by which Means the nobleft Inftance of Virtue, which is fhewn in the free Choice that Reason makes of what is good and amiable, guided by the general Directions of God's Law, would be oftentimes loft and impracticable: Since likewife the End proposed to be ferved by fuch numerous and particular Laws would not be obtained; but Men would ftill find Room to cavil at their Duty, and be able to furnish Pretences to evade it, as is evident from this plain Reason, That it is not Want of Knowledge, but of Will to obey, which makes Men wreft and torture the Law of God: Had they therefore more Light from the most express Directions, yet ftill their Difinclination to Virtue would be the fame, and produce the fame ill Effects; and, confequently, were the Laws of the Gospel ever so much enlarged, the same Difficulties would remain, as long as the fame Perversenefs of Will continues among Men: From these Confiderations, I fay, it does appear, that the Gospel is not to be charged with the Doubts and Difputes which often arise upon the Laws and Precepts delivered in it, the Gospel having all the Perfection requifite in a Law defigned for the Government and Inftruction of rational Creatures; Creatures; but we must look out elfewhere to find the Caufe that may give us a fatiffactory Account why Men fo often and fo widely differ upon the plaineft Points of Duty, and whence the Difficulties and Scruples grow, which perplex even the clearest Precepts of Chriftian Morality. The Text, if carefully attended to, will discover to us the Caufe to which this Evil owes its Growth and Increase; and the Parable which our Saviour put forth, instead of a direct Answer to the Lawyer's Question, will teach us where to feek and find the Remedy. Interpreters are not agreed in the Meaning of the former Part of the Text, But he, willing to justify himself, faid; for it does not appear what Occafion he had for any Juftification of himfelf: No Accufation had been brought against him; no body had charged him with any Neglect or Contempt of the Law: So far otherwife, that our Lord had commended his wife Anfwer, and promised him Life, if he obeyed the Terms which he himself had propofed: And he faid unto him, Thou hast answered right; This do, and thou fhalt live: Upon which immediately follow the Words of the Text, But he, willing to justify justify himself, faid unto Jefus, And who is my Neighbour? Befides, it does not presently appear how any Justification of himself could arife out of this Question, or any Answer that might be given to it. What Fault did he mean to excufe by afking, Who is my Neighbour? or, How did his Virtue or Innocence depend upon the Anfwer that should be returned to this Inquiry? Thefe Difficulties, I fay, have led Interpreters into different Sentiments: But, without examining their Opinions, I fhall propofe to you one that seems to be the true, because the most easy and natural Expofition of the Place. This Lawyer came to our Lord, and, tempting him, said, What fhall I do to inberit eternal Life? Our Lord returns him to the Law for an Answer to his Queftion, faying, What readeft thou? He readily anfwered, That in the Law he found that he was to love the Lord his God with all his Might, and his Neighbour as himself. This Account our Saviour approves, and fays unto him, Thou hast answered right; and adds, that, if he would practife the Law as well as he feemed to understand it, he was in no Danger: This do, and thou shalt live. But in this Part, relating to Practice, the Lawyer well well knew how this Precept in particular, of loving our Neighbours, had been loaded with Exceptions and Limitations by the Jewish Doctors, and that he had never efteemed any body to be his Neighbour who was not of the fame Blood, and who did not profess the fame Religion with himfelf; for which Reafon he hated many, who, according to the Letter, were his Neighbours, as the Samaritans were, who dwelt very near, but were the Averfion of every Jew, being ́ esteemed as the Corruptors of the Faith and true Religion. Since therefore Life eternal depended upon his Obedience to the Law, as he had heard from our Saviour; and fince whether his Obedience were fuch as it ought to be depended wholly upon the Jewish Interpretation of the Law, and could no otherwife be maintained than by excluding from the Rights and Privileges of Neighbourhood all who were not of the Stock and Faith of Ifrael; in order therefore to his own Juftification he very properly puts the Question to our Lord, And who is my Neighbour? for as this Question fhould be refolved, he would be found either to have fulfilled or transgreffed the Commandment. Had our Lord determined in Favour of the Jewish Inter pretation, pretation, and told him that those only were his Neighbours who were of the fame Stock and Family, and who worshipped God in the fame Manner that he did, the Lawyer had been justified in his Practice, and his Obedience might have deserved Commendation, as well as his prudent Answer out of the Law had done before: But, when our Saviour had forced him into a Confeffion that even the Samaritan was his Neighbour, he ftood condemned by his own Sentence, and by the Example of the Samaritan which he had approved, and was fent away with this short but full Reproof and Admonition; Go, and do thou likewife. The Words thus expounded fhew us upon what Motives Men act, and what it is that prejudices their Minds in the Interpretation of God's Law: They are willing to justify themselves; and therefore employ all their Force and Skill to make the Command countenance their Practice, and to speak fuch Language only as may be confiftent with their Inclinations. When our Actions are fuch as the Law enjoins, when we do what is commanded, and forbear what is forbidden, then is our Obedience perfect. This is fo plain a Description of Obedience, |