peace and order, for composing dissensions, and healing of differences in a judicial way; that we may the better "live quiet "and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty." I shall therefore, without further preface, propose the following method of discourse:

I. I shall inquire what obligations we lie under to peaceableness with all men, shew whereon they are founded, and how far they extend.

II. I shall consider the particular duties and offices implied in this duty of peaceableness, and therein give general directions for a peaceable conduct.

III. And lastly, I shall apply the general rules to some special cases and instances, particularly to that which the present occasion offers to us.

First, I am to inquire what obligations we lie under to peaceableness with all men, to shew whereon they are founded, and how far they extend.

Our obligations to this duty are very great and manifest. They are founded in the nature and reason of things, are in some sense antecedent to all laws human and divine, and are bound upon us by both, because it was reasonable and necessary they should be so. They arise immediately from the mutual relation we bear to each other, and the capacity we are put into of promoting each other's happiness; and if we run them up to the fountain and foundation of all, "God blessed for ever," we shall find that they flow more remotely from the unchangeable perfections of his nature, from his wisdom and goodness. When he was pleased to make such a creature as man, his primary end and design (excepting his own glory, which is coincident with it) was to make him happy for ever with himself in heaven; and his secondary was to make him in some measure also happy here in this state of probation. All his laws natural and positive plainly centre in these two, or rather ultimately terminate in the former. From hence spring all our obligations to peace and amity, in as much as by the very frame and constitution of our nature, and the circumstances of our being, they contribute greatly both to our temporal and eternal happiness.

With regard to this life, it is evident, that, had we no contests or quarrels with each other, the world would be a much more comfortable place to live in, than now we find it the earth would be a paradise compared to what it is, and mankind

happy beyond expression. Men are born for society, and designed for mutual helps and comforts to each other. Strifes and debates, anger, wrath, bitterness, are very pernicious and destructive, unnatural and irregular: they are the disorders and deviations of a depraved nature from the original rule, beside the primary intent of the kind Author of our beings. Private families cannot prosper, nor even subsist long, when torn asunder by heats and animosities: neither can a kingdom stand when divided against itself," and crumbled into sects and parties. Even whole nations, though united within themselves, if in a state of war with others, are often ruined thereby, and always lose much of that prosperity and plenty which they might otherwise enjoy. This shews the necessity of our living friendly and peaceably, whether considered as private men or as societies; our temporal safety and happiness, our being and well-being, are bound up in it.

As to another life, the great concern we have therein, and the apparent necessity of the means toward the desired end, oblige us yet more strictly to live peaceably and friendly with one another. For how shall any sense or face of religion be kept up amongst us, unless we agree and unite in one common worship? How shall decency, order, and regularity be maintained, without peace and unity? How shall any have the means of instruction or improvement in wisdom and goodness, unless their condition and posture of affairs give freedom and leisure for it; unless their minds be calm and serene, their thoughts easy and cheerful, that is, unless they be at peace with one another? Hatred and revenge, rancour and malice, eat out the very vitals of religion, estrange us mightily from God and goodness, unqualify us for the offices of devotion and piety, and render us very unfit for the friendly and peaceful society of heaven. I need not dwell long on so clear an argument: every one that thinks must be sensible that to live peaceably is as necessary as it is to live and to be happy, to be easy and satisfied in this life, and to be for ever blessed in another. This may be sufficient to shew our obligation to the duty of peaceableness, and the foundation of it. The next consideration is concerning its extent, which will be easily stated from the principles laid down: and it is of great importance to understand it rightly for the regulation of our practice in many intricate cases.

The extent of our obligation to this duty may be considered under a twofold respect, either

First, With respect to the obligation itself abstractedly, viz. the end and design of it. Or,

Secondly, With respect to our power, capacity, or ability of discharging it.

For it can reach no further in itself considered, than the end and design of it; nor with regard to us, than we are capable of performing it.

1. As to the former, the great end and design of all laws which concern us, as I have before observed, is the present and future happiness of mankind. From hence they derive their obligation, and from hence we must state their measure. By the great law of charity founded hereupon, we are obliged to love all men, and to do them good: this always holds, and no change of circumstances whatever can make any alteration in this general and highest law. By the same law of charity we are likewise bound" to follow peace with all men;" because this is loving them and doing them good, generally speaking, as has been shewn. But yet in this, which is only a secondary and subordinate law, different circumstances may cause some variety, and make some abatement. It can oblige no further than the reason of it holds, that is, no further than it tends to the glory of God and the good of men. We may, nay we ought, at any time, to break peace in order to some greater good; and so the same law of charity which binds to peace generally, obliges to the contrary in different circumstances. If by disobliging and offending some persons we can do them the greater kindness; if we can reform and save them, or however can promote the public happiness by disturbing their present peace more than by leaving them quiet, easy, and unmolested; then considerations of peace so far cease, as they are inconsistent with piety and charity. I choose rather thus to state the measure of our obligation to peace, than to say, as is commonly said, that in all things lawful we are to comply, or that we must never sin against God for the sake of peace. For though that be always a true, and generally a safe rule to go by; yet it is neither so full nor so clear as it should be, nor does it go deep enough into the case before us. That we must not sin against God for the sake of peace, is no more than to say, that we must never sin on

any consideration whatsoever; which is very true, and the contrary would be absurd: but still, the great question of all remains undecided, namely, when it is a sin or no sin, when lawful or unlawful, to offend against peace: and this can only be determined in many cases by considering which is the greater good, or which the greater charity, to leave men easy and quiet, or to molest and disturb them in such particular circumstances. To clear this by an instance; it is a precept of Scripture to "rebuke them that sin before all," and yet we are commanded "to follow peace with all men ;" which two precepts may in some cases seem to clash with each other. There may be danger of committing a sin either way, as circumstances may happen against the precept of peace, by rebuking; against the other precept, by not doing it. Here if we apply the rule, that we are not to sin for the sake of peace; it is as true on the other hand, that we are not to sin against peace and so we are left in an uncertainty. But since the end of both precepts is charity; if we can know in such particular circumstances which is the greater good or greater charity, to do this or that, we may then determine what to do; and upon this consideration seems to depend the whole case, whether it be a sin or a duty to rebuke offenders in such and such instances. For if it be a greater charity to do it than not, it ought to be done, and not else. Thus, separating and dividing from any particular Church is breaking the Church's peace; yet if that Church be corrupted and unsound in its doctrines, it is charity to them, to others, to ourselves, to protest against them first, and afterwards to break off from them. For it is for the good of mankind here and hereafter, that truth be defended against error; purity of faith and worship against corruptions; true and undefiled religion against idolatry and superstition. So again, if common swearers, drunkards, atheists, and libertines go on quietly and undisturbedly in their vices, it is breaking the peace with them to rebuke, censure, or chastise them. Yet this, if done as it should be, is kind to them, to us, to all; and, though a breach of peace, is no breach of charity. Hence a magistrate in the execution of justice, or a minister in the discharge of his function, must venture to disoblige any man, or any body of men, whatsoever be the consequence of it: because it cannot be so bad as that of suffering men to go uncontrolled in their wickedness, and to sleep securely in their vices. The Apostles of our

66

a

Lord did by their preaching occasion many tumults and disturbances, and were censured as men that had "turned the world upside down "," by reason of the riots and confusions which were every where raised upon their coming: yet what they did was for the everlasting benefit of mankind, and therefore of far greater moment than a short and false peace. If they had resolved to offend nobody, but to have lived peaceably and quietly in a strict sense, Paganism and idolatry had remained still, and Christianity had made small progress in the world. But this would have been valuing peace against the very end and design of it; and betraying the cause of Christ to the ruin of their own and other men's souls. Our blessed Saviour, the Prince of Peace, had forewarned them of this long before. "Think not," says he, "that I am come to send peace on earth:

I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to "set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter "against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her "mother-in-law; and a man's foes shall be they of his own "household b." This was no fault of his religion, which was as well peaceable as pure; but of the men of the world, who through pride and envy, and other lusts, made the worst use of the kindest and best designs. Our blessed Lord himself had many contests and warm disputes with the Scribes and Pharisees, which he might easily have avoided, if his concern for God's honour and for the good of men had not obliged him to engage in them. It is manifest therefore that we ought not, and in reason cannot seek peace any otherwise, than in regard and in subordination to the general end and design of it, the glory of God, and the happiness, present and future, of mankind. So much for the extent of the obligation to the duty of peaceableness with respect to the end and design of it.

2. We may consider it with respect to our ability, power, or capacity, natural and moral, of discharging it. So far as is possible, and so far as lieth in us.

That it is sometimes possible "to live peaceably with all men," I think the words of the text plainly suppose; as also, that it is not so always. It is possible for a man of a sweet temper and prudent conduct, in a private station, having few concerns in the world, to have the love and good word of all that know him, b Matt. x. 34, 35, 36.

a Acts xvii. 6.