again before you those Evils and Calamities which the Stoicks made a just ground of a voluntary Departure because Christianity and Nature both oblige us to the bearing of them I will chuse rather to inquire whether there be any thing of truth in those other Grounds assign'd by them even the Profit of our Country or Friends * Vid. locum ante citatum ex Laertio de Dogmatibus Zenonis c. as also in what they little dream'd of the Instinct or Impulse of God's Spirit and the asserting of his Glory This onely would be premis'd because necessary so to be inasmuch as all the Instances to be alledg'd do not reach the killing of our selves in the strict and most obvious acception of the Words that when we speak concerning the killing of our selves we mean not onely that wherein we are the immediate Instruments of our own Execution but where we expose our selves also to such dangers from which nothing in all probability but Death is to be expected For though in strictness of speaking this is not to be accounted the killing of our selves yet it is interpretatively as much because putting our selves into such a Condition from which in all probability it will ensue Now that one or other of these ways a Man may not onely with the leave but also with the approbation of God procure his own death will appear if we resume the former Grounds and first of all the Advantage of a Friend It is a known Story and by all that I know of whether Christians or Heathens remembred with applause That there were two Pythagoreans of so fast a Friendship ‖ Damonem Pythiam Pythagoreos ferunt hoc animo inter se fuisse ut cum eorum alteri Dionysius tyrannus diem necis destinavisset is qui morti addictus esset paucos sibi dies commendandorum suorum causâ petivisset vas factus sit alter ejus sistendi ut si ille non revertisset ad diem morierdum esset ipsi c. Cicero de Offic 3. that when one of them had by Dionysius the Tyrant been condemn'd to die and begg'd onely a few days respite to dispose of his Affairs the other became Surety to the Tyrant for his Friend so that in case he should not return at the time appointed he himself would die for him What the Sequel of this Story is I will not now tell you because not pertinent to our purpose though it was both to the one and the others glory I demand onely whether he who thus offer'd himself to be the others Surety did that which was lawful and commendable If we say he did we have what we desire even an Instance wherein it may be lawful to make our selves a Prey to Death upon the account of Friendship For beside that the Person before-mentioned did expresly stipulate to die for him in case he did not return which without doubt he ought not to have done if it had not been lawful to lay down his Life for him he expos'd himself to such a hazard as was not common and from which there was more probability of Death than of the contrary Because what considence soever he might repose in his Friend's Justice and Kindness yet as it was not impossible some Accident might detain him beyond the time appointed so there are few Friendships so sacred as to oblige Men to prefer Death before it St. Paul having told us Rom. 5.7 that scarcely for a righteous man will any one die and but peradventure which must be also a great piece of Courage for one who is also good and benign Which Words as they are a manifest confirmation of the danger that Person run who made himself a Surety for a condemned Man so seem to me to declare such an Act to be in the Opinion of the Apostle an Heroical one and not onely not deserve to be condemn'd but to be applauded For however the Rarity of such a Love among Men might serve in some sort to commend the Love of Christ to us who as he had power to lay down his Life as well as take it up again so laid it down for those that were Enemies yet would it have been some diminution to its Commendation if it had not been lawful for one Man to lay down his Life for another because it might have been objected That the rarity of such an Accident proceeded not so much or at least not altogether from the impossibility of a Love strong enough to do it but from the unlawfulness thereof In the mean time if the foremention'd place will not be look'd upon as conclusive I see not in the least how that of St. John can be evaded 1 Joh. 3.16 where he tells us that as Christ laid down his life for us so there may be Instances wherein it may be our Duty to lay down our lives for one another For though as Grotius * Annot. in loc Joh. 10.11 interprets it nothing else should be there meant by laying down our lives for the brethren than exposing our selves to danger for them though as he himself observes our Saviour who is propos'd for our Example must be confess'd to have done more than so yet even that would not prejudice the Conclusion I would commend nor hinder it from being reputed a kind of destroying of our selves He being in truth a Felo de se though no criminal one who shall for the sake of another object himself to a Danger from which in all probability his Death may ensue But let us instance if you please in a Case which is more clearly one of the Stoicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and see whether it contains any thing dissonant either to Reason or Religion As suppose for example that after a Shipwrack a Man light upon a piece of a Plank which will suffice onely for the Security of one Person and suppose withal that seeing a dear Friend of his ready to perish he should quit his Plank to him and commit himself being moreover unable to swim to the mercy of the Sea Will any Man now say that such an Act is not properly enough a casting away of a Mans self or condemn him that doth so for it nay will he not rather look upon it as a noble Act of Virtue and Friendship especially if we also suppose the Friend for whom he does it to be of more use to the Publick than himself For though a Man may and perhaps ought caeteris paribus to prefer himself before any other yet nothing hinders him as I have before shewn to prefer a Publick Good before a Private and therefore also another Mans Welfare before his own if that other be in a greater capacity to promote it I will conclude this Particular with a Saying of Seneca ‖ Succurram perituro sed ut ipse non peream nisi si futurus ero magni hominis aut inagnae rei merces as I find it cited by Grotius in
but him Now there are three things which are either imply'd or expresly contain'd in the not having any other gods beside the True 1. That we should not substitute any other in his room 2. That we should not receive any other gods into copartnership with him And 3. Thirdly and lastly That we should not attribute to any thing else any part of that Honour which is due unto him 1. The first of these is rather imply'd than express'd but so strongly imply'd that there cannot be any the least doubt of it For beside that the One True God doth here declare himself to be so and not onely so but call upon us to yield Obedience to all those Commands which we are now upon the consideration of the very Words wherein this Commandment is express'd do à fortiori imply the not substituting any other in his room For if we may not have any other before or beside him much less may we admit of any to the utter exclusion of him and build their Honour upon the Ruines of the other's But such Transgressors were the Heathen or at least a great part of them after God had for their sins given them over to vain imaginations as worshipping in stead of him all the Host of Heaven such Men by whom their several Nations had receiv'd any great advantage particularly Kings and Princes and in fine the brute Beasts yea Inanimate Creatures But how much they acted against the light of their own Reason as well as the Precepts of this great Lawgiver will easily appear if we survey the several Objects of their Worship To begin with the Host of Heaven even the Sun Moon and Stars because thought by Learned Men * Vid. Grot. Explic. Decal Job 31.26 to be the first Instances of Idolatry in the World Concerning which it is easie to shew how unreasonable it was to substitute them in the place of God For though it be not to be doubted but that great Benefits come from thence particularly from the Sun by whose Influence this lower World is actuated yet is there nothing in that glorious Body which can tempt a considering Man to pay Divine Honours to it it being evident to our sense that it moves and acts necessarily neither can do any other than it doth Which one thing duly weigh'd will to all impartial Understandings evince it not to have the Nature or deserve the Honour of a God For beside that the Nature of God implieth the most Perfect One and consequently such as is not ty'd up to Rules but is free in its Motions and Operations all the Honour of God as the Author to the Hebrews observes is built upon this great Principle That he is a rewarder of such as diligently seek him Which Principle can have no place where there is no freedom in acting and the supposed Deity is oblig'd not onely to shine alike upon the evil and the good but either to afford or withhold its shining as the Laws of its Creation admonish yea as it pleaseth those Clouds that are below it From the Host of Heaven pass we to Men such as many of those were whom the Heathen worshipp'd Where again we shall see how little reason there was to substitute them in the place of God For as even these could not save themselves from death but were fain to pass through that to their suppos'd Divinity so many of them were such as may be suppos'd rather to have fallen into the state of Devils to whose nature they bear so great a resemblance than to be advanc'd to the Honour of Gods To say nothing at all that it appeareth not they had any knowledge of things below and much less any Power either to reward or punish As little yea far less reason was there for the Worship of Beasts and Inanimate Creatures which was the particular Error of the Egyptians and the lowest to which Humane Nature could fall these having not so much as the Reason of a Man and much less the Understanding to know the Necessities of those that pray'd to them or the Power to relieve and redress them 2. But because the not substituting False Gods in the place of the True is rather suppos'd by than directly contain'd in the present Prohibition proceed we to that which the Words do clearly and plainly import even the not receiving any other into Copartnership with him Which as it probably was the Error of the wiser Heathen so to be sure is that which this Commandment doth more immediately strike at he that requireth the not having any other gods before or beside himself both supposing the having of himself and forbidding the superinducing any other And in this notion it was that the Samaritans became Offenders against it as you may see 2 Kings 17.33 it being there remark'd concerning them That they feared the Lord and served their own Gods after the manner of the Nations whom God carried away from thence From which Passage compar'd with the present Prohibition it is manifest That to admit any Being into a Copartnership with the True God is enough to make a Man a Transgressor the Law at the same time it forbids the having of other Gods supposing in some measure the having of the True Which said I shall now inquire Whether those of the Church of Rome are not justly chargeable with the breach of it in that Honour which they give both to Saints and Angels To begin with the Honour of Saints departed because most stood upon by them and which indeed makes up a great part of their Religion Concerning which I shall propose to consideration Whether the Prayers they make to them be not in effect to set up other Gods For is not Prayer a great part of Religious Worship nay is it not so considerable as to give a denomination to the Place of God's Worship yea to be an Ingredient in his Titles He himself calling his House the House of Prayer and the Psalmist him that inhabiteth it the God that heareth it And is it then any other than the setting up other Gods to make Saints departed the Objects of it But it will be said it may be That they do not pray to them or at least not in that manner they do to God only imploring their Intercession with our Maker and theirs but begging no Blessing from themselves But first of all Quid verba audio facta cum videam What will Words avail when their Practice is oftentimes so contrary Neither is there any real difference between their Prayers to them and those to God I instance in that which the Rosary of the Virgin Mary presents us with where we have this very Prayer to the Mother of our Lord Virgo singularis Vid. Jacks of the Original of Unbelief c. cap. 28. Intrae omnes mitis Nos culpis solutos Mites fac castos Vitam praesta puram Iter para tutum That is to say O thou who art the chief
such a Person who shall proceed to downright blasphemy against the Almighty For beside the enormity of the Crime we have Instances in the Scripture of God's displeasure against the Authors of it Thus when the Son of an Israelitish Woman proceeded to so great an Impiety as to blaspheme the Name of the Lord he himself was not onely ston'd to death for it but a Law thereupon made That whosoever should offend in like manner should be put to death as well the stranger as he that should be born in the land Lev. 23.11 and so on Again when the King of Assyria sent Rabshakeh to reproach the Living God as one who could not deliver his People any more than the Gods of other Nations God was so displeased with the contumely that he sent an Angel to destroy his Army and delivered up the King himself into the hands of his Sons who slew him 2 Kings 19.35 and so on 2. From blaspheming the Name of God pass we to the dishonouring it in an Oath which I have said to be the principal thing forbidden in the Commandment where again I shall consider those who take it in an Oath vainly and unnecessarily and then those who cite it to procure credit to a Lie That God will not hold the former of these guiltless will appear to any who shall consider onely the nature of the Crime For inasmuch as such an Oath is nothing else than the calling God to witness to those Impertinencies to which they are affix'd it must needs be a great temptation to the Almighty to revenge it upon the Authors of it lest his Name should be contemptible in the World And indeed as where it hath otherwise hapned it ought to be imputed to the Mercy of the Almighty and his willingness that even such Sinners should come to repentance so God hath not left himself and Name without witness of the dreadfulness of them both lest any should think him tamely patient For thus it is storied by an Author of good credit * The Life of the Duke of Espernon lib. 4. pag. 190. concerning one Grillon a famous Captain in France and as famous or rather infamous for his profaning the Name of God by frequent Swearing That many years before his death though he had perfect strength and vigour in all his other Parts yet he had so great a weakness in his Tongue that he could not articulate or bring out one word that any Body could understand God as that Author remarks being doubtless pleas'd by a manifest Judgment to punish him in that Part which by so many Oaths and Blasphemies had so often offended against his Divine Honour and Holy Name Which Story is the more to be credited because the forecited Author relates it from the mouth of that truly Noble Person the Duke of Espernon who had that Captain long under his Command But leaving the Common Swearer to ruminate upon God's threatning not to hold him guiltless and upon this and such like Instances of his Judgments upon the Associates of his Crime let us go on to inquire how little reason there is for the False Swearer or perjur'd Person to expect to be free In order whereunto I will first alledge a Parallel shall I say or rather much more severe Denunciation of the Almighty against those who shall thus take his Name in vain 'T is in the fifth of Zachary and the fourth Verse where speaking of a Roll of Curses he brings in God threatning that he would cause it to enter into the house of the thief and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by his Name as also that it should remain in the midst of the House it did so enter and consume it with the timber and stones thereof Than which what more could be said to express the height of God's displeasure against such Persons and the certainty of his not holding them guiltless in any measure For to be sure he will not hold them such whom he will not onely visit for their Transgression but bring an utter devastation upon Agreeable hereto is that of the Oracle in Herodotus though express'd under another Metaphor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to say An Oath has a Child which hath neither Hands nor Feet howbeit it passeth quickly into the House of the perjur'd Person and laying hold of it destroys his whole Race and it Neither doth the Event I speak as for the most part fall short of what is suggested either by the one or the other Oracle For as I shall afterward produce from the Scripture remarkable Instances of God's Judgments upon those who have thus violated the Oath of God so the verification of this Threat was taken notice of where God was little known and where therefore one might think God would be less careful to secure the Honour of his Name Hesiod and ancient Greek Poet * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirming of an Oath That it doth for the most part destroy those who either swear falsely or act contrary to it when they have sworn But because the Scripture upon which we may most securely relie is not without eminent proofs of Gods displeasure against the perjur'd Person setting aside the Proofs which might be brought from Heathen Authors I will betake me to the Scriptures and prove from thence That God doth not hold them guiltless who thus take his Name in vain And here in the first place I shall alledge that known Story of the Gibeonites with whom the Oath of the Lord had pass'd For though that Oath had been drawn from the Israelites by the false Pretences of the Gibeonites though those who had given them that Oath had now a long time been laid in their Graves together with those Gibeonites to whom it was and a new Generation sprung up which neither knew those Gibeonites nor their own Ancestors though what Saul did to them was out of his Zeal to the Children of Israel and Judah and not out of any private grudge or worldly Interest whatsoever lastly though that Saul was laid in his Grave also and as one therefore might well imagine his Wickedness and Guilt together with him yet was his Destruction of the Gibeonites with whose Ancestors the Oath of God had pass'd so displeasing to the Divine Majesty that he visited them with a three years Famine neither would he be entreated for the Land till David had delivered up seven of Saul's Sons to the Gibeonites to be by them hang'd up unto the Lord. All which Circumstances whosoever shall consider will not doubt in the least of God's holding him guilty who taketh his Name in vain For what question can there be of that when to say no more we see the Guilt of it to have descended upon the Children of the perjur'd Person yea to have involv'd a whole Nation in it So very great reason is there to interpret the Threat of not holding
are to have a proportionable Love and Honour from us so if we have a Respect and Kindness for them we must have a Love for those who are equally descended from them with our selves 4. Lastly If Love and Honour do naturally diffuse themselves from those that are the immediate Objects of it to those that are their Relations and Dependents if we have a Respect for our Parents we shall shew some portion of it to those whether Friends or Servants whom they made the Object of theirs PART IV. A Discourse of what is owing by Parents to their Children which is shewn to be first the providing for their Subsistence This evidenc'd from the common Consent of Mankind that Natural Affection which God hath implanted in Parents and from the Scripture The same farther evidenc'd from the Intention of God and Nature in that Being which he conferreth upon Children by them from that Dignity to which Parents are advanc'd and from that Self-love which God hath implanted in their Hearts That the Provision Parents are to make for their Children ought to be as large as their Necessities till they come of Years to provide for themselves yea to continue always such if they prove impotent or foolish The like not to be affirm'd where there is no such Inability Consideration onely to be had whether the Ability of Children can reach to such a Provision as is suitable to their Condition for otherwise it ought to be supplied by the Parents That the Provision of Parents ought to extend beyond their own Times and they accordingly either to lay up for them or put them into a Vocation whereby they may provide for themselves A Caution against Parents suffering their Care for them to entrench upon the Duties of Justice or Charity because these are alike incumbent on them and the best Legacies they can bequeath their Children Institution of Children in Life and Manners a second Duty of a Parent as is made appear both from Nature and Scripture The particular Duties implied in it Instruction Command and Example the first being necessary to teach them how to live the two latter to oblige them to the Practice of it Chastising of Children a third Duty of a Parent and therefore also largely insisted on That it extends not now to Death or the cutting off a Limb as neither to a total Disinheriting or the setting a lasting Note of Infamy upon them Because either the Peculiar of Princes upon whom a great part of the Parents Authority is deriv'd or not so agreeable to Paternal Affection or tending rather to provoke than amend the Parties chastised Corporal Punishments less than those within the power of Parents but yet not to be inflicted upon those of riper Years or not in the same manner wherein they are upon younger Persons Of the Measure in which Chastisements are to be inflicted upon Children That a principal Regard ought to be had that they be within the Quality of the Offence and how they may be known so to be The Strength of the Child another Measure of Chastisement and that that and that alone can be look'd upon to be within it which doth not disable the Child from the performance of those several Offices which Nature or Religion doth exact The Relation of the Chastiser another Measure and what that Relation leads to which is either first the reforming of the Party chastised or the deterring other Children from the like Offences To correct either for ones own Pleasure or Revenge not suitable to a Parent That all possible Submission is due to those Chastisements which are within the forementioned Bounds but however no other Resistance to be made than by Flight or an Appeal to the Magistrate An Inquiry into the supposed Obligation of the Mothers Nursing her own Child and the Arguments for it propos'd and answered II. OF the Duty of Children to their Parents what hath been said may suffice proceed we therefore to consider the Duty of Parents towards them or rather unto God concerning them Where 1. First I shall consider those that are common to each Parent And 2. After that inquire Whether there be any peculiar to the Mother 1. Now there are three things incumbent upon Parents in order to the Welfare of their Children 1. Providing for their Subsistence 2. Institution of them in Life and Manners And 3. Chastisement 1. I begin with the first of these even Parents providing for their Childrens Subsistence where again these three things would be inquir'd into 1. How it appears to be a Duty 2. Whence the Obligation thereof ariseth And 3. What Provision they are to make 1. Now though the Duty of Parents in this Affair would most naturally be made out by pointing at the Grounds from whence it ariseth yet because there are other ways to make the necessity thereof to appear and such too as are more intelligible to the Common sort of Men I think it not amiss to begin with them whereof the first I shall alledge is the Common Consent of Mankind concerning it For it appearing not how all Mankind should so unanimously agree upon the Necessity of Parents providing for their Children if there were not some Principle in Nature to lead them to it it is in reason to be presum'd to be a part of Natural Duty and such as Reason no less than Revelation doth tie upon them From the Consent of Mankind pass we to that Natural Affection which God hath implanted in the Breasts of Parents For as that doth naturally lead Men to make Provision for those toward whom they have so strong an Affection so it is a sufficient Proof of the Intention of the Almighty to oblige Parents to the Practice of it no other account being to be given why God should implant in them so strong an affection but to be as a Spur to them to make Provision for them But so that Parents are naturally obliged St. Paul declares in his Epistle to the Romans and the Second to the Corinthians Witness for the former his charging upon the Heathen among other things the * Text. Graecus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod propriè significat expertes naturalis affectâ—â— erga liberos want of natural affection to their Children Rom. 1.31 for the latter his express Affirmation that Parents ought to lay up for them 2 Cor. 12.14 For inasmuch as nothing but a Sin could be the matter of a Charge as nothing could be a Sin to the Gentiles which was not a breach of Nature's Law by charging the want of natural affection upon the Heathen he manifestly implies it to have been a transgression of Nature's Law and consequently that the contrary was commanded by it The same is yet more evident from that other place where he affirms in express terms That Parents ought to lay up for them for though as a Learned Man * Sanderson Two Caser of Conscience pag. 72 hath observ'd St. Paul speaks it but upon the By and by
manner all the Promises in the Old Testament do refer 2. From the Blessing promised pass we to the Persons from whom we are to expect it which is no doubt first and chiefly God both the Commandment and the Promise being perfectly his and therefore the completion of the latter to be expected from him But because even in those things of which God is the first and principal Authour there are other less principal and subordinate causes and because though our Translation and others read only that thy days may be long or be prolonged in the mean time taking no notice of the means by which it is to be convey'd yet the Hebrew which is in reason to give measure to them all reads * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they even thy Father and Mother may prolong them therefore I think it but reasonable to collect from thence that that long and happy Life is next under God to be expected from our Parents partly by means of that Sustenance and Encouragement which our Honour will invite them to afford us but more especially because every good and perfect Gift cometh from above by their Intercession to God for us from whom they receive such Honour For though as Grotius * Explicat Decalâ—gi Not. ad Praec 5. hath observ'd it be not unusual for Verbs of an Active Form to be taken in a Passive or Reciprocal Sense in which Sense both the Septuagint and most other Translaters understood the Hebrew Verb here yet inasmuch as it is certain from the Scriptures and particularly from the Story of Jacob and Esau that the Blessing of the Child depended much upon the Prayers of the Father inasmuch as that wise Author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus ‖ Eccl. 3.9 represents it as a known truth That the Fathers Blessing establisheth the Houses of Children but the Curse of the Mother rooteth out Foundations I think it no way improper to understand the Hebrew in its literal sense and upon that account though in a secondary sense to ascribe the prolongation of Childrens days to the blessing or devout Prayers of their Parents But be there sufficient ground or not in this particular place for the influence the Parents Prayers may have upon the happiness of the Child and particularly upon his length of days yet as it is not without ground if we take the practise of the Patriarchs for one and the observation both of Jews and Gentiles so it wants not that the force whereof will be more hard to resist I mean the astipulation of Reason the Prayers of Parents for their obedient Children being not only through the affection from which they proceed likely to be more than ordinarily intense and therefore so much the more likely to prevail but the clearest attestations that can be of that respectful behaviour of the Child to which a long and happy Life is promised Which attestations however God stands in no need of and much less can the want of them be thought to be able to divert him from his purposes yet may very well be presum'd when concurring with them to quicken the execution of them and press him to perform what he himself hath promised Upon which account I cannot but wonder that Children should now be taught not to beg those Prayers which have such visible advantages especially when the so doing hath had the general approbation of Christendom and is moreover no contemptible testimony of that Honour which they are to pay The Authour to the Hebrews having told us That without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better and consequently that the begging of a Fathers Blessing is a testimony of Honour because implying a confession of his Superiority from whom they desire it 3. The only thing to be accounted for is whether the Promise annex'd to this Commandment implies any thing of a Curse to the violators of it Which that it doth will evidently appear if we mean no other by a Curse than the shortning of those Children's Lives that disobey For as that naturally follows from the sole withdrawing the Influence of the Divine Providence so that God will withdraw that Influence from disobedient Children needs no other proof than that he hath particularly promis'd to continue it to obedient ones For what great encouragement could it be to honour our Parents to have the Promise of that which those who do not honour them may be alike Partakers of with our selves Neither will it suffice to say as perhaps it may be That the certainty which a Promise inferreth makes it reasonable to perform that to which it is annex'd rather than run the hazard of failing of it For how reasonable soever it may be to prefer a Certainty before an Uncertainty where no other Considerations intervene yet is it not to such a degree as to be likely to prevail where there are any present Temptations to the contrary Experience shewing it a hard matter to resist such even where there is an assurance of our Loss and how much more hard then that I say not the weakness of Humane Nature considered impossible where there is a possibility of avoiding it To all whlch if we add the many Expressions of God's displeasure against the Violators of his Laws and particularly of that Law which is now before us so no doubt can remain but that at the same time God promiseth a long and happy Life to the dutiful he meant the contrary to disrespectful and disobedient Children For how can we think otherwise when there is a Command to the Magistrate to put him to death who curseth his Father or Mother Exod. 21.17 and the People Deut. 27.16 are taught to invocate the Curse of God upon them that set light either by the one or the other II. The second Question follows to wit Whether or no and how far the Promise that now is before us appertains to us Christians That it doth appertain to us much need not be said to shew because I have already * See the Discourse of the Measures whereby we are to proceed in the Interpretation of the Decalogue prevented my self in that Argument It may suffice here to say That as it is reasonable enough to believe the Promise doth because that Precept to which it is annex'd is bound upon us by our Blessed Saviour so it is no less reasonable to believe so because St. Paul where he inculcates the Precept forgets not to add that it is a Commandment with a Promise and the first For what would it have signified to Christians to have told them of its being a Commandment with a Promise if that Promise which belongs to it had been none of their Concernment Taking it therefore for granted or rather as sufficiently proved that the Promise now before us appertains to us we will proceed to inquire as in which the main difficulty lies Whether it appertains to us in the same manner and measure it did unto the
bring him within the compass of the Commandment Of Murther properly so called and of the Sins included in it what hath been said may suffice and therefore I will supersede all farther consideration of it But because the Scripture makes mention of another Murther even the murther of the Soul by which though it be not altogether depriv'd of Life yet it is of the comforts of it and thereby made much more miserable than if it were not at all therefore it may not be amiss to enquire whether that also have not a place in the prohibition and how men become guilty of it Now there are two things which perswade the Murder whereof we speak to come within the compass of the prohibition now before us 1. That what we call the murther of the Soul is properly enough such and 2. That it is a more pernicious one than the other That the Murther whereof we speak is properly enough such is evident not only from the Scriptures giving that State the name of death into which this Murder brings men but also from the very nature of it For as Murder properly so call'd becomes such not by the taking away of all Life for the Soul which is the chiefest part of Man lives no less after that than before but by the destruction of that natural Life which he from whom we take it enioy'd as to the present World so the murder of the Soul as we commonly express it though it introduce not a perfect insensibility yet it despoils it of that spiritual Life which it enioys in this present state and which is more of that also of which it is capable in the next It is no less evident Secondly That supposing what we speak of to be a Murder it is a much more pernicious one than the other because as that Life which it takes away is a much better one than the other so it draws after it an eternity of torment Now forasmuch as the Murder whereof we speak is not only properly enough such but a much more pernicious one than the other it is easie to suppose or rather impossible to suppose otherwise than that he who forbad the one intended also the avoiding of the other especially having before shewn that the Commandments of which this is one were intended as a summary of the whole Duty of Man All therefore that remains to enquire into upon this head is how men become guilty of it which will require no very accurate consideration to resolve For to say nothing of those who have the cure of Souls though of all others the most obnoxious to it partly because they are not under mine and partly because they are better able to inform themselves I shall content my self at present with pointing out those ways whereby private persons may come to be guilty of it which is 1. By prompting men to or encouraging them in those sinful courses which draw after them the destruction of the Soul That which gave the Devil the title of a murderer from the beginning as he is called Joh. 8.44 being no other than that as the story of Genesis informs us he sollicited our first Parents to eat of that Fruit from which both their temporal and spiritual Death ensu'd 2. The same is to be said of giving an ill example and thereby drawing other Men into the commission of the like Crimes an evil Example not onely having the Nature of a Temptation but being also of greater force than any other inasmuch as it doth more undiscernably instill its Poyson and finds Men more ready to receive it It being a known and undoubted Truth that Men regard not so much what they ought or what they are advis'd to as what they see others do before them 3. Add hereunto because of near affinity with the other the doing any thing how innocent soever whereby our weak brother may be tempted to do the like against his own Conscience Such as was for example the eating of Meats sacrificed to Idols in the presence of those who were not so well inform'd of their Christian Liberty For though as St. Paul spake concerning it 1 Cor. 8.4 there was no unlawfulness in the thing it self and consequently therefore nothing in it but the Conscience of the Idol to unhallow it yet might the doing thereof by a strong Christian be a temptation to a weak one to do the like if not against yet without a due assurance of his own Conscience Which as St. Paul hath elsewhere * Rom. 14.23 pronounc'd to be damnable and so destructive of that Soul which is guilty of it so both there †Rom. ver 15.20 and here ‖ 1 Cor. 8.11 he chargeth the guilt of its destruction upon those who should so embolden it to offend 4. And though the like care of other Men be not incumbent upon private Christians as is upon those Persons whom God hath more particularly intrusted with the inspection of them yet inasmuch as by the Laws both of Nature and Christianity they are commanded to reprove an offending Brother and not suffer sin to be upon him he that shall suffer such a one to perish for want of a seasonable and just admonition shall be so far chargeable with his destruction whom he did not endeavour to reclaim What is meant by Thou shalt not kill as that is to be understood of the killing another hath been at large declar'd together with the several Sins that are included in it Nothing remains toward the compleating of my Discourse but to shew what Sins are included in the killing of our selves Where 1. First of all I shall reckon the neglect of our Health because a step to that Self-murther which is here forbidden For though that for the most part be look'd upon as an Imprudence rather than any violation of the Commandments of our Maker yet it is because Men consider not that there is a Duty owing by them to themselves or rather unto God concerning them They are as I have before remark'd plac'd in this World by God they are put into a capacity of and enjoyn'd the serving of their Maker in it and being so are in reason to intend the performance of it and because that cannot otherwise be procur'd to intend also the preservation of themselves the neglect of that not onely making Men more unapt for it whilst they live but cutting them off before their time 2. To the neglect of our Health subjoyn we the exposing our selves to unnecessary dangers and where nothing but vain-glory or the desire of filthy Lucre prompts us to it such as are many of those Dangers which they who profess Feats of Activity do without the least scruple involve themselves in For as it is rare for such Persons to what Agility soever they may have attain'd not to procure their own destruction in the end so many of the Dangers to which they expose themselves are so imminent that they must always be thought
in them to all the Children of men for this general Grant of the Almighty being antecedent to any particular property which any of the sons of men is now possessed of it is in reason so far to prevail above the present properties of particular men as to make it lawful to the extremely necessitous to withdraw so much from them as may serve to satisfie these necessities This only would be added That as those extremely necessitous ought to premise both entreaties and the tender of their service partly because the present properties of men stand by the divine Grant and are not lightly therefore to be derogated from and partly because God obligeth men for the prevention of it to work with their own hands the thing that is good that they may have wherewithall to support themselves as well as to give to others so the case before remembred cannot lightly be supposed in any Christian Nation and much less in that wherein we live As because of the multitude of charitable persons wherewith the Land abounds so because the Laws of our Nation have made provision for those who are not able by their own endeavours to support themselves They enjoining the Officers of the place where they shall be found to be to relieve them and send them back to the place of their last abode as those who are within the Precincts of it to contribute to the maintaining of them Where therefore there is such a provision as this there cannot lightly be any place for such a necessity as we speak of and consequently neither for the serving of our selves without the violation of the Divine Command And indeed as those necessities which we sometimes fall under do mostly arise from sloth and idleness or a living above that condition wherein God hath placed us so that bare necessity can be no warrant to us to invade our Neighbours Goods the Prayer of Agur doth abundantly declare Give me saith he neither poverty nor riches feed me with food convenient for me lest I be full and deny thee and say who is the Lord or lest I be poor and steal and take the name of my God in vain for grounding his request against poverty upon the fear he had lest he should thereby be tempted to steal and take the name of God in vain he thereby sufficiently intimated that simple poverty doth no more priviledge a man to steal than the same poverty can to take Gods name in vain or swear falsly when examined upon Oath concerning the fact or fulness to deny him and say Who is the Lord IV. Having thus shewn the Prohibition now before us to comprehend in it all usurping upon or any way diminishing of our Neighbours property having moreover shewn what particular Crimes are included in it and what actions are to be looked upon as exempted we are in the next place to enquire wherein the criminalness of those things which are included in it doth consist which will cost no great pains to resolve For inasmuch as the Crime here forbidden is nothing else than an interversion of property which I have shewn to stand both by the Divine Institution at first and the disposition of the Divine Providence he who shall go about so to intervert it must be thought to fight against God by whose appointment it was both instituted and continued And indeed as there is no sin against man which is not in some sense against God because forbidden by his Laws so the sin we have now before us is more peculiarly such because over and above the violation of his Laws destroying that order which he appointed from the beginning in the world and hath approved ever since by the disposition of his Divine Providence But beside the contrariety which this sin of Theft carries in it to the institution and disposition of the Almighty it is no less prejudicial to humane Society which next to the Divine Majesty ought to be accounted sacred partly because it is an interversion of those properties for the preserving whereof it is that men have been so willing to enter into Societies and partly because it prompts the injured party to endeavour a recovery by force and violence which puts all into confusion and disorder The injurious no less than the injured party being not like to want partners in his quarrel 'till at length the whole Society be of a flame And though it may be some unjust persons would not be of so exorbitant appetites as to endeavour to attain a soveraignty over the possessions of all their fellows and much less over their persons yet inasmuch as the desire of this worlds goods encreaseth with the acquisition of them as because that acquisition is not otherwise to be maintained a desire of power also it is not easie to be imagin'd but that they who indulge themselves in the invading of this or that particular mans property would in fine if they had ability * Grot. in Decal invade the goods of all and make even the Common-wealth their own injustice where it hath acquired a proportionable strength easily passing into tyranny which is the bane of those Societies which it invades Lastly for that also would be considered where there is any respect for virtue and industry if either secret or open usurpations were permitted men would for the most part leave off to do virtuously because without hope of enjoying the rewards of it V. Now as every thing that is criminal doth by its own nature and the Decree of God bind over the Author to punishment and that too in this world if it be prejudicial to humane society which I have shewn the Sin of Theft sufficiently to be so it may not be amiss to enquire and the rather because it hath been a matter of controversie what punishments may be inflicted on it by the Civil Magistrate For the resolution whereof because there are different sorts of Thefts I will proceed by degrees and consider first of all of that Theft which is of Children or Men. Now though I know it be questionable whether other Thefts may be punished by death and the rather because God in the old Law prescribed a more easie punishment yet as to this whereof we speak no doubt at all can be made but it may be censured with death because God who observes exact justice commanded such an one to be put to death Exod. 21.16 for he that stealeth a man saith God and selleth him or if he be found in his hand he shall surely be put to death And not without reason as because of the great value of the thing stoln as being no other than the Image of God so because of that slavery and hardship which he who steals a man intends which as it is often managed is not inferiour to death it self From the Theft of Persons pass we to that of Things as which is most confessedly intended Where again we are to distinguish of such things or goods as
belong to the Publick or such as belong to Private persons If the question be concerning the former especially in any eminent instances so I should not doubt to affirm that it may be justly sentenced with death as because the Roman Law which draws nearest to that of Reason and Nature inflicted capital punishment upon Judges that should be found to do so and upon all that were instrumental to them in it so because the publick weal wherein all private mens is concerned depends much upon the stock it hath to maintain it The great matter of controversie is concerning the stealing of the goods of private persons which therefore I shall address my self to resolve And here indeed hath been great variety according to the inclinations or exigences of those States wherein they have been committed the quality of the Theft or the condition of the persons some punishing Theft with restitution of the thing stoln and an overplus as the Law of Moses and that of Solon some with stripes and servitude and some in fine with death as Draco did all Thefts whatsoever which made Demades afterwards say that Draco wrote his Laws not with Ink but with Blood My purpose is not at this time to give an exact account of that variety which whosoever list to be satisfied in may read an excellent Chapter in Aulus Gellius as neither to scan the propriety of those several punishments and the proportion they bore to the Crime of Theft because all of them may be reasonable enough according to the different exigences of circumstances the only thing which I pretend to enquire into as which indeed is the principal controversie is whether Theft may be punished with death For the resolution whereof we will consider of such Thefts as are openly and violently committed best known among us by the name of Robberies and then of clancular ones or Thefts properly so called If the question be concerning the former so I know not what any reasonable man can oppose against the punishing them with death as because of the boldness of the fact which requires a more than ordinary severity to repress it so because those Thefts by the violence wherewith they are attended strike no less at mens lives than fortunes which it is but reasonable to secure by the death of the Offendor All the difficulty to my seeming is concerning clancular Thefts where again we are to distinguish of nocturnal and diurnal ones that is to say of those that are committed in the night or those that are committed in the day That the former of these even such Thefts as are committed by night may be punished with death will appear not to be unreasonable if we consider with our selves the leave that was given by the Law of God first * Exod. 22.2 3. and afterwards by that of the 12 Tables ‖ Vide A. Gell. l. 11. c. 18. to kill the Thief in the very act for how should not that be much more lawful to the Magistrate upon a mature consideration of the fact than to the injured person in his heat Neither will it avail to say that that leave was given to the party robbed upon presumption of the Thiefs adding violence to his Theft and the likelihood of-securing himself and purchase by the death of the injured party which therefore where it is past all danger the nocturnal Theft ought in reason to be otherwise chastised for inasmuch as in punishment consideration ought to be had of what may probably happen hereafter by such kind of Thieveries if there be a just presumption of such persons adding Murther to Theft it is but reasonable for the security of innocent persons lives to put those to death who are likely to take away the lives of other men Which said I will proceed to the consideration of diurnal Thefts or such as are committed in the day Now though simply considered a fourfold restitution may seem to be a proportionable punishment because laid upon it by the Law of God who best understands the proportion of things though if that will not do the bringing in of servitude possibly may Explication of the Fifth Commandment Part. 1◠the abolition whereof as I have elsewhere shewn hath not been much for the conveniency of the world yet I doubt not there may be instances wherein it may be both lawful and necessary to punish such Offendors with death as for example when such Thefts are frequently committed and cannot lightly be restrained with milder punishments The quality of a Theft being not to be judged of meerly by the prejudice it doth to the injured party but by the harm it doth to humane society which it is both the Magistrates interest and duty to secure Now forasmuch as it may sometime happen that Humane Society cannot be maintained without inflicting a punishment which is above the measure of the offence if considered only as to that prejudice which it doth to the immediate object of it in such a case I see no reason why the Magistrate may not inflict it and particularly the extreme punishment of death that I say not also that I cannot see how he can avoid it without a greater injury to that Society which he is appointed to defend Upon which account as it is but reasonable to judge favourably of our own Laws by which death is so often made the punishment of Theft respect and charity both obliging us to suppose that the Makers of those Laws together with those that have succeeded them in their Office have found by experience that a lesser punishment will not serve the turn so there is this farther inducement to make that supposition that even that severity which they have used hath not deterred men from the commission of it But be that as it will for such things as these must be left to the determination of Publick Persons and not to Private ones who are rather to submit than dispute most certain it is that the matter of Theft is so criminal before God that the committers of it are by S. Paul * 1 Cor. 6.10 reckoned among those persons who shall not inherit the Kingdom of God PART IV. Of the Affirmative part of the Commandment which is declared to be First The using all due means for the procuring and conserving to our selves a Property Secondly The contributing what in us lies to the procuring defending or inlarging the Properties of others The former of these resumed and evidenced to be a part of the Commandment from the necessity the omission thereof puts us upon of invading the Propertie of our Neighbour An address to a more particular consideration of it in an enumeration of the means we are to use to procure or conserve to our selves a Property Labour assigned the principal place among them and upon occasion thereof enquiry made I. From whence our obligation thereto ariseth which is shewn to be that Command which God laid upon Adam to dress that Garden into
to deny the Crimes wherewith they are justly charged as those that are not are ready enough to own falsly imputed ones From the use or rather necessity of Witnesses pass we to the number which by the Law given to the Israelites ought to be no less than Two especially where the life of a Man is concerned And not without Reason if we consider the weight of the thing in question and the danger of passing a wrong Judgment where one Man's testimony may be admitted Which as all wise people will be careful to prevent lest whilst they seek to punish a supposed Malefactor they make themselves really such so especially if they consider that it is better to let a bad Man escape than run the hazard of punishing a good it being certainly and always an injury to punish a good Man but not such to let a bad go free In the mean time though I say that two Witnesses ordinarily ought to pass to the condemning of any person to death yet as I will not affirm the same to hold in matters of Estate especially where the thing in Controversie is of no very great concern so neither universally in criminal matters and particularly in the case of Treason For as the presumptions many times may be such that they may well make the testimony of a single Witness credible especially if that Witness be an unstained one as moreover it may so happen that a single Witness may be of so fair a reputation that he may be looked upon of equal weight with two or more ordinary ones So the life of a Prince and the welfare of a State are things of so infinite concern that the machinations of Evil Persons against them are not lightly to pass unrevenged where there is an apt proof of the contrivance of them In cases extraordinary therefore or where the matter is of no great concern there may be place for a single Testimony otherwise there is no doubt the exacting of two is both more reasonable and safe As because God himself did sometime require it so because there is not that danger of the corrupting of two which there may be of one or if there were that corruption might more easily be discovered by examining them apart as we see in that famous instance of Susannah The only thing farther to be premised is the qualification of the Witnesses concerning which I intended to be much more large than I have upon second thoughts resolved to be But considering with my self that I had all along avoided the instructing of Publick Persons whose it is to judge of the qualification of those Witnesses they will admit and considering moreover that things of this nature are better judged of by Men versed in Judicial Proceedings and the necessities of the World than by one who converseth only with Books and his own Thoughts I deem'd it but reasonable to leave this head with advertising only that they ought to be persons of competent understanding of honest Fame and without all suspicion of love or hatred or corruption It being thus evident what use or rather necessity there is of Witnesses in Judgment what number of them is requisite and in general also how they ought to be qualified it remains that we enquire to what Duties they are obliged which are these four especially 1. That they deliver nothing that is False 2. and 3. That they neither conceal nor transpose any thing that is true And 4. And lastly That what is true or at least deem'd by them to be so be delivered with no other degree of assurance than they themselves are perswaded of in their own bosoms The first of these is the very thing which this Commandment doth inculcate and will hereafter be more largely exemplified when I come to shew the sins that are forbidden by it The second and third as I shall afterwards shew are included in the former and the fourth a necessary consequent of it For inasmuch as moral falshood consists not in the disagreeableness of the thing we utter with that which it concerns but with our own estimate of it he must be looked upon as giving a false Testimony who shall utter any thing with a greater degree of assurance than he himself is perswaded of it And more than this I shall not need to say at present concerning the Duty of Witnesses because I must resume it in my following Discourse and may therefore with Reason go on to the Duty of Judges the last thing proposed to be discoursed of Now there are two sorts of Judges at least in the most of our Courts of Judicature and which therefore are to be considered apart whereof the former are if I may so speak the Judges of Right the other the Judges of Fact Judges of Right I call those who are commonly and indeed only known among us by the Name of Judges and to whom it belongs to enquire into the Fact that is brought before them to declare the sense of the Law and to pass Sentence upon Verdict given Judges of Fact for so indeed they are those which are best known by the Name of Jury-men and to whom it belongs upon the hearing of the whole matter to umpire differences between Man and Man and either to absolve or condemn the person accused An Institution as Dr. Bates * Elench motuum nuper in Anglia part 2. p. 359. Sed sciant tam exteri quam posteri consuetudinâ—m hanc duodecimvir alis inquâ—sitioniâ— ex aquo bono petuam singulart Regum tum Saxonico um tum Normannorum indulgentiae dehitam ab omni retro memoriâ ad nos traductam hâc aet ate cum aliquantisper intermitteretur publicis desideriis maxi mè comprobatam Aequissimi Plebis aestimatores Plebeii Nobilitatis Nobiles siquidem ejusdem loci atque ordinis hominibus inest charitas abest invidia Praeterea si quos Praetor ediderit tibi infensos licet etiam atque etiam rejicias Nec imprudentes appellare fas facti rationem à testibus rem omnem cordm allegantibus probantibus juris naturam à Judice Legum studiis innutrito edoctos Caeteras partes simplex incorrupta mens rectiùs examinat quà m calliditas alienae libidinis administra observes for which we are beholden to our Saxon and Norman Kings and which is indeed none of the least commendations of the Government none being more proper Judges of Men than those who are of the same rank and condition and who may therefore be supposed to be equally estranged from hatred and envy And though it be true that these also may not be without their affections but however may seem less qualified for Judgment by their own unskilfulness yet as the former inconvenience is in a great measure superseded by that liberty which our Law allows to the person accused to reject to a certain number such of them as he may suspect to be ill affected towards him so the latter is perfectly removed by