for the reasons already shewn to let it passe as a collection impertinent and that I suppose is the worst that can be made of it There is a second acception of the word Faith put either for the whole systeme of that truth which God hath been pleased to reveale to his Church in the Scriptures of the old and new Testament or some part thereof or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the assent of the mind thereunto In which signification some conceiving the words of this Text to be meant do hence inferre a false and dangerous conclusion which yet they would obtrude upon the Christian Church as an undoubted principle of truth that men are bound for every particular action they do to have direction and warrant from the written word of God or else they sinne in the doing of it For say they faith must be grounded upon the word of God Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10. Where there is no Word then there can be no Faith and then by the Apostles doctrine that which is done without the Word to warrant it must needs be sin for whatsoever is not of faith is sin This is their opinion and thus they would inferre it I know not any piece of counterfeit doctrine that hath passed so currently in the world with so little suspicion of falshood and so little open contradiction as this hath done One chief cause whereof I conjecture to be for that it seemeth to make very much for the honour and perfection of Gods sacred Law the fulnesse and sufficiency whereof none in the Christian Church but Papists or Atheists will deny In which respect the very questioning of it now will perhaps seem a strange novelty to many and occasion their miscensures But as God himself so the Holy Word of God is so full of all requisite perfection that it needeth not to begge honour from an untruth Will you speak wickedly for God or talk deceitfully for him I hold it very needfull therefore both for the vindicating of my Text from a common abuse and for the arming of all my brethren as well of the Clergy as Laity against a common and plausible errour that neither they teach it nor these receive it briefly and clearly to shew that the aforesaid opinion in such sort as some have proposed it and many have understood it for it is capable of a good interpretation wherein it may be allowed first is utterly devoid of truth and secondly draweth after it many dangerous consequents and evil effects and Thirdly hath no good warrant from my present Text. The Opinion is that to do any thing at all without direction from the Scripture is unlawfull and sinfull Which if they would understand onely of the substantials of Gods worship and of the exercises of spirituall and supernaturall graces the assertion were true and sound but as they extend it to all the actions of common life whatsoever whether naturall or civil even so farre as to the taking up of a straw so it is altogether false and indefensible I marvell what warrant they that so teach have from the Scripture for that very doctrine or where they are commanded so to believe or teach One of their chiefest refuges is the Text we now have in hand but I shall anon drive them from this shelter The other places usually alleaged speak onely either of divine and supernaturall truths to be believed or else of workes of grace or worship to be performed as of necessity unto salvation which is not to the point in issue For it is freely confessed that in things of such nature the Holy Scripture is and so we are to account it a most absolute and sufficient direction Upon which ground we heartily reject all humane traditions devised and intended as supplements to the doctrine of faith contained in the Bible and annexed as Codicils to the holy Testament of Christ for to supply the defects thereof The question is wholly about things in their nature indifferent such as are the use of our food raiment and the like about which the common actions of life are chiefly conversant Whether in the choice and use of such things we may not be sometimes sufficiently guided by the light of reason and the common rules of discretion but that we must be able and are so bound to do or else we sinne for every thing we do in such matters to deduce our warrant from some place or other oâ— Scripture Before the Scriptures were written it pleased GOD by visions and dreames and other like revelations immediately to make known his good pleasure to the Patriarches and Prophets and by them unto the people which kind of Revelations served them to all the same intents and purposes whereto the sacred Scriptures now do us viz. to instruct them what they should believe and do for his better service and the furtherance of their own salvations Now as it were unreasonable for any may to think that they either had or did expect an immediate revelation from God every time they ate or drank or bought or sold or did any other of the common actions of life for the warranting of each of those particular actions to their consciences no lesse unreasonable it is to think that we should now expect the like warrant from the Scriptures for the doing of the like actions Without all doubt the Law of nature and the light of reason was the rule whereby they were guided for the most part in such matters which the wisdome of God would never have left in them or us as a principall relike of his decayed image in us if he had not meant that we should make use of it for the direction of our lives and actions thereby Certainly God never infused any power into any creature whereof he intended not some use Else what shall we say of the Indies and other barbarous nations to whom God never vouchsafed the lively oracles of his written word Must we think that they were left a lawlesse people without any Rule at all whereby to order their actions How then come they to be guilty of transgression for where there is no Law there can be no transgression Or how cometh it about that their consciâ—nces should at any time or in any case either accuse them or excuse them if they had no guide nor rule to walk by But if we must grant they had a Rule and there is no way you see but grant it we must then we must also of necessity grant that there is some other Rule for humane actions besides the written word for that we presupposed these nations to have wanted Which Rule what other could it be then the Law of Nature and of right reason imprinted in their hearts Which is as truly the Law and Word of God as is that which is printed in our Bibles So long as our actions are warranted either by the
ground and that was his Innocency and the Integrity of his heart Each of these three will afford us some observable instruction for our use And the first thing we will insist upon from these words shall be The grievousnesse of the sin of Adultery hatefull even in the judgement of those men who made small or no conscience at all of Fornication See how this is raised from the Text. Abimelechs heart never smote him for taking Sarah into his house so long as he supposed her to be but a single Woman led with the common blindnesse and custome of the Gentiles he either knew not or considered not that such fornication though in a King was a Sin But the very frame of his Apology sheweth that if he had known her to be another mans Wife and yet had taken her he could not then have pretended the integrity of his heart and the innocency of his hands as now he doth and God alloweth it but he should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own heart would have condemned him for it and he should therein have sinned grosly against the light of his own Conscience It cannot be doubtful to us who by the good blessing of God upon us have his holy word to be A light unto our feet and a lanthorn unto our paths from the evidence whereof we may receive more perfect and certain information than they could have from the glimmering light of depraved Nature I say it cannot be doubtfull to us but that all fornication how simple soever is a sin foul and odious in the sight of God and deadly to the committer As first being opposite directly to that holinesse and honour and sanctification which God prescribeth in his will Secondly causing usually consumption of estate rottennesse of bones and losse of good-name Thirdly stealing away the heart of those that are once ensnared therewith and bewitching them even unto perdition in such powerful sort that it is seldom seen a man once brought under by this sin to recover himself again and to get the victory over it Fourthly putting over the guilty to the severe immediate judgement of God himself who for this sin slew of the Israelites in one day 23 or 24 thousand And having fifthly one singular deformity above all other sins in all other kindes that it is a direct sin against a mans own body in depriving it by making it the instrument of filthinesse and the members of an harlot of that honour whereunto God had ordained it to be a member of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Ghost But yet of this foul sin the Gentiles made no reckoning So long as they abstained from married persons it never troubled their Consciences to defile themselves with those that were single by fornication because they esteemed it either as no sin or as one of the least It was not only the fond speech of an indulgent and doating old Father in the excuse of his licentious son in the Comedy Non est flagitium mihi crede adolescentulum scortari and yet he spake but as the generality of them then thought but it was the serious plea also of the grave Roman Oratour in the behalf of his Client in open Court before the severity of the sage and Reverend bench of Judges Quando hoc non factum est quando reprehensum quando non permissum and Datur omnium concessu c. Nor in the lust of concupiscence saith St. Paul as the Gentiles which know not God An errour so universally spread and so deeply rooted in the mindes and in the lives of the Gentiles who having their understanding darkned through the ignorance that was in them because of the blindnesse of their hearts wrought such uncleannesse not only without remorse but even with greedinesse that the Apostles had much adoe with those men whom by the preaching of the Gospel they had converted from Gentilism to Christianity before they could reclaim them from an Errour so inveterate both in the judgement and practise Saint Paul therefore as it both became and concerned him being the Apostle and Doctor of the Gentiles often toucheth upon this string in his Epistles written unto the Churches of the Gentiles But no where doth he set himself more fully and directly with much evidence of reason and strength of argument against this Sin and errour than in the first Epistle he wrote to the Corinthians because among them this sin was both it self most rife in the practise the Corinthians being notedly infamous for lust and wantonnesse and it was also as much slighted there as any where many of them thinking that the body was made for fornication as the belly for meats and that fornication was as fit and convenient for the body as meats for the belly Out of which consideration the Apostles in that first General Councel holden at Jerusalem Acts 15. thought it needfull by Ecclesiastical Canon among some other indifferent things for the Churches peace to lay this restraint upon the converted Gentiles that they should abstain from Fornication Not as if Fornication were in it self an indifferent thing as those other things were nor as if those other things were in themselves and simply unlawfull as Fornication was but the Apostles did therefore joyn Fornication and those other indifferent things together in the same Canon because the Gentiles accounted fornication a thing as indifferent as what was most indifferent Some remainders of the common error there were it seemeth among some Christians in S. Augustines daies who both relateth the opinion and confuteth it And some in the Popish Church have not come far behinde herein so many of them I mean as hold that simple fornication is not intrinsecally and in the proper nature of it a sin against the Law of Nature but only made such by divine positive Law A strange thng it is and to my seeming not lesse than a mystery that those men that speak so harshly of Marriage which God hath ordained should withall speak so favourably of fornication which God hath forbidden preposterously preferring the disease which springeth from our corruption before the remedy which God himself hath prescribed in his word But howsoever if some Christians have spoken and written and thought so favourably of fornication as to their shame it appeareth they have done the lesse may we marvell to see Abimelech a King and an Infidel allow himself the liberty to continue in the sin of Fornication and yet notwithstanding such allowance stand so much upon his own innocency and integrity as he doth God forbid any man that heareth me this day should be so either ignorant or uncharitable as to conceive all or any of that I have yet said spoken to give the least shadow of liberty or excuse to Fornication or any uncleannesse which Saint Paul would not
Ecclesiastical laws only whereas their arguments if they had any strength in them would as well conclude against the Political laws in the civil State and against domestical orders in private Families as against the Laws Ecclesiastical yet must these only be guilty and they innocent which is not equal Let them either damn them all or quit them all or else let them shew wherein they are unlike which they have not yet done neither can do Secondly when they condemn the things enjoyned as simply and utterly unlawful upon quite other grounds and yet keep a stir about Christian liberty for which argument there can be no place without supposal of indifferency for Christ hath left us no liberty to unlawful things how can they answer this their manifest partiality Thirdly if they were put to speak upon their consciences whether or no if power were in their own hands and Church affairs left to their ordering they would not forbid those things they now dislike every way as strictly and with as much imposition of necessity as the Church presently enjoyneth them I doubt not but they would say Yea and what equity is there in this dealing to condemn that in others which they would allow in themselves Fourthly in some things they are content to submit to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions notwithstanding their Christian liberty which liberty they stiffely pretend for their refusal of other some whereas the case seemeth to be every way equal in both all being enjoyned by the same authority and for the same end and in the same manner If their liberty be impeached by these why not as much by those or if obedience to those may consist with Christian liberty why not as well obedience to these In allowing some rejecting others where there is the same reason of all are they not very partial And now I come to answer their arguments or rather flourishes for they are in truth no better That first allegation that the determining of any thing in unam partem taketh away a mans liberty to it is not true For the liberty of a Christian to any thing indifferent consisteth in this that his judgement is throughly perswaded of the indifferency of it and therefore it is the determination of the judgement in the opinion of the thing not in the use of it that taketh away Christian liberty Otherwise not only Laws Political and Ecclesiastical but also all Vows Promises Covenants Contracts and what not that pitcheth upon any certain resolution de futuro should be prejudicial to Christian Liberty because they do all determine something in unam partem which before was free and indifferent in utramque partem For example if my friend invite me to sup with him I may by no means promise him to come because the liberty I had before to go or not to go is now determined by making such a promise neither may a young man bind himself an Apprentice with any certain Master or to any certain trade because the liberty he had before of placing himself indifferently with that Master or with another and in that trade or in another is now determined by such a contract And so it might be instanced in a thousand other things For indeed to what purpose hath God left indifferent things determinable both ways by Christian liberty if they may never be actually determined either way without impeachment of that liberty It is a very vain power that may not be brought into act but God made no power in vain Our Brethren I hope will wave this first argument when they shall have well examined it unless they will frame to themselves under the name of Christian liberty a very Chimera a non ens a meer notional liberty whereof there can be no use That which was alleaged secondly that they that make such Laws take upon them to alter the nature of things by making indifferent things to become necessary being said gratis without either truth or proof is sufficiently answered by the bare denyal For they that make Laws concerning indifferent things have no intention at all to meddle with the nature of them they leave that in medio as they found it but only for some reasons of conveniency to order the use of them the indifferency of their nature still being where it was Nay so far is our Church from having any intention of taking away the indifferency of those things which for order and comeliness she enjoyneth that she hath by her publick declaration protested the contrary wherewith they ought to be satisfieed Especially since her sincerity in that declaration that none may cavil as if it were protestatio contraria facto appeareth by these two most clear evidences among many other in that she both alloweth different rites used in other Churches and also teacheth her own rites to be mutable neither of which she could do if she conceived the nature of the things themselves to be changed or their indifferency to be removed by her Constitutions Neither is that true which was thirdly alleaged that where men are bound in conscience to obey there the conscience is not left free or else there would be a contradiction For there is no contradiction where the affirmative negative are not ad idem as it is in this case For Obedience is one thing and the Thing commanded another The Thing is commanded by the Law of man and in regard thereof the conscience is free but Obedience to men is commanded by the Law of God and in regard thereof the conscience is bound So that we are bound in conscience to obedience in indifferent things lawfully commanded the conscience still remaining no less free in respect of the things themselves so commanded then it was before And you may know it by this In Laws properly humane such as are those that are made concerning indifferent things the Magistrate doth not nor can say This you are bound in conscienee to do and therefore I command you to do it as he might say if the bond of obedience did spring from the nature of the things commanded But now when the Magistrate beginneth at the other end as he must do and saith I command you to do this or that and therefore you are bound in conscience to do it this plainly sheweth that the bond of obedience ariseth from that power in the Magistrate and duty in the subject which is of divine Ordinance You may observe therefore that in humane Laws not meerly such that is such as are established concerning things simply necessary or meerly unlawful the Magistrate may there derive the bond of obedience from the nature of the things themselves As for example if he should make a Law to inhibite Sacriledge or Adultery he might then well say you are bound in conscience to abstain from these things and therefore I command you so to abstain which he could not so well say in the Lawes made to inhibit the eating of flesh or the transportation of grain
And the reason of the difference is evident because those former Laws are rather Divine than humane the substance of them being divine and but the sanction only humane and so binde by their immediate vertue and in respect of the things themselves therein commanded which the later being meerly humane both for substance and sanction do not The consideration of which difference and the reason of it will abundantly discover the vanity of the fourth allegation also wherein it was objected that the things enjoyned by the Ecclesiastical Lawes are imposed upon men as of necessity to salvation Which is most untrue Remember once again that obedience is one thing and the things commanded another Obedience to lawful authority is a duty commanded by God himself and in his Law and so is a part of that holinesse without which no man shall see God but the things themselves commanded by lawful authority are neither in truth necessary to salvation nor do they that are in authority impose them as such Only they are the object and that but by accident neither and contingently not necessarily about which that obedience is conversant and wherein it is to be exercised An example or two will make it plain We know every man is bound in conscience to imploy himself in the works of his particular calling with faithfulnesse and diligence and that faithfulnesse and diligence is a branch of that holinesse and righteousnesse which is necessary unto salvation Were it not now a very fond thing and ridiculous for a man from hence to conclude that therefore drawing of wine or making of shooes were necessary to salvation because these are the proper imployment of the Vintners and Shoomakers calling which they in conscience are bound to follow nor may without sin neglect them Again if a Master command his servant to go to the market to sell his corn and to buy in provision for his house or to wear a livery of such or such a colour and fashion in this case who can reasonably deny but that the servant is bound in conscience to do the very things his master biddeth him to do to go to sâ—ll to buy to wear and yet is there any man so forsaken of common sense as thence to conclude that going to market selling of corn buying of meat wearing a blue coat are necessary to salvation or that the Master imposeth those things upon the servant as of necessity unto salvation The obligation of the servants conscience to do the things commanded ariseth from the force of that divine Law which bindeth servants to obey their masters in lawful things The master in the things he so commandeth hath no particular actual respect to the conscience of his servant which perhaps all that while never came within his thoughts but meerly respecteth his own occasions and conveniences In this example as in a glasse let the Objectors behold the lineaments and feature of their own argument Because kneeling standing bowing are commanded by the Church and the people are bound in conscience to obey the Lawes of the Church therefore the Church imposeth upon the people kneeling standing and bowing as necessary to salvation If that which they object were indeed true and that the Church did impose these rites and ceremonies upon the people as of necessity to salvation and require to have them so accepted doubtlesse the imposition were so prejudicial to Christian liberty as that every faithful man were bound in conscience for the maintenance of that liberty to disobey her authority therein and to confesse against the imposition But our Church hath been so far from any intention of doing that her self that by her foresaid publick declaration she hath manifested her utter dislike of it in others What should I say more Denique te ipsum concute It would better become the Patriarchs of that party that thus deeply but untruly charge her to look unto their own cloaks dive into their own bosoms and survey their own positions and practise if happily they may be able to clear themselves of trenching upon Christian liberty and ensnaring the consciences of their brethren and imposing upon their Proselytes their own traditions of kneel not stand not bow not like those mentioned Col. 2. of touch not taste not handle not requiring to have them accepted of the people even as of necessity unto salvation If upon due examination they can acquit themselves in this matter their accounts will be the easier but if they cannot they shall finde when the burden lighteth upon them that it will be no light matter to have been themselves guilty of that very crime whereof they have unjustly accused others As for consent with the Papists in their doctrine concerning the power that mens lawes have over the conscience which is the last objection it ought not to move us We are not ashamed to consent with them or any others in any truth But in this point we differ from them so far as they differ from the truth which difference I conceive to be neither so great as some men nor yet so little as other some men would make it They teach that Humane lawes especially the Ecclesiastical binde the consciences of men not only in respect of the obedience but also in respect of the things themselves commanded and that by their own direct immediate and proper vertue In which doctrine of theirs 3. things are to be misliked First that they give a preheminence to the Ecclesiastical lawes above the Secular in this power of binding We may see it in them and in these objectors how men will run into extremities beyond all reason when they give themselves to be led by corrupt respects As he said of himself and his fellow-Philosophers Scurror ego ipse mihi populo tu so it is here They of Rome carried with a wretched desire to exalt the Papacy and indeed the whole Clergy as much as they may and to avile the secular powers as much as they dare they therefore ascribe this power over the conscience to the Ecclesiastical lawes especially but do not shew themselves all out so zealous for the secular Ours at home on the contrary out of an appetite they have to bring in a new platform of discipline into the Church and for that purpose to present the established government unto the eyes and the hearts of the people in as deformed a shape as they can quarrel the Ecclesiastical lawes especially for tyrannizing over the consciscience but do not shew themselves so much agrieved at the secular Whereas the very truth is whatsoever advantages the secular powers may have above the Ecclesiastical or the Ecclesiastical above the secular in other respects yet as to the power of binding the conscience all humane lawes in general are of like reason and stand upon equal termes It is to be misliked secondly in the Romish doctrine that they subject the conscience to the things themselves also and not only tye it to the obedience whereby they assume unto themselves interpretativè the power of altering the nature of
Glory and judgement As it is not safe for us then to encroach upon GODS Royalties in either of the other two Glory or Vengeance so neither in this of Judgement Dominus judicabit The Lord himself will judge his people Heb. 10. It is flat Usurpation in us to judge and therefore we must not judge Secondly it is rashnesse in us A Judge must understand the truth both for matter of fact and for point of Law and he must be sure he is in the right for both before he proceed to sentence or else he will give rash judgement How then dare any of us undertake to sit as Iudges upon other mens Consciences wherewith we are so little acquainted that we are indeed but too much unacquainted with our own We are not able to search the depth of our own wicked and deceitfull hearts and to ransack throughly the many secret windings and turnings therein how much lesse then are we able to fadome the bottomes of other mens hearts with any certainty to pronounce of them either good or evil We must then leave the judgements of other mens spirits and hearts and reines to him that is the Father of spirits and alone searcheth the hearts and reines before whose eyes all things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the word is most Emphaticall Hebrewes 4. Wherefore our Apostles precept elsewhere is good to this purpose 1 Cor. 4. Iudge nothing before the time untill the LORD come who both will bring to light the hidden things of darknesse and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts Unlesse we be able to bring these hidden things to light and to make manifest these counsels it is rashnessi in us to judge and therefore we must not judge Thirdly this judging is uncharitable Charity is not easily suspicious but upon just cause much lesse then censorious and peremptory Indeed when we are to judge of Things it is wisdome to judge of them secundùm quod sunt as neer as we can to judge of them just as they are without any sway or partiall inclination either to the right hand or to the left But when we are to judge of Men and their Actions it is not altogether so there the rule of Charity must take place Dubia in meliorem partem sunt interpretanda Unlesse we see manifest cause to the contrary we ought ever to interpret what is done by others with as much favour as may be To erre thus is better than to hit right the other way because this course is safe and secureth us as from injuring others so from endangering our selves whereas in judging ill though right we are still unjust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the event onely and not our choyce freeing us from wrong judgement True Charity is ingenious it thinketh no evil 1 Cor. 13. How far then are they from Charity that are ever suspicious and think nothing well For us let it be our care to maintain Charity and to avoid as far as humane frailty will give leave even sinister suspicions of our brethrens actions or if through frailty we cannot that yet let us not from light suspicions fall into uncharitable censures let us at leastwise suspend our definitive judgement and not determine too peremptorily against such as do not in every respect just as we do or as we would have them do or as we think they should do It is uncharitable for us to judge and therefore we must not judge Lastly there is Scandall in judging Possibly he that is judged may have that strength of Faith and Charity that though rash and uncharitable censures lie thick in his way he can lightly skip over all those stumbling-blocks and scape a fall Saint Paul had such a measure of strength With me it is a very small thing saith he that I should be judged of you or of humane judgement 1 Cor. 4. If our judging light upon such an object it is indeed no scandall to him but that 's no thanks to us We are to esteem things by their natures not events and therefore we give a scandall if we judge notwithstanding he that is judged take it not as a scandall For that judging is in it self a scandall is clear from ver 13. of this Chapter Let us not therefore saith S. Paul judge one another any more but judge this rather that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brothers way And thus we see four main Reasons against this judging of our brethren 1. We have no right to judge and so our judging is usurpation 2. We may erre in our judgements and so our judging is rashnesse 3. We take things the worst way when we judge and so our judging is uncharitable 4. We offer occasion of offence by our judging and so our judging is scandalous Let not him therefore that eateth not judge him that eateth And so I have done with my Text in the general use of it wherein we have seen the two faults of despising and of judging our brethren laid open and the uglinesse of both discovered I now descend to make such Application as I promised both of the case and rules unto some differences and to some offences given and taken in our Church in point of Ceremony The Case ruled in my Text was of eating and not eating the Differences which some maintain in our Church are many in the particular as of kneeling and not kneeling wearing and not wearing crossing and not crossing c. But all these and most of the rest of them may be comprehended in grosse under the terms of conforming and not conforming Let us first compare the Cases that having found wherein they agree or disagree we may thereby judge how far S. Pauls advice in my Text ought to rule us for not despising for not judging one another There are four speciall things wherein if we compare this our Case with the Apostles in every of the four we shall find some agreement and some disparity also 1. The nature of the matter 2. The abilities of the persons 3. Their severall practise about the things and 4. Their mutuall carriage one towards another And first let us consider how the two Cases agree in each of these First the matter whereabout the eater and the not-eater differed in the case of the Romans was in the nature of it indifferent so it is between the conformer and not conformer in our Case As there fish and flesh and herbs were meerly indifferent such as might be eaten or not eaten without sin so here Cap and Surplis Crosse and Ring and the rest are things meerly indifferent such as in regard of their own nature may be used or not used without sin as being neither expresly commanded nor expresly forbidden in the Word of God Secondly the Persons agree For as there so here also some are strong in faith some weak
have so much as named among the Saints not named with allowance not named with any extenuation not named but with some detestation But the very thing for which I have spoken all this is to shew how inexcusable the Adulterer is when even those of the Gentiles who by reason of the darknesse of their understandings and the want of Scripture-light could espy no obliquity in Fornication could yet through all that darknesse see something in Adultery deservedly punishable even in their judgements with death They could not so far quench that spark of the light of nature which was in them nor hold back the truth of God in unrighteousnesse as not by the glimpse thereof to discern a kinde of reverend Majesty in Gods holy ordinance of Wedlock which they knew might not be dishonoured nor the bed defiled by Adultery without guilt They saw Adultery was a mixt crime and such as carried with it the face of Injustice as well as Uncleannesse nor could be committed by the two offending parties without wrong done to a third And therefore if any thing might be said colourably to excuse Fornication as there can be nothing said justly yet if any such thing could be said for Fornication it would not reach to excuse Adultery because of the injury that cleaveth thereunto Against Fornication God hath ordained Marriage as a Remedy what a beast then is the Adulterer and what a Monster whom that remedy doth no good upon In the marriage knot there is some expression and representation of the Love-covenant betwixt Christ and his Church but what good assurance can the Adulterer have that he is within that Covenant when he breaketh this Knot Every married person hath ipso facto surrendred up the right and interest he had in and over his own body and put it out of his own into the power of another what an arrant Thief then is the Adulterer that taketh upon him to dispose at his pleasure that which is none of his But I say too well by him when I compare him but to a thief Solomon maketh him worse than a Thief Men do not despise a thief if he steal to satisfie his soul when he is hungry c. But who so committeth adultery with a Woman lacketh understanding he that doth it destroyeth his own soul c. Where he maketh both the injury greater and the reconcilement harder in and for the Adulterer then for the Thief Nay God himself maketh him worse than a Thief in his Law in his Moral Law next after murther placing Adultery before Theft as the greater sin and in his Iudicial Law punishing Theft with a mulct but Adultery with Death the greater Punishment To conclude this first point Abimelech an Heathen man who had not the knowledge of the true God of Heaven to direct him in the right way and withall a King who had therefore none upon earth above him to controll him if he should transgresse would yet have abhorred to have defiled himself knowingly by Adultery with another mans Wife although the man were but a stranger and the woman exceeding beautifull Certainly Abimelech shall one day rise up in judgement and condemn thy filthinesse and injustice whosoever thou art that committest or causest another to commit adultery Who knowing the judgement of God that they which do such things are worthy of death either doest the same things thy self or hast pleasure in them that do them or being in place and office to punish incontinent persons by easie commutations of publick penance for a private pecuniary mulct dost at once both beguilty thine own conscience with sordid Bribery and embolden the adulterer to commit that sin again without fear from which he hath once escaped without shame or so much as valuable losse And thus much for that first Observation The next thing we shall observe from Gods approving of Abimelechs answer and acknowledgement of the integrity of his heart is That some Ignorance hath the weight of a just excuse For we noted before that Ignorance was the ground of his Plea He had indeed taken Sarah into his house who was another mans Wife but he hopeth that shall not be imputed to him as a fault because he knew not she was a married woman the parties themselves upon inquiry having informed him otherwise And therefore he appealeth to God himself the trier and judger of mens hearts whether he were not innocent in this matter and God giveth sentence with him Yea I know that thou diddest this in the integrity of thy heart Where you see his ignorance is allowed for a sufficient excuse For our clearer understanding of which point that I may not wade farther into that great question so much mooted among Divines than is pertinent to this story of Abimelech and may be usefull for us thence viz. whether or no or how far Ignorance and Errour may excuse or lessen sinful Actions proceeding therefrom in point of Conscience let us first lay down one general certain and fundamental ground whereupon indeed dependeth especially the resolution of almost all those difficulties that may occur in this and many other like Questions And that is this It is a condition so essential to every sin to be Voluntary that all other circumstances and respects laid aside every sin is simply and absolutely by so much greater or lesser by how much it is more or lesse voluntary For whereas there are in the reasonable soul three prime faculties from whence all humane Actions flow the Understanding the Will and the sensual Appetite or Affections all of these concur indeed to every Action properly Humane yet so as the Will carrieth the greatest sway and is therefore the justest measure of the Moral goodnesse or badnesse thereof In any of the three there may be a fault all of them being depraved in the state of corrupt Nature and the very truth is there is in every sin every compleat sin a fault in every of the three And therefore all sins by reason of the blindnesse of the Understanding may be called Ignorances and by reason of the impotency of the Affections Infirmities and by reason of the perversenesse of the will Rebellions But for the most part it falleth out so that although all the three be faulty yet the obliquity of the sinful Action springeth most immediately and chiefly from the special default of some one or other of the three If the main defect be in the Vnderstanding not apprehending that good it should or not aright the sin arising from such defect we call more properly a sin of Ignorance If the main defect be in the Affections some passion blinding or corrupting the Judgement the sin arising from such defect we call a sin of Infirmity If the main defect be in the Will with perverse resolution bent upon any evil the sin arising from such wilfulnesse we call a Rebellion or a sin of Presumption And
which was not in that measure afforded them when they were tempted And from whom can we think that restraint to come but from that God who is the Author and the Lord of nature and hath the power and command and rule of nature by whose grace and goodnesse we are whatsoever we are and to whose powerful assistance we owe it if we do any good for it is he that setteth us on and to his powerful restraint if we eschew any evil for it is he that keepeth us off Therefore I also withheld thee from sinning against me And as to the third point in the Observation it is not much lesse evident than the two former namely that this Restraint as it is from God so it is from the Mercy of God Hence it is that Divines usually bestow upon it the name of Grace distinguishing between a twofold Grace a special renewing Grace and a Common restraining Grace The special and renewing Grace is indeed so incomparably more excellent that in comparison thereof the other is not worthy to be called by the name of Grace if we would speak properly and exactly but yet the word Grace may not unfitly be so extended as to reach to every act of Gods providence whereby at any time he restraineth men from doing those evils which otherwise they would do and that in a threefold respect of God of themselves of others First in respect of God every restraint from sin may be called Grace in as much as it proceedeth ex mero motu from the meer good will and pleasure of God without any cause motive or inducement in the man that is so restrained For take a man in the state of corrupt nature and leave him to himself and think how it is possible for him to forbear any sin whereunto he is tempted There is no power in nature to work a restraint nay there is not so much as any pronenesse in nature to desire a restraint much lesse then is there any worth in Nature to deserve a restraint Issuing therefore not at all from the Powers of Nature but from the free pleasure of God as a beam of his merciful providence this Restraint may well be called Grace And so it may be secondly in respect of the Persons themselves because though it be not available to them for their everlasting salvation yet it is some favour to them more than they have deserved that by this means their sins what in number what in weight are so much lesser than otherwise they would have been whereby also their account shall be so much the easier and their stripes so many the fewer Saint Chrysostome often observeth it as an effect of the mercy of God upon them when he cutteth off great offenders betimes with some speedy destruction and he doth it out of this very consideration that they are thereby prevented from committing many sins which if God should have lent them a longer time they would have committed If his observation be sound it may then well passe for a double Mercy of God to a sinner if he both respite his destruction and withall restrain him from sin for by the one he giveth him so much longer time for repentance which is one Mercy and by the other he preventeth so much of the increase of his sin which is another Mercy Thirdly it may be called Grace in respect of other men For in restraining men from doing evil God intendeth as principally his own glory so withall the good of mankinde especially of his Church in the preservation of humane society which could not subsist an hour if every man should be left to the wildenesse of his own nature to do what mischief the Devill and his own heart would put him upon without restraint So that the restraining of mens corrupt purposes and affections proceedeth from that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle somewhere calleth it that love of GOD to mankinde whereby he willeth their preservation and might therefore in that respect bear the name of Grace though there should be no good at all intended thereby to the person so restrained Just as those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those spiritual gifts which God hath distributed in a wonderful variety for the edifying of his Church though they often-times bring no good to the receiver are yet stiled graces in the Scriptures because the distribution of them proceedeth from the gracious love and favour of God to his Church whose benefit he intendeth therein God here restrained Abimelech as elsewhere he did Laban and Esau and Balaam and others not so much for their own sakes though perhaps sometimes that also as for their sakes whom they should have injured by their sins if they had acted them As here Abimelech for his chosen Abrahams sake and Laban and Esau for his servant Iacobs sake and Balaam for his people Israels sake As it is said in Psal. 105. and that with special reference as I conceive it to this very story of Abraham He suffered no man to do them wrong but reproved even Kings for their sakes saying Touch not mine anointed and do my Prophets no harm He reproved even Kings by restraining their power as here Abimelech but it was for their sakes still that so Sarah his anointed might not be touched nor his Prophet Abraham sustain any harm We see now the Observation proved in all the points of it 1. Men do not alwaies commit those evils they would and might do 2. That they do not it is from Gods restraint who with-holdeth them 3. That restraint is an act of his merciful providence and may therefore bear the name of Grace in respect of God who freely giveth it of them whose sins and stripes are the fewer for it of others who are preserved from harmes the better by it The Inferences we are to raise from the premises for our Christian practise and comfort are of two sorts for so much as they may arise from the consideration of Gods Restraining Grace either as it may lye upon other men or as it may lye upon our selves First from the consideration of Gods restraint upon others the Church and children and servants of God may learn to whom they owe their preservation even to the power and goodnesse of their God in restraining the fury of his and their enemies We live among Scorpions and as sheep in the midst of Wolves and they that hate us without a cause and are mad against us are more in number than the hairs of our heads And yet as many and as malicious as they are by the Mercy of God still we are and we live and we prosper in some measure in despite of them all Is it any thanks to them None at all The seed of the Serpent beareth a natural and an immortal hatred against God and all good men and if they had hornes to their curstnesse and power answerable to their wils we should not breath a minute