yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. In this verse he confiders the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, as the whole law; and all particular commandments as points of that law. And what he says amounts to this: Whatever regard you may have to the law of loving your neighbour, which all profefs to walk by, yet affure yourselves you cannot keep that law, if you offend against any one rule of charity; for every fuch fingle offence is a breach of that whole law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyfelf. In the eleventh verfe he gives the reason of his affertion: For he that faid, Do not commit adultery, faid alfo, Do not kill. The words in the original, here tranflated for he that faid, are of doubtful interpretation. The fense followed by interpreters and translators has misled people in the understanding of this whole place. Instead of for he that faid, it should be rendered, for the law which faid, Do not commit adultery, faid alfo, Do not kill. The place thus rendered contains a clear reason of what went before: if, fays he, you offend in any point of charity or duty, you become a tranfgreffor of this whole law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyfelf: for this law of loving thy neighbour, which says to thee, Do not commit adultery, fays likewise to thee, Do not kill. And now, if you go to the latter part of the verfe, you will find it exactly fuited to the whole thread of difcourfe which went before: for thus it follows, Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a tranfgreffor of the law; that is, of that general law of loving thy neighbour, which faid as well to thee, Thou shalt not kill, as, Thou shalt not commit adultery. VOL. 1. How this royal law fpeaks to us in the language of all particular laws and precepts is eafily understood, and is diftinctly explained by St. Paul in the place already produced: For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not fleal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet: and, if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this faying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Rom. xiii. 9. As to the different verfion of the eleventh verfe in St. James, which I have made choice of, our own tranflators plainly faw the propriety of it, and have given that verfion in the margin of the Bible. To them therefore, and their reasoning, I refer you. This place in St. James being thus understood and explained, there is no occafion for any niceties or diftinctions to fupport the reafon and equity of his doctrine, or to fhew how a man, by offending against one law, may become guilty of all; fince this affertion will no longer be found to be part of the Apoftle's doctrine. What he teaches is plainly this: The great and fundamental law of the Gospel is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The force of this all fee, and all acknowledge; and, whilft they pretend to be Chriftians, all muft pretend at least to obey. But, fays he, whoever in any manner offends, injures, or oppreffes his brother, it matters not in what way, whether it be by undue and partial preference of one to another, by contempt, or flander, by theft, adultery, or murder: whoever, I fay, in any of these inftances fins against his brother, will be found to be a tranfgreffor against this great, this vital principle of religion, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For this reafon he tells them, the way to do'well was to fulfil the royal law, that is, to obferve all the points of it; because no point could be tranfgreffed, but the tranfgreffor must be found guilty of the whole law, which is a general law of love extending to all points. There is nothing hard in this fenfe, nothing but what any man may fee the reafon of: for certainly to injure our neighbour in any way makes us guilty of the breach of the law, which commands us to love our neighbour; for one injurious action is as inconfiftent with love as another; and in this refpect injurious actions have no difference, for they are all equally inconfiftent with the great law. The giving light to this paffage in St. James has not mifled us from the main purpose of this dif→ courfe; for we have feen at the fame time the true extent and meaning of the text, with respect to one of the laws referred to in it, and which is eafily ap plicable to the other. St. James has fully taught us our Saviour's meaning, when he said, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. But let us turn to confider the other general head referred to by our Saviour in the text, namely, the love of God. This, fays our Lord in the thirtyeighth verse, is the first and great commandment. From this head are to be deduced all the fervice, worship, and honour, which we owe and pay to our Creator. I obferved to you before, that all the duties of religion are relative: which is true in that part now under confideration; for the duties we owe to God are founded in the relation between God and us. Were there no fuch relation, the perfections of God might be matter of admiration, but could not be the ground of duty and obedience. I obferved likewise to you, that love naturally tranfforms itfelf into all relative duties, which arise from the circumstances of the perfons related. Thus, in the prefent cafe, if we love God, and confider him as the lord and governor of the world, our love will foon become obedience: if we confider him as wife, good, and gracious, our love will become honour and adoration: if we add to these our own natural weakness and infirmity, love will teach us dependence, and prompt us in all our wants to fly for refuge to our great Protector: and thus in all other inftances may the particular duties be drawn from this general principle. Prayer and praise, and other parts of divine worship, which are the acts of these duties, are fo clearly connected to them, that there is no need of fhewing diftinctly concerning them, how they flow from this general commandment. Having thus given you an account of the text with respect to both the principles of religion referred to in it, the love of God, and the love of our neighbour, I would now, in the second place, lay before you fome obfervations which seem to arise naturally from the whole. The first is, that these two principles, from which our Lord tells us all religion flows, must be confiftent with one another; otherwife they could not both be principles of the fame religion. The love of God therefore can in no cafe oblige us to act contrary to the love of our neighbour. Our Saviour has told us indeed, that the time would be, when some should think they did God good fervice by deftroying their brethren: but I do not find the religion or the zeal of thofe perfons much commended; but this very character is given of them to fhew how little they knew or understood their duty. And yet, could such a case ever happen, in which it might become our duty to hurt our neighbour, in order to promote the honour of God, it could not be a juft character of falfe zeal, to fay that it made men think they did God good service by deftroying or abufing their neighbour; because, upon this fuppofition, it might happen to be the character of true religious zeal. There is one thing in our Saviour's argument which may perhaps mislead men in judging upon this cafe, and which therefore may deferve to be particularly confidered. Of the love of God our Saviour fays, it is the firft and great commandment : the love of our neighbour he ftyles the fecond, like unto it. Now from hence perhaps it may be inferred, that the love of God, which is the first and great commandment, is a law of a fuperior obligation to that which is only the fecond, and may therefore in fome inftances control and overrule it. From whence it would follow, that we might lawfully overlook the love of our neighbour, in obedience to the fuperior obligation we are under to love God. Now, upon fuppofition that our duty to God and our neighbour could ever interfere, I fhould readily allow that we ought to love God rather than man: but our Saviour's faying the love |