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 shew how little they knew or understood their duty. And yet, could such a cafe 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 say that it made men think they did God good fervice 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

*

of God is the firft commandment, is no manner of reason to think that it ever is, or can be, inconfiftent with the second.

The love of God is properly styled the first commandment, in refpect to God who is the object of the love, and because it is indeed the foundation of all religion, even of that commandment which is ftyled the second. But this is fo far from fhewing that the love of God may ever clash with the love of our neighbour, that it proves the contrary; for, if the love of our neighbour is deducible from the love of God, it must ever be confiftent with it.

I know very well that the ancient writers of morality have not gone higher for principles to build their precepts on, than to the common defires of nature, and the several relations of man to man: but that is their fault; for they might have looked farther with very good fuccefs: for, if we confider God as the common father of mankind, and (as from his goodness and impartiality we muft needs judge) equally concerned for the welfare of all his children, we shall have a very fure foundation for all the moral duties. No man, who thinks himself bound to love and obey God, can think himself at liberty to hurt or opprefs those whom God has taken under his care and protection: no man, who believes it his intereft as well as his duty to please God, but must likewife believe it his intereft and duty to be kind and tender towards those who are the children of God, and in whofe happiness he is not an unconcerned fpectator. For this reafon the love of God is called the firft and great commandment; and for this reason it never can be inconfift

ent with the love of our neighbour, which is the fecond. In all cafes therefore where your duty to your neighbour is plain and clear, depend upon it. your duty to God concurs with it. All fcruples to the contrary are wicked, perhaps wicked hypocrify; for it is the greatest indignity to God to use his name, and pretend his honour, to cover the injuries you are doing to his creatures, and your own brethren.

The second obfervation I would make from the text is, that, our Saviour having declared that on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets, it is certain that nothing is or ought to be efteemed religion, that is not reducible to one or other of these principles.

But what then, you will fay, muft become of the inftitutions of religion, which, confidered in themfelves, and according to their own nature, are not properly to be referred either to the love of God, or our neighbour? for, if all that is religion may be so referred, it should seem that these institutions, which cannot be fo referred, are no part of religion. It is certain that mere pofitive inftitutions are not founded upon any moral reason of the actions themselves: if they were, they might eafily be drawn from these general precepts without the help of a pofitive command: for the whole moral reafon of religion is either the love of God, or the love of our neighbour; and to make any thing elfe to be religion, ftrictly speaking, that does not partake of this moral reason, is ignorance and fuperftition. But then there is a very manifeft difference between religion and the means of religion: and what

ever is part of our religion, and yet not fo upon the account of the moral reason, can only be efteemed as a means of religion; not ordained for its own fake, but for the fake of that religion which is founded upon moral reason.

This diftinction between religion and the means of religion would be of use, if carefully attended to; it would teach men where to point their best endeavour, and where to place their hopes and expectations for, if your zeal and fervour be spent only upon the means of religion, and goes no farther, ye are still in your fins.

And from hence it is plain, that there can be no competition between the duties called moral, and those called positive: for, if the pofitive duties are the means and inftruments appointed by God for preferving true religion and morality, true religion and morality can never be at variance with the means appointed to preserve them. And, as to the obligation of obferving thefe duties, it is on all fides equal: for, fince we are bound to obey God by all the ties of moral duty, and fince the inftitutions of religion are of God's appointment, whatever the matter of the inftitution be, the obligation to obey is certainly a moral obligation: which, duly confidered, will fhew, that the text extends to all parts of religion, and that on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

DISCOURSE XIV.

PART I.

HEBREWS iii. 12.

Take heed, brethren, left there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.

THE words of the text contain an earnest exhortation, as is evident upon the firft view: and the fubject of the exhortation is faith towards God; for faith is the principle deftroyed by an evil heart of unbelief. But faith, as fome think, is no proper fubject for exhortation: for, if faith is a mere act of the mind judging upon motives of credibility, it is as reasonable to exhort a man to fee with his eyes, as to judge with his understanding; and the warmeft admonition will not enlarge the fight, which will ftill depend upon the goodness of the eye, and the distance and pofition of the object. In faith the cafe is much the fame: if the affections are throughly raised, and made eager to embrace the faith, they may chance indeed to ftep in between the premises and conclufion, and make men profess to believe, without knowing or confidering the reasons of belief; which is to deftroy the founda