Having thus given you an account of the Text with respect to both the Principles of Religion refered to in it, the Love of God, and the Love of our Neighbour, I would now in the fecond Place, lay before you fome Obfervations which feem to arife naturally from the whole.

The firft is, That these two Principles, from which our Lord tells us all Religion flows, must be confiftent with one another; otherwise 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 fome fhould think they did God good Service by destroying their Brethren: But I don't 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 underftood their Duty. And yet, could fuch 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 Service by deftroying or abufing their Neighbour; becaufe, upon this Suppofition, it might

happen

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 deserve to be particularly confidered. Of the Love of God our Saviour fays, it is the First and great Commandment: The Love of our Neighbour he ftyles the Second, like unto it. Now from hence perhaps it may be infered, 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 Second, and may therefore in fome Inftances controul and over-rule 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 should readily allow that we ought to love God rather than Man: But our Saviour's faying the Love of God is the First 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 ftyled the First Commandment, in respect to God who is the Object of the Love, and because it is A a 2 indeed

indeed the Foundation of all Religion, even of that Commandment which is styled the Second. But this is fo far from fhewing that the Love of God may ever clafh 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 antient Writers of Morality have not gone higher for Pring ciples to build their Precepts on, than to the common Defires of Nature, and the feveral Relations of Man to Man: But that is their Fault; for they might have looked farther with very good Succefs: For, if we confider God as the common Father of Mankind, and (as from his Goodnefs and Impartiality we must needs judge) equally concerned for the Welfare of all his Children, we fhall 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 thofe 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

he is not an unconcerned Spectator. For this Reason the Love of God is called the Firft and Great Commandment; and for this Reafon it never can be inconfiftent with the Love of our Neighbour, which is the Second. 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 Scruples to the contrary are wicked: Perhaps wicked Hypocrify; for it is the greatest Indignity to God to ufe his Name, and pretend his Honour, to cover the Injuries you are doing to his Creatures, and your own Brethren.

The fecond 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, 'tis certain that nothing is or ought to be esteemed Religion, that is not reducible to one or other of thefe Principles.

But what then, you will fay, must become of the Institutions of Religion, which, confidered in themselves, and according to their own Nature, are not properly to be refered either to the Love of God, or our Neighbour? For, if all that is Religion may be fo refered, it should seem that these Institutions, which cannot be fo refered, are no Part of Religion,

A a 3

Religion. It is certain that mere pofitive Inftitutions are not founded upon any moral Reafon of the Actions themfelves: If they were, they might eafily be drawn from these general Precepts without the Help of a pofitive Command: For the whole moral Reason of Religion is either the Love of God, or the Love of our Neighbour; and to make any Thing else to be Religion, strictly fpeaking, that does not partake of this moral Reafon, is Ignorance and Superstition. But then there is a very manifeft Difference between Religion and the Means of Religion: And whatever is Part of our Religion, and yet not fo upon the account of the Moral Reason, can only be esteemed as a Means of Religion; not ordained for its own fake, but for the fake of that Religion which is founded upon moral Reafon.

་་་།

This Distinction between Religion and the Means of Religion would be of use, if careful 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 Fervor be spent only upon the Means of Religion, and goes no farther, ye are ftill in your Sins.

And from hence it is plain, that there can be no Competition between the Duties called

Moral,