sons for this. Were the Scripture to consider all cases, and limit our duties in all possible circumstances, the world itself could hardly contain the things that should be written: such a law would be useless, and men might grow old in sin before they could learn their duty. Besides, God gave every man a law to direct him, when he made him a reasonable creature; and therefore he expects obedience to it. The gospel was given not to exclude, but to assist the exercise of reason; and therefore a law so circumstantial would preclude men from those nobler instances of duty which flow from a right use of their minds, and are the proper sacrifice of a rational soul to God. The uprightness of a man, and the integrity of his mind, are as discernible in his application of the rules of the gospel, as by any outward acts whatever. He who from his own reason nobly interprets the word neighbor in the gospel to be all the sons of men, is so much a better Christian than the man who confines the law to townsmen or countrymen, as his neighborhood is more universal. Besides a law so particular would not correct the evil complained of: the perverseness of the will, not the weakness of the understanding, teaches the evasions of the law were it more explicit, men would take more pains to evade it; for the plainness of the law will but little correct the malignity of the will, which alone needs improvement: this point enlarged on. Since therefore it is impracticable to give rules for all cases, and to adjust the general laws of virtue and obedience to the various circumstances of human life, without destroying the end of all laws which are intended for rules; but which, by taking in all particular cases, would grow too voluminous for use;—since reason and judgment would be of no use in virtue and obedience, if men in all cases were limited by particular clauses and provisions;-since likewise the end to be gained by such numerous and particular laws would not be attained, but men would still find room to cavil at their duty, and pretences to evade it ;-it appears that the gospel is not to

be charged with the doubts and disputes that often arise on its laws and precepts, itself being perfect as a law for the government and instruction of rational creatures; but we must seek elsewhere the cause of men differing so widely on the plainest points of duty. A careful attention to the text will show this; and the parable which our Saviour put forth, instead of an answer to the lawyer's question, will point out the remedy. Interpreters differ about the meaning of the words, but he, willing to justify himself, said; as it does not appear why he needed any justification for himself: no one had charged him with any neglect or contempt of the law. Nay, our Lord had commended his wise answer, And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right; This do, and thou shalt live. Then follows our text. Nor does it appear how any justification of himself could arise out of this question, or the answer that might be given to it: what fault did he mean to excuse by asking, who is my neighbor? How did his virtue or innocence depend on the answer that might be given him? These difficulties have led interpreters into different sentiments; these being omitted, the most easy and natural exposition of the passage is proposed. This lawyer came to our Lord, and tempting him said, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Our Lord answered, what readest thou? He said, that in the law he found he was to love the Lord his God with all his might, and his neighbor as himself: our Saviour says unto him, thou hast answered right, and adds, this do, that is, practise the law as well as thou seemest to understand it, and thou shalt live. But in the practice, the lawyer knew how this precept had been loaded with exceptions and limitations by the Jewish doctors; and that he esteemed him only as his neighbor, who was of the same blood and religion with himself; he therefore hated many who were actually his neighbors, as the Samaritans for instance. Since then he heard that life eternal depended on his obedience to the law, and the propriety of his obedience rested on the Jewish inter

pretation of it; in order to his own justification he very properly asks our Lord, and who is my neighbor? for by the answer to this question he would be found to have fulfilled or transgressed the commandment. Had our Lord determined in favor of the Jewish interpretation, the lawyer had been justified in his practice; and his obedience, as well as his previous prudent answer, would have deserved praise: but being forced to own that the Samaritan was his neighbor, he stood condemned by his own sentence, and by his approbation of the Samaritan's example; and he was sent away with this short but full report and admonition; go, and do thou likewise. The words, thus expounded, show us on what motives men act, and what it is which prejudices their minds in interpreting God's law: they are willing to justify themselves, and therefore use all their force and skill to make the command countenance their practice, and to speak only consistently with their inclinations. When we do what is commanded, and forbear from what is forbidden, then is our obedience perfect: this plain description of obedience cannot be disputed. He that loves not his duty, is restless, and labors to bend the law, that it may justify him in his proceedings. It is no wonder, when men are so engaged in errors either of practice or doctrine, that they should labor to reconcile themselves with the commands of God's law; for great as is the pleasure of sin, they cannot of themselves bear up against a guilty conscience. While the pleasure is new and in its full vigor, or the gain increasing, the mind wants perhaps no other comfort but the pleasures of vice have their intermission, and are succeeded by cold damps, which seize on the spirits: this point enlarged on, and illustrated by the case of ill-gotten wealth. It is in the intervals of reflexion that a man frames devices how to escape the dreaded punishment, and convinces himself that he has not offended against the law of God, but of the interpreters, who love to lay heavy burdens on others, which they care not to touch with one finger: thus the easy`

casuist comes to enjoy and justify his iniquity. When the young man inquired on what terms he might inherit eternal life, our Lord set the commands before him, (Mark x. 19.): thus far all was well: these terms he willingly accepted. Our Lord, delighted with his towardly disposition, would have led him on to greater perfection, (ver. 21.): but this the young man could by no means digest, (ver. 22.) for he was exceeding rich: how gladly would he have had the precept softened! how would he have adored a teacher who could have made him a consistent title both to heaven and to his estate! In this instance we see the disposition which makes men strive to render the law of God of a piece with their own affections: in others we shall see the practice. The Jews had a law, commanding that they should honor their father and their mother; which implied an obligation on children to support their indigent parents; a precept so just and reasonable, that it is one of the prime laws of nature; but the Jews, hardhearted to their own flesh and blood, were uneasy under this burden; and yet the law was plain: and they could not rest till they made the law comply; and they set up tradition against it, to dissolve its uneasy obligations: for they taught as our Saviour justly reproves them, (Mark vii. 11-13.) Thus the law was to be supplanted, to justify its open violation. But to come nearer home the Scripture expressly commands us to worship the Lord, and him only; and he has declared himself a jealous God in this respect. Two of the commandments, and all parts of the gospel, confirm this article; yet it has been controverted even by Christians more than any other. Were not the case notorious, it might be said, perhaps, how is this possible? whence such misunderstanding of the Scriptures? Whence these interpretations? It was not a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Scripture that led to this: corrupt practices first got possession; and men, willing to justify themselves, coined new interpretations: the violence of this inclination may be

seen from its beating down such express and repeated commands of God. There is no man living, who has heard or read the gospel, but he believes that all image or creature worship is forbidden, those only excepted who are practising it. Could the Jews give themselves leave to charge such doctrines on the gospel as some Christians pretend to find in it, they neither would desire, nor could have better arguments for rejecting it. Prayer, praise, and adoration of God, are things difficult to none but scholars: they are in themselves plain; but refined notions, to justify modern corruptions, have made them intricate. The command. is clear, God only is to be worshipped: to make room for any other object, worship is to be split into many kinds, and one religiously preserved to God, in controversy at least, that others may be imparted to the creature. To this eagerness of justifying a corrupt practice, we owe the many curious distinctions invented to darken and confound the clearest truths of the gospel.

PART II.

It is a common practice, though much complained of, to pervert the Scriptures to support the opinions which distinguish different sects; and this, in proportion as each has departed from the genuine doctrines and practices of Christianity. The same disposition exists in private life: there are not so many self-condemned sinners in the world as is generally thought; for he who continues in sin generally finds out soon some excuse or justification for his vice. A man, judging only by reason and Scripture, would wonder how Scripture was ever made a party to such a defence: but the friends of any vice are guided in their judgments by self-love and interest, such candid interpreters, that no vice need fear being tried by the Scriptures, they being judges. The cause of this has been already observed: it is now considered how we may best secure our