes and Pharisees whom some are willing to understand here Ye have heard I say saith our Saviour that it hath been said to them of old time Thou shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment But I say unto you c. For is not the former part of these words Thou shalt not kill the very letter of the sixth Commandment and the latter though not the same in terminis yet in sense with that of Moses Lev. 24.21 where instead of what we read here he that kills shall be in danger of the judgment it is there he that killeth a man shall be put to death Again whose words are those which our Saviour ushers in with the former preface v. 27. of the forequoted Chapter Thou shalt not commit adultery are they not the very letter of the seventh Commandment as the words before recited of the sixth If therefore the opposition here made be between Moses's Law and Christ's if that opposition consists in this that Christ requires more than Moses it is certain that Christ added to the Law of Moses which I shall now prove more particularly 2. In order to which I will first premise a distinction * Vid. Grot. de Jure bell c. lib. 1. c. 2. sect 6. concerning the Law of Moses which I have borrowed from the Most Excellent Grotius For it may be either considered 1. As to that part of it which was the Common Law of their Nation if you will give me leave so to express it and by which their Judges were to proceed or 2. As a Rule of Manners and a measure of Religion I. In the former of these senses the word Law is taken Heb. 2.2 where it is said that every transgression and disobedience to it receiv'd a just recompence of reward that is to say was punish'd by the Judge as the Law it self prescrib'd For in asmuch as many offences against the Law particularly the hating our Brother in our heart and the like were not cognoscible by the Judge and consequently could not receive a just recompence from him it follows that by the Law there spoken of must be meant that part of it which was their Common Law and that by which their Judges were to proceed In like manner when our Saviour saith Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time Thou shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment it is manifest from these last words that by the Law of which this is made a part was meant their Common Law and that by which their Judges were to be directed Now in this sense there is nothing more manifest than that Christ added to it and requir'd a greater piety than the Law of Moses did For 1. First whereas the Law of Moses that part I mean by which their Judges were to proceed looked only at the outward action commanding or forbidding it as it did agree with or swerve from it the Law of Christ that much more Noble one requir'd the obedience of the heart and forbad all impiety there Ths to keep close to the former instances It was said to or by them of old time even by one who was as old as Moses Thou shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment that is to say he shall be liable to be brought before the Judge and by his sentence to receive a just recompence of reward But I say unto you That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment even that wherewith I shall one day judge the world If there be any boyling of malice in the heart if there be a murtherous thought in it or disposition to it at my Tribunal it shall be taken notice of and punished as the act of killing is at yours Again ye have heard that it hath been said by the same Ancient and the Giver of your Law Thou shalt not commit adultery and the man that committeth adultery with another mans wife even he that committeth adultery with his neighbours wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to
death Lev. 20.10 But I say unto you That whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart and that my Law forbids as well as the outward act and shall be both tried and sentenced at my Tribunal If your Law judges no man before it hears him and knows from sufficient witnesses what he hath done which shews that it hath respect to the outward action only if it be made not for the righteous but for the lawless and disobedient for murtherers of fathers and murtherers of mothers for manslayers for whoremongers for them that defile themselves with mankind for men-stealers liars and perjur'd persons that is to say for manifest and open sinners my Law as being a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart reaches to the impieties thereof and censures those seeds of murther and adultery which are there But by this means we may easily avoid the imputation of charging the Law of Moses with imperfection as forbidding only sinful actions and not sinful purposes it being no imperfection at all in the Common Law of the Jewish Nation whereof we now speak to forbid sinful actions only because those who were to give sentence by it could not take cognizance of any other Again 2. Whereas that part of the Law which was the Common Law of the Jewish Nation took notice only of grosser offences such as that of adultery and murther in the mean time permitting others of a lower rank lest too severe a restraint upon them should make them throw the yoke from off their neck the Gospel of our Saviour the Christian Law forbids all deviations whatsoever the smaller aswell as the greater offences They are Christs own words in the 19. verse of the forequoted Chapter For whosoever saith he shall break one of the least of these Commandments he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven They are his sense and meaning in what he opposes to the forementioned instances Our Saviour to that crime of Murther opposing the calling of our Brother Raka or Fool as to that other of Adultery a wanton look or an immodest dalliance which are certainly far inferiour to the other II. I have considered the Law of Moses as to that part of it which was the Common Law of the Jewish Nation and shewn you how our Saviour added to it I come now to speak of the same Law as intended for a rule of manners and as a guide to the Jews in walking with God In which sense it is taken when it is stiled a Law converting the Soul or represented as a means to inherit eternal life Now in this sense it is chiefly that question is made concerning it whether Christ added thereto and wherein that addition consists And first of all 1. Negatively we are not to think that Christ added to it by exacting the obedience of the heart as well as the outward man for that this Law of Moses did no less than the Precepts of our Blessed Saviour And hence as was before intimated it is by the Psalmist said to be a law converting the Soul Psal 19.7 and by S. Paul affirmed to be spiritual Rom. 7.14 yea that if there had been a Law which could have given life the Law of Moses had been it Gal. 3.21 Neither do the Precepts of this Law enforce any thing less than those Elogies which are given of it by David and S. Paul Not the Precepts of Piety or those which taught the Jews their duty toward God For hear O Israel saith the Law the Lord our God is one Lord and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might Deut. 6.5 As in like manner Deut. 10.12 And now Israel what doth the Lord require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God to walk in his ways and to love and serve him with all thy heart and with all thy soul Not the Precepts of Charity for as our Saviour doth here forbid the malice of the heart as well as killing so did this Law also for thou shalt not saith the Law hate thy brother in thy heart nor bear a grudge against the children of thy people Lev. 19.17 18. Lastly not the Precepts of Chastity and Justice as they are couched in the Law and the Prophets For as our Saviour forbids here the adultery of the heart as elsewhere the desire of that which is anothers so do also the Law and the Prophets The words of the Proverbs of Solomon being Thou shalt not lust after the beauty of a strange woman in thy heart Pro. 6.25 Of the Law Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife servant cattel or any thing that is his Exod. 20.17 But as our Saviour added nothing to this Law by calling for the piety of the heart because that did so as well as he so neither Secondly by forbidding lesser as well as greater sins because this Law did no less For thus as our Saviour forbad a wanton look as well as the act of Adultery a slanderous tongue as well as a killing hand so did also the Law and the Prophets For what man is he saith the Psalmist Psal 34.12 that desireth life and loveth many days that he may see good let him keep his tongue from evil And yet more particularly Psal 15.1.3 Lord who shall abide in thy tabernacle who shall dwell in thy holy hill He that backbiteth not with his tongue as well as he that doth no evil to his neighbour he that taketh not up a reproach against him The like severity we may observe in the Proverbs of Solomon against that lustful eye of which our Saviour forewarns us Prov. 6.25 Where to the former caution of not lusting after the strange womans beauty in the heart he adds neither let her take thee with her eye-lids which implies a watchfulness over our own But neither Thirdly doth our Saviour require any new vertue of us which the Law and the Prophets did not before him for the kind I instance in the love of enemies because that seems of all others most peculiar to the Gospel and most opposite to the Precepts of Moses Concerning which for the kind I mean the Law is as express as the Gospel can be supposed to be Thus Exod. 23.4 5. If saith Moses thou meet thine enemies ox or ass going astray thou shalt surely bring it back to him again And if thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burthen and wouldst forbear to help him thou shalt surely help with him For as the Apostle spake in another case Doth God take care for Oxen or Asses or said he it not rather for this even to enjoin them to lay aside their animosities and shew their enemies all acts of benevolence And accordingly Vatablus renders those words in the 5. verse Thou shalt surely help with him by exonerabis asinum cum eo qui te odio habet
and the Chaldee Paraphrast in like manner When thou shalt see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burthen and wouldst forbear to help him thou shalt let go the hatred which is in thy heart against him and shalt lend him thy assistance in the raising him up referring not so much to the kindness which he was to shew to the poor beast though that also was a duty as to that which he was to shew to the owner of it and his own enemy But that of Solomon will put this business out of question because so fully expressive of the love of an enemy that S. Paul himself thought fit to represent it to the Christian Romans when he was intreating of the same argument 'T is in the 25. of the Proverbs verses 21 and 22. If thine enemy hunger give him bread to eat and if he be thirsty give him water to drink For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head and the Lord shall reward thee 2. Having thus shewn wherein the Gospel and the Law agree and consequently wherein we are not to look for any additions let us in the next place enquire what the Gospel hath added to the Law and Prophets wherein it hath fulfilled the Law and them And here 1. I observe first that though our Saviour hath required no new vertues which the Law and the Prophets did not before enjoin yet he hath enjoined us some new instances which under the Law were left free We have one in that Sermon of our Saviour to which I have so often referred and therefore I shall begin with that 'T is in the 5. Chapter of S. Matthew and the 31. verse where he tells us that it hath been said Whosoever shall put away his wife let him give her a writing of divorcement But I say unto you That whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit adultery and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery Wherewith agreeth that of the same Jesus Mat. 19.8 9. where when the Pharisees demanded of him why if God had made the bond so close between man and wife at the first as he had then affirmed Moses did command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away his answer was that Moses for the hardness of their hearts suffered them to put away their wives but from the beginning it was not so neither should be from that time forward for whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery and whoso marrieth her which is put away committeth Adultery From which passages compared together it is manifest that Moses permitted divorces for lesser causes than fornication but that Christ would not allow of any upon a lower cause But not to insist upon this because there is some ground to believe that Moses his permission of divorce was rather such as freed them from punishment in this world than from guilt before God inasmuch as it is only said that Moses suffered them so to do because of the hardness of their hearts though on the other side it may seem strange that God should give so uncontrouled a permission to that which he himself then held as sinful and treasured up against them against the day of wrath But not I say however to insist upon that I shall proceed to the matter of Polygamy or the having of more wives than one which it is certain the Jews were not only permitted but so far dispensed withal also that they might do it without the imputation of a sin the Scripture reckoning multitude of wives to David as a blessing and a gift of God even to that David who was a man after Gods own heart 2 Sam. 12.8 Thus you see it was under the Law even with the allowance of God himself but Christ hath now determined otherwise as is manifest to go no farther from that forequoted text of S. Matthew c. 19.9 where our Saviour tells us that whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery For if it were lawful to have more wives than one his marrying another could not be imputed to him for a sin and much less for Adultery as it is in the text now quoted Let it remain therefore for an undoubted truth That though our Saviour hath required no now vertues yet he hath enjoyned us some new instances and consequently so far added to the Law 2. But beside the enjoining of new instances which yet alone would have justified our Saviours assertion he hath also exacted those vertues in a greater latitude than they will be found to have been under the Law For the evidencing whereof I will instance in the love of enemies as being one of the most eminent vertues of the Gospel And here not to content my self with that of our Saviour Mat. 5.43 44. where having premised after his manner that they had heard it had been said Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy he adds by way of opposition But I say unto you Love your enemies not I say to content my self with that I shall set before you the extent of this Precept under the Gospel and then shew how much the Law falls short of it in its injunctions I begin with the former of these even the extent of this Precept under the Gospel Which I shall not doubt to affirm first to comprehend such enemies as are of a different Religion from us as well as those who are of the same Religion with our selves that is to say the Infidel as well as the Believer the Schismatick as well as the Orthodox professor That the Schismatick is not to be excluded from this Love we have a clear evidence from our Saviour in his behaviour toward the Samaritans and in his explication of that question which was put to him by a Lawyer concerning the importance of the word Neighbour For first when his Disciples would have had him call for fire from Heaven to consume the Samaritans for refusing to give entertainment to them Luke 9.54 he both sharply reproved them for that their suggestion and told them that the son of man was not come to destroy mens lives but to save them even of those that were Separatists from the true Church the Samaritans as well as the Jews for otherwise those words of his had not touched them at all whose present zeal was against such persons only Now if Christ came not to destroy even such mens lives but to save them we cannot deem it any way acceptable to him for us to pray against them and make them the objects of our hatred The same is much more evident from our Saviours answer to that question who is the neighbour we are to love as our selves Luke 10.29 For there he doth both insinuate a Samaritan to be a neighbour and enjoin the Jew to imitate him by shewing
them to put away their wives for a lesser cause Mat. 19.8 In fine the Jews were then but in the state of children as S. Paul tells us Gal. 4.2 they had the weakness and peevishness of children and being such God as was but requisite dealt with them as with children keeping them as that Apostle goes on under the elements of the world and permitting them to think and speak and act as such But now that the world is grown man now that our Blessed Saviour hath brought abundance of Grace and Truth into it giving men more wise and understanding heads more pliant hearts or at least more grace to make them so as it was but reasonable he should raise the standards of obedience and fulfil both the Law and the Prophets so it will be but necessary for us to make our piety answer them and fulfil that Law and the Prophets over again in our conversation DISC. V. Of the measures by which we are to proceed in the interpretation of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments That the Ten Commandments comprehend more in them than is expressed and how we may come to investigate the full importance of them Several rules laid down to direct us in that affair What tyes we have upon us to yield obedience to them above what the Jews to whom they were first given had A comparison between the Israelites deliverance out of Egypt by which their obedience is enforced and our far better deliverance from the bondage of the Ceremonial Law and Sin and Death HAving by way of preparation to our main design entreated of the nature and obligations of the Laws of God and particularly of that Law which we are now about to explain shewing the authority by which it stands the means whereby it comes to oblige us and the pitch to which our Saviour hath raised it it remains only that we enquire what measures we are to proceed by in giving the full importance of the several precepts of it For as when Solomon's Temple was to be built all things were so fitted and prepared before-hand that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the building of it so in every methodical discourse care ought to be taken that the materials be first squared and fitted before we proceed to the rearing of it lest the deferring it till then do not only prove a retarding of it but the noises of axes and hammers disturb and confound us in it Now there are two things within the explication of which the resolution of this question will be comprehended 1. Whether the Ten Commandments comprehend no more in them than is expressed And 2. If they do what those things are which they comprehend I. It is commonly supposed both by Jewish and Christian writers that the Decalogue or Ten Commandments is a summary or abstract of the whole Duty of Man I will not at the first either take so much for granted or attempt the probation of it whatsoever is to be said concerning this particular being best to be learned by a leisurely and gradual procedure It shall suffice now in the entrance of my discourse to affirm that more is comprehended in the Decalogue or Ten Commandments than is expressed in the letter of it For first all that must be supposed to be comprehended in it which is either implyed in it or necessarily deducible from it Thus though the letter of the first Commandment doth directly import no more than the rejecting of false Gods yet inasmuch as God prefaces this prohibition with I am the Lord thy God and the prohibition it self manifestly implies the having of him for our God it is evident that when God saves Thou shalt have no other Gods before me his meaning is as well that we should have him for our God as that we should not have any other God besides Again when the having of any one for our God implies the fearing and loving and honouring him that is so according to his several attributes at the same time he commands us to have him and no other for our God he must be supposed to command also that we should fear and love and honour him and him alone though neither of these be expressed in it But then if the Law be considered not only as proposed by Moses but as illustrated and enlarged by our Saviour in the Sermon on the Mount in which capacity there is no doubt we ought to look upon it because as such a part of the Christian Law so there is no doubt but many things are comprehended in it which are not expressed in the letter of it But because when I shew what things are comprehended in the Ten Commandments beside what is expressed in the letter I shall at the same time shew that something else is therefore superseding any farther proof of that as altogether unnecessary I will proceed to the resolution of the other II. It is commonly supposed and not without reason though that reason be not often made appear that when our Saviour reduceth the Law to those two great Commandments Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self he means that principally of the Law of Moses contained in the Ten Commandments Which if true it will follow 1. That the negative in every Commandment doth include the affirmative and that when God saith Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal and the like his meaning is not only that we should do no injury to our neighbours person or estate but that we should love and do him good in both Now that our Saviour intended those great Commandments Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and Thy neighbour as thy self as an abstract of the Ten Commandments and consequently that what is contained in them is also comprised in the Ten Commandments will appear from Rom. 13.8 9. where S. Paul doth not only affirm love to be the fulfilling of the Law according as his Master had done but particularly of the Ten Commandments For this saith he Thou shalt not commit adultery thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not covet and if there be any other Commandment it is * Verba sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 briefly comprehended in this saying namely Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Now forasmuch as Love is the fulfilling of this Law forasmuch as the several Precepts of it are comprehended in it as in a recapitulation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Significat propriè variarum sum marum in unam collectionem per translationem antè dictorum repetitionem per capita Hammond in Eph. 1.10 or summary that Law of which it is a summary must comprehend love in it and consequently not only forbid the doing of any injury to our neighbour but the doing him all good offices and services There is but one thing of
moment to be opposed to this arguing and that is what followes in the 10. verse Love worketh no ill to his neighbour therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law for if love be the fulfilling of the Law in that it works no ill then may the whole tenour of the Law seem to be comprehended in the not doing of any harm to our neighbour But to this I answer first that when the Apostle saith Love worketh no ill to his neighbour therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law his meaning may be not that love is the fulfilling of the Law meerly because it doth no harm but because of its opposition to all those evils and harms such as Adultery Theft and the like whereby our neighbour is incommodated Love is a stranger to Murther Adultery and Theft and to whatsoever else whereby our neighbour is incommodated and being a stranger to all such practises it doth not only extend it self to this or that Commandment but to all the Commandments of the second Table I say secondly with Esthius that though the Apostle say less yet it was his intention to have more understood even not only that love worketh no ill but that it worketh all good to its neighbour Which beside the usual forms of Speech in Scripture and other books where under negative expressions such as I am not ashamed great boasting is often signified is evident from the verse before For being it is there said not only that the Precepts Thou shalt not kill and the like but if there be any other Commandment it is briefly comprehended in that saying namely Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self and consequently that the command of honouring our Parents is because that is a Precept of the same Decalogue the Law cannot be fulfilled by abstaining meerly from evil because that of Honouring our Parents is more than so When therefore it is here said that love worketh no ill to his Neighbour and therefore is the fulfilling of the Law we are not only to understand that it worketh no ill but that it procureth all the good that can be In the mean time if any deem the positive love of our Neighbour to be the fulfilling of the Law in the same sense in which I have shewn the word fulfil is to be understood in the 5. Chapter of S. Matthew that is to say as an addition made by Christ to it to make up its former wants it will come all to one as to our present purpose For being the subjects of that Christ who hath fulfilled it we are necessarily to look upon the Law in that latitude wherein it is proposed by him and consequently to believe the Commandments of the Decalogue not only to require us to abstain from doing evil but to pursue the contrary good The argument is much more strong from the affirmative to the negative that is to say from the command of any positive duty to the forbidding of the contrary vice For though for instance I may abstain from dishonouring my Parents and yet never give them honour yet I cannot honour and dishonour them at once and therefore that Commandment which enjoins me honour must consequently be thought to forbid all dishonour and contempt Thus far therefore we have already attained toward the importance of the Ten Commandments that though some of them and those the most seem satisfied with abstaining from evil and others with the sole pursuing of good yet both the one and the other are to be understood as obliging to both to eschew that which is evil and to follow after that which is good and vertuous 2. The second thing observable concerning the Ten Commandments is that though the grosser sort of sins only be there expresly forbidden such as Adultery Murther and the like yet under them are contained also all the lesser ones of the same species Thus for example Though the Decalogue take notice only of Murther and Adultery in the sins of Malice and Unchastity yet considering those Precepts as proposed by Christ in which capacity there is no doubt all Christians are to look upon them so we are to understand all sins of the same kind to be included how much soever inferiour to the other For I say unto you saith our Saviour that whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart Mat. 5.28 And again not only that he who kills his Brother but that whosoever is angry without a cause especially if he proceed to reproachful language shall be in danger of the same judgment to which the murtherer is obnoxious v. 22. of the same Chapter And indeed though there appear not any clear indications in the Commandments themselves of their descending to those lesser sins yet forasmuch as we find the Tenth Commandment descending so low as to forbid the very roveting that which is another man's and again the other parts of the Law and the Prophets forbidding the lower degrees of unchastity and malice as hath been before shewn there is reason enough to believe those lower degrees were intended to be forbidden by it as well as the higher ones For the other parts of the Law and the Prophets being but as Comments upon the Decalogue as appears by Gods laying that as the foundation of all the rest and its own containing in it the general heads of our obedience whatsoever is forbidden by the other parts of the Law and the Prophets must be supposed to be included in those grosser fins of the same kind which the Decalogue takes notice of 3. The third thing observable concerning the Ten Commandments is that though all of them except the last take no notice of any other than the outward actions yet the actions of the inward man or the heart are no less comprised in the several Precepts and Prohibitions of it For beside that as was before said the Law of God is by the Psalmist said to be a law converting the soul Psal 17.9 and by S. Paul term'd spiritual Rom. 7.14 That first and great Commandment in which all our duty to God is comprehended is expressed by our loving God with all our heart and soul as well as with all our might and strength Mat. 22.38 And though the second be not expressed in like manner to wit that of loving our Neighbours as our selves yet as the affection of the heart is manifestly included in the word love which is the proper act of it so the Law is express that we should not hate our brother in our heart nor bear a grudge against the children of our people But because this argument hath been sufficiently exemplified in the several Precepts of the Decalogue I will proceed to my 4. Rule which is That not only the sins here mentioned are forbidden but all those things that lead to them as on the other side not only that the duties there expressed are under command but all those means that naturally tend
him for their Governour who was so advanc'd to it And upon this account it is that the Powers St. Paul spake of became legitimate and the Christians were so earnestly exhorted to submit themselves to them Because though the Authority of those Powers were founded in Violence yet it was submitted to and accepted * Justinianus in Instit lib 1. tit 2. Sed quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem quum lege Regia quae de ejus imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne imperium suum potestatem concedat Vid. Strabonem in fine Operis cit à Grotio in Flor. sparsione ad Jus Justinianeum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Senate and People of Rome who were both the Governed and Governours In which Case as there could not be any pretence for any other Powers to interpose so God Almighty sufficiently intimated his Pleasure concerning the Roman Emperours by not onely suffering them to rise to that Creatness but by moving the Hearts of the Senate and People quietly to submit to and own them as their Lords and Governours 2. Having thus shewn that there is in Princes a just Foundation of Honour and moreover describ'd at large what are the proper Grounds of it my proposed Method leads me to inquire what Kinds of Honour we are to give them which we shall find to be much the same though in a greater degree than that of Parents Of this nature is I. The entertaining an awful Apprehension of them and regarding them in our Thoughts both as God's Vicegerents and of his Appointment For the very Life of Honour consisting in our Inward Esteem of those whom we pretend to honour it is in reason to be given to those who are a kind of Gods on Earth and appointed as the Representatives of the onely True and Immortal One. The same is no less evident from the Influence which the want of it is apt to have upon our Outward Actions For it being impossible for Men to give the best and chiefest Expressions of Honour where there is not a due Apprehension of the Excellencies of the Party honoured where such an Esteem is wanting those Outward Expressions will naturally fail and consequently our Honour together with it For though a Man may bow down before or speak with submission to those whom he honours not in his Heart yet it is impossible he should submit his Actions to be guided by their Laws which I shall afterwards shew to be a great part of the Honour that is requir'd II. From our Inward Esteem pass we to the several Acknowledgments which the Honouring of any Person doth manifestly involve among which I reckon first the honouring them with our Outward Gesture and Behaviour Bowing down to them or falling down before them For as Nature it self hath prompted us to such an Acknowledgment because inclining us to shew forth in the Behaviour of our Bodies Vid. Part 2. of the Explic. of this Commandment those Affections and Passions we have within so where the Custom of the Place hath made them necessary they cannot be omitted without a manifest violation of their Honour it being impossible for him to think himself honour'd who wants those Expressions of it which the Custom of the Place and of the World hath appointed as Declarations of it Whence it is as was before observ'd that we find all Good Men have ever given it and that too in such Instances as would be look'd upon by us as Notes of Servitude witness one for all their falling flat upon their Faces before them and thereby in a manner professing themselves their Footstools Next to the honouring them with our Gesture proceed we to the honouring them with our Tongues and giving them those Titles which their High Place and Authority doth exact Which is the rather to be inculcated as because the Tongue was given us to express our inward Conceits so because we find the Apostles thus honouring even the Heathen Powers and such by whom they were at that very instant call'd in question For thus when St. Paul answered for himself before King Agrippa and Festus he did not onely give Agrippa frequently the Title of King as you may see in the 26 Chapter of the Acts but when Festus told him he was beside himself which had been enough to have stirr'd an ordinary Patience yet gave him the Title of most Noble Festus as you may see vers 25. of that Chapter But from hence we may collect I do not say what is to be thought of those who omit such Acknowledgments but in stead thereof employ their Tongues to defame and to disgrace them For if we are to honour Princes with our Tongues to be sure we are not to revile them as being directly contrary to the other And accordingly as in the Law of Moses which to be sure was so far Moral because containing no other thing in it than what the Light of Nature doth confirm as I say in the Law of Moses Men were expresly forbidden to revile the Gods or speak evil of the Ruler of the People Exod. 22.28 so that it was of force to St. Paul when converted and consequently to us Christians his Acknowledgment before the Jewish Sanhedrim shews For having been charg'd by the Jews for calling the High Priest Whited wall in stead of going about to excuse the Fact any other way than that it was done through inadvertency he acknowledges it for a Fault as being committed against that known Rule Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy People Acts 23.5 Which Passage is the more to be remark'd because it shews the Prohibition to extend not onely to Calumnies or unjust Reproaches but also to the speaking reproachfully even of the real Failings of our Governours there being no doubt he was no better than a Whited wall who pretending to judge according to the Law did in contradiction to that Law cause an undeserving Person to be stricken Neither let any Man say That these are trifling Matters or at least not so criminal as we have endeavour'd to represent them For beside that we are not lightly to esteem of any thing which God hath thought fit to make the Matter of a Prohibition and much less of what he hath so in relation to those to whom he hath given the Name of Gods and moreover imparted to them of his own Authority beside that the speaking evil of Princes is apt to expose them to contempt as that Contempt to the resisting of them which St. Paul hath pronounc'd to be damnable beside these things I say St. Jude hath represented it as the Character of those Ungodly ones which he placeth in the same Rank with the Apostate Angels and filthy Sodomites For likewise also saith he vers 8. these filthy dreamers defile the flesh despise dominion and speak evil of dignities adding vers 9. which shews yet more the hainousness of the Crime That Michael the
Matthew chap. 19.12 where we have it from our Saviour himself in that very Chapter where he inculcates the Institution of Marriage That as there are some Persons who are incapacitated for it by Nature and others who have been made so by Men so there are some who for the Kingdom of God's sake have abridg'd themselves of the use of it and those that can receive it permitted by our Saviour to do it When therefore the Question is concerning the Institution of Marriage it is requisite we understand it with relation not to all Persons whatsoever but to those who intend such a Cohabitation with the other Sex as Marriage doth naturally involve Now that Marriage so understood is of Divine Institution and all other Cohabitations unlawful will appear if we consider either that Cohabitation we have affirm'd it to covenant for or the Covenant it self For it being evident from the Book of Genesis that God at the beginning made Male and Female for each others mutual help and the propagation of Children by them and it being further evident both from the Words of the Institution and our Saviour's Explication of it in the place before-quoted that God intended not either a promiscuous or desultory Enjoyment of each other but of * Mat. 19.4 5. certain Persons and such to which they should be oblig'd to cleave it being evident thirdly from our Saviour that that Adhesion is to be understood not of one to more Persons but of one to one because he afterwards subjoyns ‖ Mat. 19.5 And they twain shall be one flesh lastly it being evident that our Saviour doth not onely not rescind that first Institution but confirm it †Mat. 19.4.8 c. and bind it upon the necks of his Disciples it will follow That the individual Cohabitation of a Man with a Woman for the purposes before spoken of is so of Divine Institution that all others are utterly unlawful Again Forasmuch as both the Scripture * Pro. 2.17 Mal. 2.14 every where supposeth in Marriage the entring into covenant concerning it and that Adhesion which Marriage involves requires it there being no assurance to either Party of so long a Cohabitation if they did not bind themselves to it by promise it is but just to suppose however not express'd in the Institution that the same God who instituted such a Cohabitation did also appoint their entring into Covenant for it to give each other an assurance of it Which Particular is the rather to be added lest as the Fashion is now adays Men should think it enough to assume a Mate with intention it may be if all things answer their expectation to adhere to her during Life but without any Obligation upon themselves to do it For though such an Adhesion should happen to continue yet inasmuch as it is without any Tie upon the Parties it can be none of that which is appointed and is rather a long Fornication than a Marriage 3. Of the Importance and Institution of Marriage I have spoken hitherto and both shewn what it is and that it hath God for the Author of it it remains that we enquire by what Laws it is to be govern'd which after the explication of the former will be so much the more easie to resolve In order whereunto I will enquire 1. What is requir'd to the due contracting of it 2. What is requisite to the maintaining of it when it is so And 3. Lastly Whether or no and by what means it may be dissolv'd I. Now there are two things within the resolution whereof all that is necessary to be known concerning the first of these may be comprehended 1. What Persons may contract Matrimony 2. What is requisite to a legitimate contracting of it where there is no irregularity in the Persons And here in the first place I shall not scruple to affirm that to make the Marriage lawful in respect of the Persons it ought to be not between one and more whether Males or Females but between one Male and one Female For beside that that Law which enjoins the cleaving to the Married party implies it to be the cleaving of one to one because affirming not in the general that the Married parties shall be one flesh but they twain shall be one flesh beside that the assuming of another Husband or Wife to the former must divide that Unity and make him or her that Contracts a new Relation to separate in part from the former whereby they can no longer be one flesh but more our Saviour in the close of his Discourse concerning the Institution of Marriage adds such an assertion as shews evidently the unlawfulness of Marrying more than one That I mean which saith that whosoever shall put away his Wife except it be for Fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery and who so marrieth her that is put away committeth Adultery Mat. 19.9 For how could it be Adultery in him who put away his Wife to marry another if it were lawful to assume another to her even before she was so but what shadow of Adultery in him who should only marry her that was so put away That being not to be look'd upon as a violation of Marriage and consequently not Adultery which might be done even when the Marriage was entire To all which if we add that of St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.4 that the Wife hath not power over her own body but the Husband nor again the Husband over his but the Wife so the marrying of more than one will appear yet more unlawful For it being not ordinarily to be thought that either the Wife or the Husband will consent to the admission of a Copartner it must upon that account be look'd upon as unlawful to assume a new Relation because beside those persons consent who have the power over them And indeed so clear is the Divine Institution for the marrying of only one especially after our Saviours explication of it that I perswade my self there had not arisen the least scruple concerning it were it not that we find Polygamy frequently practised by the Fathers of the Old Testament and which is more multitude of Wives reckon'd to David as a blessing But beside that in the infancy of the world such a practice might be more allowable because necessary to the peopling of it beside that God might dispense with his own Institution afterwards if not for the hardness of mens hearts as he did in the matter of Divorce yet in regard to that infancy of Grace which was under the paedagogy of the Law the question is not whether polygamy were sometimes lawful which I for mine own part do not in the least doubt of but whether or no it were lawful by the first Institution of Marriage and whether it be at all lawful now The contrary of both which as I have already demonstrated both from the words of the Institution and those of our Blessed Saviour so having done that the former
faith if corroborated by the continuance of some Ages but how many must be left to the Laws of the Place or the Law of Nations to determine may give the Possessor a Right or Property in them As because otherwise there would be little Security to the Consciences of Possessors considering the great and violent Alterations that have hapned in all States and Kingdoms For Majorum primus quisquis fuit ille tuorum Aut pastor fuit aut illud quod dicere nolo so also because there would otherwise arise endless Controversies about Possessions both which Inconveniences it is to be suppos'd the God of Peace and Order hath provided against To all which we may adde That as it is God who sets up one and pulleth down another so it is in reason to be presum'd to be his Will to keep both the one and the other in their several Conditions when he gives him whom he hath advanc'd so long a continuance in his Station and suffers not the other in all that while to be able to remove him from it From the Possessor of any thing pass we to the Expectant of it and inquire by what means he may come to have the Property of it In order whereunto I say first That it must be ordinarily by the Act of the present Possessor of it For the Possessor of any Estate acquiring thereby a Property in it that is to say a Right whereby the thing possess'd is so his as not to be common to him with others it is necessary to its becoming the Right and Property of another that he who hath the present Property transfer that Property of his unto the other whether it be by Gift as all Deeds and Legacies or by Contract whether explicit or implicit the former whereof is when Men either sell or mortgage their Property for a Valuable Consideration the latter when they oblige themselves to an Act as for example to the Payment of a certain Sum of Money which is not to be attain'd without the Alienation of the other either in whole or in part he who so obligeth himself because otherwise the Obligation would be null tacitely contracting to part with so much of his Property as will satisfie the Obligation he hath taken upon him Ordinarily therefore no Man can acquire the Right and Property of another without the Act of the Possessor of it But as it may sometime happen that the Party may pass out of this World without making any such Act in which case it doth not onely cease to be his but naturally falls to the next of Kin it being to be presum'd that it was the will of the Person dying to have it so as being most oblig'd to gratifie them so it may also happen as I shall afterwards shew that the Party may by some Misdemeanour forfeit that Property of his to the State of which he is both a Member and a Subject In which Case though without yea against his present will the Property of the Delinquent may accrue to the State and by it be either preserv'd in its own power or pass'd over to another This onely would be added That even such a Translation cannot be said to be altogether without the will of the Person that offends For every Man either expresly or tacitely binding himself to submit to the Penalty of the Laws of that State of which he professeth himself to be a Subject doth eo nomine where the Penalty is the Forfeiture of his Property consent to the transferring of it and consequently makes it the Property of another 5. Having thus shewn as well that there is such a thing as Property as by what means it was at first Instituted or comes now to be acquir'd I think it not amiss for the clearing both of the one and the other to examine those things which have been alledg'd against the Being of Property at least under the Times of the Gospel or for the establishing it upon other Principles There are who supersicially considering that place in the Acts of the Apostles where it 's said that the multitude of those that believ'd were not onely of one heart but had all things common have from thence made bold to conclude That the Law of Christianity obligeth all Believers to have all things common among themselves In answer to which not to tell you that Example is no Law and consequently that the Practice of those first Believers doth not induce an Obligation as neither though I might that what may be of force in a Society which is but yet in its beginning ought not to be drawn into example in a setled one I shall chuse rather to alledge a Passage in the same place which shews this Community of theirs to have been the Result of their own free will and not of necessary Obligation That I mean which was uttered by St. Peter to Ananias who sold his Possessions upon a pretence to make them common to other Believers For St. Peter demanding Acts 4.5 Whilst it remained was it not thine own and after it was sold was it not in thine own power plainly shews that Christianity did not oblige them to renounce their Properties but that they might if they had so pleas'd for any thing in Christianity to the contrary have kept their Lands as they were or after they had sold them kept the Prices of them But because that Dust which hath been rais'd in this Argument doth not arise so much from the questioning of a Property as from the proper Bases upon which it ought to be established I will without more ado apply my self to consider of two Hypotheses which have been set up in opposition to my own whereof the former founds Dominion in Power the latter in Grace and Piety As to the former of these much need not be said because it doth not onely proceed upon the supposition of such a Community as never was but doth farther suppose Men at liberty to seise upon what they please without consideration had of those that have the same Interest Which is not onely contrary to that Love and Affection which the Sons of Men ought to have for one another as the Product of the same Common Stock but destructive of that very Community which it supposes For if all Men have an equal Right to all Things they are in reason to take such a course for the accommodation of Affairs between them that all Men may have their due proportion which must be by permitting the Determination to the Judgment of the major part or to the more impartial Arbitrement of a Lot Otherwise they do not onely challenge an equal Right with other Men but suppose their own to be the best which destroys that Community which they suppose And though it should so happen as in such a Community no doubt it may that a Man should be constrain'd by force to assert his own Proportion yet as Reason and Nature forbids the use of such a Remedy till