God authorizes, where-ever there is like SER M. II. Reafon, a like Difpenfation. Thus the firft Argument amounts to a full Proof of the Doctrine I propounded; That positive Laws yield to the Neceffities of Mankind, not only for the Behoof of our Neighbour for the fake of Juftice and Charity, but likewise our own, in order to Self-prefervation.

The Second, which claims the fame Exemption for Chrift's Attendants, by reafon of the Dignity of his Perfon and Office, as the Priests had upon account of the Temple-service, being more peculiarly adapted to their Cafe, I fhall pass over, as not applicable to general Ufe, at least in the Way of the Subject I am treating.

And fo we come to the Third, wherein my Text is contained; which I explain thus: If your particular Byafs for the rigid literal Obfervance of external Things in Religion could have fuffered you to underftand the Extent and neceffary Confequence of God's Declaration by the Prophet Hofea, I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice; ye would not have condemned condemned my Difciples, who, by virtue

of

II.

SERM. of an Indulgence to the Diftreffes of Nature contained in it, have contracted no Guilt from breaking the Sabbath in their Condition. For though the Sabbath be enjoined by God with eminent Strictness, yet it is evidently of the fame Rank and Nature as Sacrifice, and the rest of the external Services; with which he has by that Declaration given Man Authority to dispense, for the neceffary Good of his Kind, of himself, or Neighbour. And therefore, as he is (for his true Benefit) Lord or Arbitrator over them, he must have the fame Authority as to the Sabbath. For the Son of Man is even Lord of the Sabbath; or, more plainly, ALSO of the Sabbath-day. This Sentence of the 8th Verfe is to be confidered, because the Con nexion of it with the Precedent by the Particle for, determines me to that Sense of it which I have now opened; as the Want of Attention to the fame, appears the Occafion of Expofitors going another Way.

First then, WHO is the Son of Man? Our Saviour, (as ufually in other Places ?) or mortal Man at large, fo that we may apprehend

apprehend this Thought couch'd in the Ex- SER M. preffion, Though God Almighty be the II.

Legiflator, he allows his poor Creature

"Man to be a Dispenser ?" The latter as is evident to any that will turn to the Parallel, the iid of St. Mark, and the last Verses; The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath: Therefore the Son of Man is Lord alfo of the Sabbath.

In the next Place, What is it to be LORD of the Sabbath, or any other Institution? And furely it cannot be the having Leave to tranfgrefs it for the Service of others only; for that is no Power or Liberty indeed, but the Change, of one Obligation and Service for another. But the Argument we may draw from the Contexts of the forementioned Place of St. Mark, and 6th of St. Luke, feems demonstrative that they understood those Terms of a Freedom to exempt ourselves from the Rigour of fuch Laws, in Confideration of our own Neceffities. For in neither of thofe Evangelifts is there premised any Word that gives the least Handle to conftrue them the other Way; but the Son of Man's being Lord alfo of the Sabbath

SERM. Sabbath is immediately fubjoined to the ExH. ample of David's Neceffity, and that of the

~

Priefts officiating in the Temple, entirely
omitted. It is from that Argument, of the
Priefts profaning the Sabbath by Works of
publick Religion, and our Lord's being
greater than the Temple, (interferted in St.
Matthew) that fome Men inferr, the Words
of my Text excufe the Difciples only in
Confideration of their being employ'd, to-
gether with their Mafter, in teaching and
doing Good to the People. To which,
(omitting all other Anfwers,) I would give
this plain one: That this is to make the
Words depend on that, whereto in the
Context there is not a Tittle that neceffari-
ly connects them, and at the fame Time
leave them incoherent with what follows,
and to which we read them most strongly
united, thus But if ye had known what
this meaneth, I will have Mercy, and not
Sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the
Guiltless: For the Son of Man is Lord
even of the Sabbath Day. We
We may there-
fore repeat our Interpretation, and rein-
force it with the Argument added in St.
God will have Mercy, and not

Mark;

Sacrifice;

Sacrifice; and thereby has pronounced SER M. guiltlefs as many as are driven by a just II. Neceffity to break any of his Ordinances, that are of a mutable, and therefore difpenfable Nature. The Reafon is, the Intention of his Mercy to Man, when he first gave those Laws, to leave him the Power of judging when an urgent Cause should require their Relaxation. And the Reafon why he hath thus made him Lord of them, and not of the reft, is, because they had not been given at all, but as Inftruments to promote his Good; and therefore it were abfurd they should bind to his Destruction. The Laws we speak of are not of the very Subftance of Piety and Virtue, but Incitements and Helps, Fences and Guards to it. All their Goodnefs lies in their Subferviency to those Purpofes; which fuffer no Detriment when they are omitted, rather than the Man himself, for whofe Conduct in Life they were framed, should hazard Perifhing. Man was made before them; and they made for him, not he for them. The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath.