Religion lies in these two general Commandments; That in these all particular Duties and Precepts are founded; That nothing can be of any Obligation in Religion, but as it relates either to the Love we owe to God, or the Love we owe to our Neighbour. In fpeaking to thefe Words, I fhall,

First, Shew you the true Meaning and Import of them; and,

Secondly, Make some useful Remarks on the whole.

In St. Mark's Gofpel the fame Thing is faid in different Words, though to the fame Effect. The Words parallel to the Text are these There is none other Commandment greater than these, Mark xii. 31: That is, There is nothing in Religion of an higher Obligation than these two Precepts: All the Duties of Religion must be governed by these two Principles: Beyond them there is nothing greater, nothing to limit or restrain them; but by them must every thing else be limited and reftrained. The Reason of this is plain: For, the Relation between God and Man being once known, the first Conclufion is, That we ought to love the Lord our God with all our Hearts, with all our Souls, and with all our Minds; that is, to the utmost of our Power: And, until this general Principle

be

·

be established, the particular Duties owing to God cannot fall under our Confideration. There is no Room to inquire after the proper Inftances of expreffing our Love to God, till the general Obligation of loving God be known and admitted. The fame Reason holds likewife as to the other general Head of Religion, the Love of our Neighbour: For, the Relation between Man and Man, and the common Relation of all to one great Master, being fuppofed, the Refult is, That we ought to love our Neighbour as ourself; that is, to do all we can to promote the Happiness of each other: And, unless we have this general Senfe, we cannot be concerned to know in any particular Cafe what is the proper Instance of Love which we ought to fhew towards our Neighbour.

But, these general Principles being once eftablished, the particular Duties flow from them naturally. The Love of God, and the Love of our Neighbour, if carefully attended to, will eafily grow into a complete System of Religion. The Duties of Religion are all relative, regarding either God or Man; and there is no relative Duty that Love does not readily transform itself into upon the mere View of the different Circumftances of the Perfons concerned. Love, with regard to a Superior,

Z4

Superior, becomes Honour and Respect, and fhews itfelf in a chearful Obedience and a willing Submiffion to the Commands of Authority: Love, with refpect to our Equals, is Friendship and Benevolence: Towards Inferiors 'tis Courtesy and Condefcenfion : If it regards the Happy and Profperous, 'tis Joy and Pleasure, which Envy cannot corrupt: If it looks towards the Miferable, 'tis Pity and Compaffion; 'tis a Tenderness which will discover itself in all the Acts of Mercy and Humanity.

In negative Duties this Principle is no lefs effectual than in positive. Love will not permit us to injure, opprefs, or offend our Brother: It will not give us leave to neglect our Betters, or to defpife our Inferiors: It will reftrain every inordinate Paffion, and not fuffer us either to gratify our Envy at the Expence of cur Neighbour's Credit and Reputation, or our Luft by violating his Wife or his Daughter; but it will preserve us harmlefs and innocent: For Love worketh no Ill to its Neighbour. This Deduction of particular Duties from this general Principle was made by St. Paul long fince: Owe no Man, says he, any thing, but to love one another: For he that lovethanother bath fulfilled the Law. For this, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, Thou shalt not

kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear falfe Witness, Thou shalt not covet: And, if there be any other Commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this Saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no Ill to his Neighbour: Therefore Love is the Fulfilling of the Law, Rom. xiii. 8, &c.

This Notion of Love, as being the Fulness of the Law, and of all the Commandments being comprehended in this Saying, Thou fhalt love thy Neighbour as thyfelf, will lead us to the true and natural Interpretation of a Paffage in St. James, which, as it is commonly understood, is liable to great Difficulties and Objections, and to those who have plain Sense, and can follow it, must appear abfurd: Whofoever, fays he, fhall keep the whole Law, and offend in one Point, he is guilty of all, Chap. ii. Ver. 10. This is a Position something ftrange, that an Offence against one Law should be a Breach of all Laws, however different they are in Kind and Degree; that he who commits Adultery, for Instance, should therefore be guilty of Murder and Robbery, and other the like heinous Offences nothing related to the Sin of Adultery. But let us consider the Apoftle's Reason in the next Verfe: For he that faid, Do not commit Adultery, faid alfo, Do

not

not kill. Now, if thou commit no Adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a Tranfgreffor of the Law. This Reason, as Interpreters commonly expound it, amounts to this: All Laws are founded upon one and the fame Authority of God; therefore every Offence against any Law is a Contempt of the Authority upon which all Laws depend; and therefore every A&t of Difobedience is a Breach of the whole Law, becaufe fubverfive of that Authority upon which the whole Law ftands. But there are many Objections against the Reason thus ftated: First, 'Tis liable evidently to all the Difficulties of the Stoics' Paradox, That all Offences are equal: For, if the Guilt of Sin depends, not upon the Nature and Circumstances of the finful Action, but upon the Authority of the Lawgiver, then every Sin, being an Offencè against the fame Authority, is of the fame Guilt and Heinoufnefs; and there will be no Difference between killing your Neighbour and your Neighbour's Horfe; for he that has forbid you killing your Neighbour, has likewife forbid you doing any Act to the Hurt and Detriment of your Neighbour. Secondly, The Apoftle's Inference in the latter Part of the Verse does not answer to the Principle laid down in the former Part:

He