fters,and profeffe to adhere to the literall and fimple sense of the Law, without adding to it,or diminishing from it, yet even they themselves do not require expreffe words ofScripture for every Divine Institution; but what they hold to be commanded or forbiddenby the law of God,fuch commandment or prohibition they draw from the Law three wayes, either from the very words of the Scripture it felf, or by argumentation from Scripture, or by the hereditary tranfmiffion of interpretations, which interpretations of Scripture formerly received, the following Generations were allowed after to correct and alter upon further discovery or better reafon. The fecond way which was by argumentation, was by the principles of theKarai themselves of two forts, a pari or a fortiori. Which agreeth with the paffage of the Talmud before cited. And herein our writers agree with the Karai, that all kinds of unlawfull and forbidden mariages are not exprefly mentioned in the law, but diverse of them to be collected by confequence, that is, either by parity of reason, or by greater ftrength of reason: for inftance, Levit 18.10. The nakedneffe of thy Sons daughter, or of thy daughters daughter, even their nakedneße thou shalt not uncover: For theirs is thine own nakednesse. Hence the confe quence is drawn a pari. Therefore a man may not uncover the nakedneffe of his great grand-child, or of her who is the daughter of his Sonnes daughter. For that alfo is his own nakedneffe,being a difcent in linea recta from himself. From the fame Text, 'tis collected à fortiori, that much leffe a man may uncover the nakedneffe of his own daughter, which yet is not expreffely forbiden in the Law, but left to be thus col lected by neceffary confequence from the very fame Text, 'tis likewife a neceffary confequence that a man may not uncover the nakedneffe of her who is daughter to his wives fonne, or to his wives daughter. For here the reafon holds, 'tis his ownenakedneffe, his wife and he being one flesh, which gives

ground:

ground to that generall receaved rule, that a man may not marry any of his wives blood, nearer than he may of his own, neither may a wife marry any of her husbands blood, nearer then she may of her owne. Again, Levit: 18. 14. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedneffe of thy fathers brother, &c. Hence it followeth à pari, that a man may not uncover the nakednesse of his mothers brother, and by parity of reafon (ever since that law was made,) 'tis also unlawfull for a woman to marry him who hath been husband to her father fifter, or to her mothers fifter, the nearneffe of blood being alike between Uncle and Neece, as between Ant and Nephew. Other inftances may be given, but these may fuffice to prove that what doeth by neceffary confequence follow from the law,must be understood to be commanded, or forbidden by God, as well as that which is expreffely commanded or forbidden in the Text of Scripture.

3. Argument, Ifwe fay that neceffary confequences from Scripture prove not a jus divinum, we fay that which is inconfiftent with the infinite wifdome of God, for although neceffary confequences may bee drawen from a mans word which do not agree with his minde and intention, and so men are oftentimes infnared by their words; yet (as Camero well noteth) God being infinitly wife, it were a blafphemous opinion, to hold that any thing can bee drawne by acertaine and neceffary confequence from his holy word, which is not his will. This were to make the onely wife God as foolish man, that cannot foresee all things which will follow from his words. Therefore wee must needs hold, 'tis the minde of God which neceffary followeth from the word of God.

4. Argument, diverfe other great abfurdities muft follow, if this truth be not admitted. How can it be proved that women may partake of the Sacrament of the Lords fupper, unleffe wee prove it by neceffary confequence from Scripture?

Hh 2

How

How can it bee proved that this or that Church, is a true Church, and the Miniftery thereof, a true Miniftery, and the Baptifme Ministered therein true Baptifme? Sure no expreffe Scripture will prove it, but neceffary confequence will. How fhall this or that individuall beleever, collect from Scripture, that to him, even to him the Covenant of grace and the promifes thereof belong? Will Scripture prove this otherwife, than by neceffary confequence? How will it be proved from Scripture, that the late warre against the Popish and Prelaticall party, in defence of our Religion and Liberties, was lawfull, that the folemne League and Covenant was an ac.ceptable fervice to God? Neceffary confequence from Scripture will prove all this; but expreffe Scriptures will not. The like I fay of faftings and thanfgiving now and then, upon this or that occafion, God calls us to these dueties, and it is his will that we performe them, yet this cannot bee proved from Scripture, but by neceffary consequences.

This fourth Argument will serve for the extenfion of the prefent affertion (which I now prove) to 'its just latitude, that is, that Arguments from Scripture by neceffary confequence, will not onely help to prove and ftrengthen fuch things which may bee otherwise proved from expreffe and plain Scriptures, but will be good and fufficient to prove fuch things to be by the will and appointment of God, or as we commonly fay, Jure divine which cannot be proved to be fuch, from any expreffe Text of Scripture.

5. Argument, I fhall here take notice of the conceffion of Theophilus Nicolaides, the Socinian in his Tractat, de Ecclefia & mißine miniftrorum, cap. 10. pag: 121. Although hee profef feth his diffent, both from the Reformed and Romane Churehes thus far, that he doeth not beleeve things drawen by con-fequence from Scripture to be equally neceffary to falvation, as thofe things contained expreffely in Scripture, yet he yeeld

eth

deth the things drawne by consequence to be as certaine as the the other, quantumuis, faith he, aque certa fint que ex facris literis de ducuntur atg ea que in illis expreffe & pres habentur. And generally it may be obferved, that even they who moft cry downe confequences from Scripture, and call for expreffe Scriptures, do notwithstanding, when themselves come to prove from Scripture their particular Tenents, bring no other but confequentiall prooffs. So farre is wifdome justified, not onely of her Children, but even of her Enemies. Neither is it poffible that any Socinian, Eraftian, &c. can difput from Scripture against a Chriftian, who receaveth and beleeveththe Scripture to be the word of God, but hee must needs take himself to confequentiall prooffs: for no Chriftian will deny what is pures literally and fyllabically in Scripture, but all the controverfies of Faith or Religion in the Chriftian world, were and are concerning the fenfe of Scripture, and confequences, drawne from Scripture.

6. Argument. Ifwee do not admit neceffary confequences from Sripture to prove a jus divinam, wee fhall deny to the great God that which is a priviledge of the little Gods or Magiftrates. Take but one instance in our own age; When the Earle of Strafford was impeached for high treafon, one of his defences was, that no Law of the Land had determined any of thofe particulars, which were proved againft him to be high treafon. Which defence of his was not confuted by any Law, which literally and fyllabically made many of thofe particulars to be high treafon, but by comparing together of feverall Lawes, and feverall matters of fact, and by drawing of neceffary confequences from one thing to another, which made up against him a conftructive trafon. Ifthere be a conftructive or confequentiall jus humanum, there must be much more for the confiderations before mentioned) a conftructive or confequentiall jus divinum.

Hh3

CHAP

CHAP. XXI

of an affurance of an interest in Christ, by the marks and fruits of Sanctification, and namely by love to the Brethren. Also how this agreeth with, or differeth from affurance by the Teftimony of the Spirit? and whether there can bee any well grounded af Jurance without marks of grace.

E

Is a right, a fafe, a fure way to feek after, and to enjoy affurance of our intereft in Christ, and in the Covenant of grace, by the marks and fruits of Sanctification. Which (before I come to the proof of it) that it may not be mistaken, but understood aright,take these three cautions; firft, our best marks can contribute nothing to our juftification, but onely to our confolation, cannot availe to peace with God,but to peace with our felves; gracious marks can prove our juftification and peace with God, but cannot be inftrumentall towards it, that is proper to faith. Faith cannnot lodge in the foule alone, and without other graces, yet faith alone justifies before God. Secondly, beware that marks of grace doe not lead us from Chrift, or make us looke upon our felves, as any thing at all out of Chrift. Thou beareft not the root; but the root beares thee. Chrift is made unto us of God, fanctification as well as righteoufneffe. Thy very inherent grace and fanctification is in Chrift, as light in the funne, as water in the fountaine, as fap in the roote, as money in the treasure. 'Tis thine onely by irradiation, cffluence, diffufion, and debursement from Jefus Chrift, 'Tis Chrifts by propriety, thine onely by participation. "Tis thy Union with Chrift, which conveighs the habits of grace to thy foule. 'Tis thy communion with Chrift, which firs up, actuateth, and putteth forth thofe habits into holy dueties

and