not that Christ intends thou should offer to do thyself a shrewd turn, or invite another; nor that thou shouldst suffer it, if thou canst fairly avoid it: but that thou shouldst choose rather to suffer two evils, than do one. But this is especially to be reduced to practice in matters of counsel rather than precept; that is, when the affirmative inferred from the negative is matter of perfection rather than positive necessity, then the comparative proportion is a duty; but the absolute proportion and measure is but counsel. To oblige an enemy, and do him acts of favour and benefit, is an excellency of charity, for which Christians shall receive a glorious reward: but this is a counsel of perfection, which if upon probable reasons, and fairly inducing circumstances, it be omitted, a man shall give no answer for: but when the case is so, that it must be that I must either take revenge of him, or else rescue him from that revenge by an act of kindness, by a labour of love, or an expense of charity, then this becomes a duty; for in comparative measures every affirmative is at least obligatory: that is, we must rather be at any trouble, or expense, to do an affirmative, than prevaricate a negative commandment.

15. But then as to the other part of the rule, that in the affirmative commandment the negative is included,' there is no other difficulty but this, that caution be had, that the negative be opposed to the affirmative in relation to the same subject: for because we are bound to love our friends, therefore we must not hate them; but it follows not (as the Pharisees did falsely comment on this text) because we must love our friends, therefore we must hate our enemies; for these two are not opposed as affirmative and negative in the same subject, but as two affirmatives relating to subjects that are divers.

16. But this is sometimes not to be understood of the precise commandment itself, but of the appendages; I mean the promises and threatenings: for though it follows, we must do good to our neighbour; therefore we must do no evil to him yet it does not follow, 'Do this and live; therefore if ye do not do it, ye shall die :' the reason of that is this, because there are some things encouraged with excellent rewards, the negatives of which are permitted to us with

impunity thus it is said by our blessed Saviour, "When thou makest a feast, invite the poor, and thou shalt have recompense in heaven;" but then if we do not invite the poor, it does not follow that we shall be punished in hell; but we shall not have that recompense, which the hospitable man shall have: so that to invite the poor is an affirmative precept; but in this the negative is not included; Thou shalt not invite the rich,' or if thou doest, thou shalt be punished but that it is not so excellent a thing, it is not so encouraged by the proposition of an eternal reward;' but expires in a temporal interest: so that the negative included relates to the reward, not to the precept, and means this only if thou dost not invite the poor, thou shalt not have any reward in heaven for feasting and making entertainments. But the sign of this is, 1. when the precept is only in the particular instance of a general commandment; as this of inviting the poor is of alms or charity: or else, 2. when it is matter of counsel and not of express precept: then the negative is not directly included in the preceptive words, but in the reward that is appendant.

17. Lastly, when it is said that in the affirmative precepts the negatives are included; the word 'negative' is to be understood in the moral sense; that is, so as to include the privatives also: thus when we are commanded to love our brother, it is not only forbidden to us to hate him; but we are also commanded not to omit to express our love by symbolical actions: for not only contrarieties and repugnancies to the duty of the commandment, but even omissions also, are forbidden: and this is highly to be regarded in the matters of charity; which toward enemies we use to estimate by our not cursing him, our not hurting him, our not being revenged on him: these, indeed, are proper instances of the negative included; but the privatives also are to be considered; for not loving him is hating him; our refusing to do him kindness, our not praying for him, our unaptness to do him good offices, our remembering and reporting his injustice, our refusing to converse with him and denying him the comforts of our society, when, without danger or injury to ourselves, we may converse; is a prevaricating the negative or privative measures of the commandment.

1

RULE II.

When a Negative and an Affirmative seem opposite in any Sense, the Affirmative is to be expounded by the Negative, not the Negative by the Affirmative.

1. THUS are those various expressions of our blessed Saviour to be considered and understood, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you:' and yet our blessed Lord says, 'He that eateth the flesh of the Son of man, hath life abiding in him.' Now to them who suppose these words to relate to the sacramental manducation, the question is, whether or no it be necessary to drink the blood in specie, as well as to eat the flesh? because of the exclusive negative requiring both under the forfeiture of eternal life; or shall it suffice to receive the flesh only, because life is promised to be in him who eats the flesh, in that place no mention being made of drinking the blood?

2. To this the answer is made by this rule; the negative cannot be lessened by the affirmative, because a negative can have no degrees, as an affirmative can; and if the affirmative were in this case sufficient, when the negative is express to require more, then the affirmative were directly contrary to the negative: but, on the other side, though the affirmative requires less than the negative, there is no contradiction. 1. Because, in matters of duty, whatsoever is any where required, is every where supposed; and no interpretation can lessen it from what it is in its whole integrity. 2. Because all our duty is not every where repeated, but the not repeating it in any place cannot annul the obligation in that place, where it is expressly required. 3. Because a threatening in all laws is of more force and efficacy than a promise; and therefore when, under a threatening, more is required, the promise that is affixed to a part of it, must be understood by the analogy and promise to that threatening, because one thing is enough to destroy us, but one thing is not enough to preserve us: "Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex qualibet particulari." 4. Because it is ordinary in Scripture to give the promise to every part of duty,

which yet shall never be paid to that alone; thus to purity, to poverty of spirit, to mercy, to faith, to alms, to patience, to hope, the promises of blessedness are given; but although it is said, "the pure in heart shall see God;" and "the poor in spirit shall have the kingdom;" and "they that quit houses and lands for Christ's sake, shall receive the reward of the other world;" yet unless all that is required, be put together in the duty, nothing of the reward shall be given to the person. Every part of an exclusive negative is an indispensible duty; but every affirmative that is encouraged by a promise, does not contain a whole duty, but a part of duty, which, by being symbolical to the whole, is encouraged as every other part is, but is not paid but in an entire payment, to an entire obedience.

3. This also is true, when in the affirmative more is put than in the negative; for even then the negative is the strict measure of the commandment, and the limit of its absolute necessity and exaction. "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damneda." Here the negative is the utmost limit; the 'necesse esse' is described in that; the 'bene esse,' and the ordinary expectation, in the other: by which we are thus to understand this and such other expressions, that the negative contains the indispensable duty; and supposes an obligation that nothing can excuse in persons capable; but the affirmative that supposes more, is yet for that which is over and above content with a less necessity, and admits of easier dispensation: for it containing all that is expected, is like a 'summum jus,' which though by the method of laws it is often expressed, that obedience may be invited as forward as it can, yet the Tina, or the abatement, is in the negative; that is the lowest, and therefore it is bound up with the penalty. For to the highest duty the reward is promised, and it is more than enough to pay it, but the punishment is threatened by lower measures: God abates much before he smites; and though he will reward every good we do, yet every good that is omitted, is not punished with death. But this is to be understood, when the good is of that nature, that it may be omitted upon a probable cause, or without malice; or

a Mark xvi.

without the direct prevarication of an express commandment. For many good things are wholly put to us upon the account of hope and promises, and not of commandments, and obedience though in these also God makes what abatements he please: but we are to make none at all.

RULE III.

In the affirmative and negative Precepts of Christ, not only what is in the Words of the Commandment, but whatsoever is symbolical or alike, is equally forbidden or commanded.·

1. WHEN St. Paul had enumerated the works of the flesh, and had put into the catalogue most of those crimes, which are commonly named in laws and fame, and the manners of men; he addsa, naì tà ouola ToÚтois, "and those things which are like to these." For, 1. there are some things, which are too bad to name, such were the impurities of the Tribades, Fellatrices,'' Drauci,' 'Pathici,'' Pædicatores,' of which the apostle says, "it is a shame even to name such things, as are done of them in secret:" rán ariuías, that is the general word which the apostle uses for them all, "dishonourable lusts." Now when all unnatural lusts are forbidden, all mixtures but what are hallowed by marriage, and the order of nature, it is no part of the perfection of the law, to name the species of impurity, and the circumstances of that vileness, which gets new names as men please to undo themselves by tricks and artifices of shame.

2. There are some sins, which are like new diseases, vile and infectious in one year, or in one age, which were never heard of before, and die with reproach, and are never heard of again. That a woman should grow to that impudence as to marry her adulterer in the same town where her husband was living, and a prince,—was so rare a contingency; that though it was once done in Rome, yet no law was needful to prevent it. And there needed no law to forbid a man to marry a boy; yet Nero did marry Sporus, and he married Dory

a Gal. v. 21.