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
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
every Beast will I require it and at the hand of Man and at the hand of every Mans Brother will I require the Life of Man And though after the Law of God we need not make any farther Inquisition because we know all such not to have been without just Grounds yet I think it not amiss to add if it were onely for its affinity thereto a like Law * See Hales Sermon of Duels p. 82. of his Remains of the Commonwealth of Athens the purport whereof was That if onely a Wall had by chance fallen down and kill'd a Man the Judges of that place were to sit upon and arraign it and upon conviction throw the Stones thereof out of the Country By which procedure of theirs as they gave sufficient testimony how sacred a thing they esteem'd the Life of Man to be so when we have a more convincing testimony from the Laws of God we must be strangely unreasonable if we allow our selves in offering violence to it THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not commit adultery PART I. The Contents The Crime here forbidden the Violation of the Marriage-bed for which cause as well as for the discovery of the Affirmative part of the Commandment inquiry is made into the Importance Institution and Laws of Marriage That defin'd to be A Compact between a Man and a Woman of Cohabitation during Life for the comfort of Society and the propagation of Children And inquiry thereupon made Whether it be of Divine Institution This resolv'd by considering that Institution either with reference to all that are of years to enter into that State or to such onely as intend a Cohabitation with the Female Sex In the former of which respects is made appear That though in the Infant-state of the World it was of universal concernment yet it is not now as because there is not now the same reason for it so because our Saviour hath declar'd our absolution from it In the latter is shewn That it originally was and now is of universal Obligation as is evidenc'd at large in every Branch of its Definition Inquiry is next made into the Laws of Marriage and particularly into such as respect the due contracting of it Where is shewn first in respect of the Persons contracting That the Marriage ought to be between one Male and one Female and the Polygamy of the Patriarchs answered That it ought to be between those who are not too near of kin where the Degrees prohibiting Marriage and the Grounds of that Prohibition are declar'd That the Persons contracting be of years sufficient to understand the Nature of it of ability of Body where there is a desire and expectation of Children and free and unconstrained in their Choice In fine That they be so far at least of one Perswasion in Religion that they may joyn both in Private and Publick Prayers the general necessity whereof is at large exemplified and demonstrated A Consideration of those Laws that respect the Contract it self where is shewn That it ought to be made before one or more Witnesses and agreeably to the Constitutions of Church and State That it is at least highly expedient that it be solemnized by a Priest and with such significant Actions as the joyning of Hands and the like THE Persons of Men being secur'd by the former Precept from the attaque of greater and lesser Violences Reason would that this Law of Love should proceed to secure them from any Injury in those who are joyned to them by Marriage because as in reputation of Law they are one with them so they are naturally tender'd by them as themselves In conformity whereto as we find the Decalogne proceeding because subjoyning the Prohibition of Adultery to that of Murther bearing witness thereby to its Author's Prudence in the disposition as well as in the framing of his Laws so having observ'd so much to you I will descend to the consideration of that Precept which intends the securing of us in those our other selves In order whereunto because that Crime which it forbids is nothing else than a Violation of the Matrimonial Vow I will 1. First of all entreat of the Importance Institution and Laws of Marriage which will discover to us the Affirmative part of the Precept 2. Shew the Nature and Criminalness of Adultery And 3. Lastly inquire Whether any other Sins are included in the Prohibition of Adultery and what those Sins are 1. Of the Importance of Marriage much need not be said at least as to that sense wherein we are to take it in this whole Discourse the general Notion of Marriage as well as our own private one being That it is a Compact between a Man and a Woman of Cohabitation during Life for the comfort of Society and the Propagation of Children The onely thing which will require any large Explication is Whether such a Compact be of Divine Institution and by what Laws it ought to be govern'd 2. For the resolution of the former whereof these two things must be again inquir'd into because alike comprehended in it 1. Whether or no it be of Divine Institution for all Persons to enter into it which are arriv'd to years of maturity Or 2. If not Whether it be of Divine Institution for them who intend any such Cohabitation with those of the other Sex In the handling of both which as in like manner of all that follows I will use all the cleanness of Expression imaginable as judging it ill becoming those who perswade Purity to other Men to offend against it in their own Discourses concerning it I begin with the first of the Questions propos'd to wit Whether or no it be of Divine Institution for all Persons to enter into Marriage which are arriv'd to years of maturity Which Question I the rather put as because the Jews * Vid. Selden de Jure nat Gent. l. 5. c. 3. were generally perswaded that Marriage was of universal obligation so also because that Perswasion of theirs was not without some colour even from the Scripture it self he who made them Male and Female bidding them be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it And indeed if we inquire concerning the Infant-state of the World and before it came to be Peopled as it is so no doubt can remain but Marriage was under command to those who were in a capacity to enter into it because otherwise they should have frustrated the Design of God who propos'd by that means not onely to continue a Succession of Men but to diffuse the Race of them throughout the World that they might enjoy those Blessings wherewith his most liberal Hand had furnish'd it But as there is not the same reason now that the World is Peopled and there are enough that have espous'd that State to continue the Succession of it so that it is not at present of universal obligation whatsoever it before was is evident from that of St.
there appears not any reason why if Fornication be a just ground of dissolving the Marriage it should not also leave a liberty of a second Marriage after the dissolution of the former beside that Divorces both among the Jews and Heathen were ever understood to have this effect and therefore in reason to be so taken by our Saviour unless he had otherwise declar'd himself to have intended we may as well question by the words of our Lord whether Fornication be a just ground of the dissolution of the former Marriage as whether it makes way for a second For arguing the unlawfulness of Divorces except where they are for Fornication from the Adultery which a second Marriage involves the Parties in he plainly implieth liberty of Marriage to be a proper consequent of Divorce and consequently that where the Divorce is lawful as it is for Fornication by the words of our Lord the after Marriage also is And though there be not as much reason for the liberty of the offending Party because it is by their fault that the former Contract was rescinded yet as it is evident that among the Jews both Parties were at liberty to Marry after a Divorce had pass'd so I see not how by the Law of our Lord the knot of Wedlock can be ty'd to the one Party though the offending one and loose unto the other the offending Party after a Divorce being no more to look upon the other as a Husband or a Wife than the innocent Husband or Wife is upon the offending one as either This only would be added That though it be not unlawful by the Law of our Lord for the Divorced Parties to Marry and much less for the innocent one yet is the liberty of Marrying again of such dangerous consequence in respect of the Collusion that may be between the Parties where oftentimes they are alike weary of each other that our Church hath thought fit to take sufficient Bond of them before Divorce that neither of them should Marry again whilst the other lives But whatever be the effect of a Divorce for Fornication which is not so well agreed upon among Divines most certain it is which is a thing that would be added to the former Considerations that not the Parties themselves but they who are entrusted with the Authority of God in Affairs of this nature are to pronounce the Divorce between them partly because it is God that join'd them together and partly because neither together nor apart are they competent persons to make that separation between themselves It being not impossible where the separation is desir'd by one only Party for that Party to pretend Adultery in the other when there is no such thing as where it is desired by both Parties to agree together to offend that so they may have the liberty to espouse new and more desired loves But because the Question is not so much concerning a Divorce for Fornication together with its effect or pronouncer as whether there be any other just ground of the dissolution of Marriage therefore proceed we in the second place to make that also the subject of our enquiry or rather to shew that there is not any just ground of doubting in it In order whereunto the first thing I shall represent is that though among the Jews there were a greater liberty as to this matter by the permission of God himself yet even there as appears from * Deut. 24.1 Deuteronomy a Divorce was not allowable save where there was some Vncleanness in the Party Divorc'd For how is it possible to think that Christ who pretends to so much more strictness in this matter than Moses did should allow of a Divorce for less than Fornication when even Divorces among the Jews were not allowable save where some kind of turpitude preceeded I observe secondly that as there is reason to believe both from the purport of Moses Law and our Saviours setting his own above it that less than Fornication cannot be look'd upon as a ground of Divorce so our Saviour in the place before quoted hath proscrib'd all other causes save that of Fornication only So that to make it out that there are other allowable causes of Divorce it must be said either that the Greek word is not rightly rendred Fornication or that other sins are included in or deducible from it But beside that the proper notion of the Greek word is no other than Fornication as that imports the highest act of Uncleanness and consequently where it is in a Married Person that which we call Adultery See Hammond's Six Queries and particularly that concerning Divorces beside that the Christian Church have ever so understood it here even by the confession of those who have endeavour'd to oppugn it where it is taken otherwise as I deny not but it sometimes is it either imports that which is above it as unnatural Lusts or is taken not strictly but metaphorically the former whereof as it will not at all avail those who would find out some lower Causes of Divorces so it is not to be imagin'd that the latter should be of any force here because our Saviour is discoursing of a Man's putting away his Wife for the Ground whereof it is certainly more proper to assign a literal Fornication as being an express Violation of the Marriage-Vow than that which is but metaphorical and consequently of less affinity with it All therefore that remains to be said toward the evacuating the force of our Saviour's Testimony is That other Sins are to be suppos'd to be included in it or deducible from it it being not unusual for one thing onely to be nam'd where others are intended to be understood And indeed if they who thus argue mean no other than Sins of the same kind and such too as are of as foul or fouler a nature than Fornication so I think they should say nothing but what the Text it self would well bear and the Suffrage of Reason warrant For as a better Reason cannot be rendred of our Saviour's making use of the Word Fornication in stead of Adultery which is otherwise more proper than that he intended under that name to comprehend unnatural Lusts as well as the Act of Adultery so Reason requires the looking upon such Sins rather as a ground of Divorce which are not onely of the same kind but of a much more criminal nature than the other But as the same is not to be said of lesser Sins though of the same Species because it was manifestly our Saviour's Design to set his Law above that of Moses which allow'd not of Divorces where lesser Uncleannesses preceded not so much less is it to be said of Sins of another Species though no way inferiour in guilt to Fornication because God by whom the Married Parties are joyn'd and who hath commanded not to separate them without his leave hath both in the Old Law and New restrain'd the making of Divorces to greater or
kill the Adulteress in the Act of her Uncleanness and not to stay for the Formalities of Justice to wreck his Revenge upon her lastly as by the Jewish Law Capital Punishment was adjudg'd to it and both the Adulterer and the Adulteress commanded to be put to death Deut. 22.22 so Christianity though in another way hath shew'd it self as severe against it and those who are the Committers of it St. Paul having in more places †1 Cor. 6.9 c. Gal. 5.21 than one reckon'd it among those Sins which they who do shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Which however to the generality of Men it may appear a light Censure because they rarely consider any thing which is not expos'd to their Eye or Touch yet as it cannot but be otherwise thought of by those who have a Prospect of the World to come and that Eternity of Weal or Woe which it infers so the Adulterer and the Adulteress will be forced to confess it when they shall not onely find themselves shut out of that Kingdom but which follows necessarily upon the former have their unhallow'd Fires punish'd with a more scorching and continual one PART IV. Of the Sins that are included in that which is here expresty forbidden which are shewn to be All preternatural Lusts as being alike or rather more contrary to the Institution of Marriage All Incestuous Mixtures the unlawfulness whereof is further declar'd The defiling of a Person betrothed Simple Fornication and Concubinacy the unlawfulness of the former whereof is evidenced from its contrariety to the Institution of Marriage and to the Positive Laws of God both in the Old and New Testament And in fine All Excesses even in Lawful Mixtures The like unlawfulness even by the force of this Commandment evinced in lesser Vncleannesses and in the Incentives either to those or greater ones Of the former of which sort are The unclean Desires of the Heart All such Looks Gestures or Touches as result from them as also All unclean Communications Where moreover is shewn against Tully and the Stoicks that there are such Expressions as are really dishonest and their Objection against it propos'd and answered Of the latter sort are Sloth and Ease Luxury or Excess in Meat and Drink Converse with Persons of loose or immodest Behaviour and in fine the reading of loose Books listning to impure Songs or resorting to offensive Plays Whereunto is subjoyn'd as an Antidote against the â—emptations to Vncleanness the rather fleeing from the consideration of them than going about to combate with them â—â— and the setting before our Minds the excellency of the Pleasures of the Mind above those of the Flesh or Body IT being impossible on the one hand to discharge that Duty we owe to God without marking out all those Sins which this as well as the other Commandments doth forbid and it being little less than impossible on the other to enter into a just Discourse concerning them without leaving some kind of Pollution upon the Minds of those to whom it is directed I have thought it the most prudent as well as most pious way of procedure to hold a middle course and neither be altogether silent concerning them nor very particular in the handling of them Which perswasion I am the more confirm'd in as because Men may with less danger to the Publick fetch the Resolution of extraordinary Cases from the Mouth of those of whom they are commanded to seek the Law so because what is generally necessary to be known concerning the Vices here forbidden may be easily inferr'd from what we have before said concerning the Nature Institution and Laws of Marriage For if the Divine Laws do not onely set Bounds to the Enjoyments of Marriage but proscribe all Enjoyments out of it all those must be look'd upon as unlawful which shall be found to be without it or to pass those Bounds in it which the Divine Majesty hath set Besides having not onely entreated at large of the Nature Institution and Laws of Marriage but as occasion offer'd it self pointed out also several of the Violations of them I have left little else for my self to do than to make a more exact and orderly enumeration and to add such farther Arguments against the Sins it forbids as were not before taken notice of by me III. Having snewn at large in my last the Nature and Criminalness of Adultery to which I know nothing to add unless what was then also insinuated that Adultery hath place not onely where the Marriage which is violated continues undissolv'd but also where it is dissolv'd for a less cause than Fornication it remains that we inquire Whether any other Sins are included in the Prohibition of Adultery and what those Sins are Of the former part of this Quaerie much need not be said after what hath been produc'd to shew the Comprehensiveness of the Decalogue in the general For it being evident from a former Discourse that the Decalogue or Law of the Ten Commandments was intended as a Summary of the several particular Laws set down in the Book of God as Philo * De Decalogo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also hath observ'd we are in reason to understand the Prohibition of Adultery to include in it all such Sins as are of the same kind with it or leading to it The onely thing which it will concern us to inquire is What those Sins are which therefore I come now to investigate 1. And here in the first place I shall not doubt to reckon as included the prohibition of all preternatural Lusts such I mean as are transacted between a Man and a Beast or between those of the same Sex For beside that God hath provided against these by special Laws and not onely so but condemn'd the respective Offenders to suffer death as you may see Lev. 20.30 c. beside that before the Law he made Sodom and Gomorrha a desolation for thus following after strange flesh and that too as St. Jude hath observ'd to deter us by their example ver 7. of that Epistle the unlawfulness or rather prodigiousness thereof is sufficiently evident from the Institution of Marriage and the prohibition of that violation of it which is now before us For God having not onely at first appointed Man and Woman to be Associates to each other but forbidden also the adhering to any other Person than those which we have joyn'd our selves to in Marriage he must consequently be thought much more to forbid because more contrary to his own Institution the defiling of our selves either with other Creatures or those of our own Sex But because God be thanked how depraved soever we are in other Particulars such Crimes as these are rarely heard of among us it shall suffice me to represent that of St. Paul to the Romans where he censures such Extravagances as these as vile and unnatural and such as God suffered the Heathen to fall into as a just Punishment of
perhaps it may be that many of those execrations relate to the enemies of Christ particularly those last mentioned For beside that it is evident enough from the Psalms themselves that they were also designed against Davids enemies the story of the Gospel shews that our blessed Saviour who ought rather to be our pattern prayed even for those very enemies for those that gave him gall to eat and vinegar to drink His own words as S. Luke tells us being Father forgive them for they know not what they do Luke 23.34 In conformity to which example as no doubt we ought to proceed who are so often required to set it before our eyes so if we take a view of his Precepts we shall find them to injoin us the same tenderness wherein he went before us by his example Thus Mat. 5.44 we have his own express command to bless those that curse us his Apostle S. Paul's Rom. 12.14 that we should bless and curse not Lastly thus we find him himself checking his Disciples for having a desire to imitate Elias his zeal in calling for fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans and moreover insinuating to them that the Spirit of a Disciple ought to be far different from that of Elias Luke 9.55 And accordingly saving that Prayer of S. Paul concerning Alexander the Coppersmith The Lord reward him according to his works 2 Tim. 4.14 and that other of S. Peter's concerning Simon Magus That his money might perish with him Act. 8.20 which yet he seems afterwards to recal when he admonishes him to repent and pray to God if perhaps that thought of his heart might be forgiven him saving I say those prayers the former whereof was against one who had greatly withstood S. Paul's preaching the later against him who offer'd the Apostles money for the Holy Ghost I think we shall hardly meet with any of that nature throughout the whole New Testament Which is to me an evident argument that the loving of enemies and praying for them that curse is at least required of us in a greater degree than it was under the Law But not to confine my self to this single vertue when there is appearance enough that the like is required in all I shall desire any man that doubts of it to consider with me these 3. things 1. That the Precepts of Christ are much more clear and explicit than those of Moses 2. That the promises are more clearly proposed and 3. and lastly That God hath eased us of the yoke of the Ceremonial Law Of the first of these as there cannot well be made a doubt by any that shall compare the Law and the Gospel together so neither hath it I think been actually done by any and therefore instead of insisting upon the proof of it I shall make this inference from it that God exacts of us a more perfect conformity than he required of those under the Old Testament For as the publication of a Law makes it obligatory to those to whom that publication is made so consequently the more clear the publication is the greater the obligation must be Of the second particular there can yet less doubt be made even of the promises of the Gospel being more clearly proposed by it it being harder to find that there were any such then than any so clear and express And therefore as the Socinians do now generally deny it so we find the like to have been done by the Sadducees of old wherein though it is true they have erred and that grosly yet some of the texts they alledge do sufficiently prove that there is a clearer manifestation of them than before Witness that known affirmation of S. Paul 2 Tim. 1.10 where speaking of the Gospel he tells us that it is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ who hath abolished death and brought life and immortality to light by it In fine the same S. Paul tells us 2 Cor. 3. that there was a veil upon Moses writings as well as there sometime was upon his face but that that veil is done away in Christ and we may now with open face behold the Glory of the Lord and that Glory which he hath laid up for us Now if the promises of the Gospel as well as the Precepts thereof were more clear than those of Moses the motives to obedience as well as the rule of it our conformity thereto is in reason to be proportionably greater than that to which the Jews were tyed To all which if we add that God hath now eased us of the yoke of the Ceremonial Law which the Jews though they were not able to bear yet were forced to stand under so no doubt can remain of a stricter obligation upon us to those most excellent Precepts of the Moral gratitude it self requiring that we who are eased of a heavy yoke should the more quietly submit our necks to a light and gracious one Now though what hath been said doth sufficiently evidence that Christ came not to destroy but fulfil the Law and the Prophets in the most proper notion of the word yet because it hath been thought by some that the granting of that would inferr the Law of Moses to have been imperfect before I put a period to this discourse I will free my doctrine from that imputation and so much the rather because the charge of imperfection would in fine fall upon the Author of it In order whereunto the first thing that I shall offer is that it is no crime at all to affirm it to have been imperfect if compared with the doctrine of our Saviour that which is less perfect being sometimes as seasonable as at other times a more perfect one But 2. I say that Law is not presently â—o be thought imperfect which doth not enjoyn the highest pitch of vertue It is enough if it be suited to the ability and temper of those for the regulation of whom it was devised And therefore as one made answer when it was demanded of him whether he had given such Laws as were absolutely the best that he had given the best Laws he could find out for those who were to be governed by them so shall I say concerning the Laws of God by Moses If they were the very best that people was capable of to whom they were given if they were the best for that time and State they were as perfect as any Law need to be because wanting nothing that was required But doth any thing that I have said charge the Law of Moses with not being the best that people was capable of nay have I not already shown that in regard to the hardness of their hearts God was fain to remit something in the matter of divorce For whereas at the first God tyed man and wife by a bond which nothing but Adultery could dissolve for the hardness of the Jews hearts as our Saviour tells us he was forced to remit of that severity and suffer
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