Gospel, it is not lawful to wish any other to them than you would wish to yourself." Is this commenting upon Scripture like a serious man, or is it not rather playing the droll with sacred Writ? By whom does he suppose it was thought lawful to hate an enemy? By the most excellent men of the Jewish church, penmen of holy Scripture, and writing by the Spirit of God? A profane suggestion! Neither New Testament nor Old allows any such hatred it stands condemned both by the Law § and the Gospel. And how came it to pass that the best kind, of men among the Jews understood not the maxim of doing to others as they would have done to themselves, which was commanded in their Lawt, and escaped not the notice of the wiser Pagans u? To be short, there is no hatred of an enemy shown, merely in denouncing God's judgments against them by God's direction, nor in executing the sentence of God, by God's order, upon them: so the whole turn of the thought proceeds upon a false ground.

Besides, how would the Gospel preachers themselves stand clear, if all imprecations were inconsistent with the loving one's neighbour as one's self? St. Paul denounces curses, or imprecations, in more cases than one x: but St. Paul was a prophet, and more than a prophet, and had commission to do it in the name of the Lord. And indeed, if it be considered, that God's design is to set both his blessings and his curses before meny, in order to incite them to good, and to deter them from evil, and that his wisdom may judge it proper to make use of the ministry

of

men, as his instruments in doing it; what offence need it give to any serious and considerate person, to find that either the Prophets of the Old Testament, or the Apostles of the New, (the fittest persons for it,) have delivered, by

5 See Whitby on Matt. v. 43.

Levit. xix. 18, 34.

" See Commentators on Matt. vii. 12.

× 1 Čor. xvi. 22. Gal. i. 8, 9. 2 Tim. iv. 14.

Deut. xi. 26. xxx. 1, 19.

Divine direction, the Divine maledictions or curses upon sinners? It was their duty to do it, and they therein showed the perfection both of their love towards God and their charity towards man.

I have dwelt the longer upon this point, because it seemed to want some clearing; and because many have been apt either to take offence, or to run into gross mistakes, only for want of considering the proper and necessary distinction, before mentioned, between holy and profane cursing, between executing a command of God, and doing a thing without command, only to please our own selves. The first is as laudable and truly pious, as the latter is execrable and altogether profane. BLESS, AND CURSE NOT2: that is the ordinary rule to go by. And so sacred a rule it is, that men are effectually tied up from all cursings of their own, and have no power left in that case, except it be to declare God's curses, and those general only, or in the very words of Scripture. As to any thing more special, God seems to have reserved it to his own special directions, which have ceased long ago, ever since prophecies and inspirations have ceased.

ISAIAH I. 18.

COME NOW, AND LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD: THOUGH YOUR SINS BE AS SCARLET, THEY SHALL BE AS WHITE AS SNOW, &c. The Objector's reflections upon this passage are as follow b: "Does not God here appeal to their reason for the suffi"ciency of moral things to wash away their sins, though "of the deepest die? And could God and man reason to"gether, except there were some notions in common to "both, some foundation for such reasoning?" As to God's appealing to our reason, and God and man's reasoning together, the fact itself might be disputed, so far as this text is concerned: for the text in the original says no

z Rom. xii. 14.

• How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? b Christianity as Old, &c. p. 194.

Numb. xxiii. 8.

such thing. Le Clerc translates the words thus: COME NOW AND LET US BE CORRECTED: FOR THE LORD SAYS, IF YOUR SINS BE AS SCARLET, &c. His translation appears to be justifiable by the rules of grammar and criticism: and he observes very pertinently, that the Jews are not here called by the Prophet to dispute with God, which would be irreverent and criminal, but to submit to chastisement (as conscious of their sins) and to reform their manners. However, it is not to be doubted but that God sometimes condescends to reason with men, and permits them to reason with him: and there is no need to heap text upon text, to prove only what nobody denies, that God would have us "make use of our reason.' If this gentleman himself would do so, laying aside passion and prejudice, he might appear both a wiser and a better man. But if God invites his people to reason with him, he does not therefore encourage them to cavil against him, or directly to blaspheme him. His intent is not that they should presume to prescribe to his wisdom, or dispute his authority as to laying any positive commands upon them. He would not suffer them to dispute his servant Moses's authority, in such a case, nor that of any of his Prophets: much less would he encourage any direct affront of that kind against himself. So let not this author, under pretence and cover of reasoning with God, turn an advocate for petulance, or insolent defiance; which is not reason, but rashness, or rather madness.

As to his inference in favour of moral things, (in opposition, I suppose, to positive duties, and the necessity of

* Tum agite, nos castigari patiemur; ait enim Jehova: Si fuerint peccata vestra instar coccini, &c.] ' nivvachechah, castigemur, dısλ≤ɣxDãμev, arguamur; ut habent LXX Int. non arguite me, ut Vulgata, repugnante grammatica et loci sententia. Verba sunt hæc non Dei, sed Prophetæ Judæos hortantis ut se a Deo castigari patiantur, atque emendentur; ut ostendunt verba sequentia, si fuerint, &c. Itaque vertendum non fuit, disceptemus: non vocantur enim Judæi a Propheta, ut cum Deo disceptent, quod grave esset delictum; sed ut sibi peccatorum suorum probe conscii, non ægre ferant se a Deo castigari, et castigati emendentur. Cleric. in loc.

d 1 Kings xiii. 4. 2 Kings vii. 2, 17. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15, 16.

redemption by Christ,) it is very lame and insufficient in both its views. He does not consider, that positive duties stand upon a moral foot, and are all wrapped up, as soon as they become duties, in what he calls moral things. To obey God in whatsoever he commands is the first moral law, and the fundamental principle of all morality. The reason of things, and the relation we bear to God, require that God should be obeyed in matters otherwise indifferent and such obedience is moral, and the opposite disobedience immoral. It is moral duty for a son to obey his father in things indifferent, or for a subject to obey his prince; much more for a creature so to obey his Creator. Positives therefore, while under precept, cannot be slighted without slighting morals also. In short, positive laws, as soon as enacted, become part of moral law, and are a branch of morality; because, as I said, universal obedience to God's commands, is the first moral law into which all laws resolve.

As the reason of the thing itself shows that thus it must be, so the text of Isaiah confirms the same thing. For what are those moral things which the Prophet there teaches or recommends? One of them is, CEASE TO DO EVIL; LEARN TO DO WELL: which amounts to being RIGHTEOUS BEFORE GOD, WALKING IN ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESS: which undoubtedly takes in obedience to all positive as well as moral precepts of the Lord Almighty. And what if God rejected with some disdain the hypocritical services of the Jews of that time, their sacrifices, their attendance at his temple, or court1, their oblations and incense i, their observation of new moons and sabbaths, their solemn assembliesk, and even their prayers1? Those heartless, sapless services, which had no godliness, no sincerity, no true love of God in them, were not the services which God required, or took delight in.

* Isa. i. 16, 17. h Isa. i. 12.

1 Isa. i. 14.

f Luke i. 6.

i Isa. i. 13.

* Isa. i. 11.
* Isa. i. 14.

God would not accept of vain compliments, nor be bribed with pretended gifts m, offered only to excuse from duty, to compound for sin, and to palliate unjust dealings. God expected that their hearts, as well as their bodies and sacrifices, should be presented to him: he required religious and devout performances, not the outward shell and carcase of religion. In a word, he demanded both positive and moral duties strictly so called; not hypocrisy, which is a face only of duty, or form of godliness, but a real abomination". What then is there in this place of Isaiah tending either to exclude, or even to depreciate positive duties? Not one syllable: neither indeed is there in the whole Scriptures. Turn them over from one end to the other, and you will find nothing clear or certain concerning the distinction between moral and positive; much less will you find that ever moral duties are extolled in oppo→ sition to positive, as such: but all we shall find that looks any thing like it, or can be mistaken for it, is, either that sincere obedience is preferred to superficial, inward goodness to outward modes and forms, to mere external performances; or entire obedience preferred to partial; or the great lines of duty, the first stamina of religion, the weighty matters of the Law, preferred to the remote or minuter branches of duty, which hang upon the other,

m See Deut. x. 17. 2 Chron. xix. 7. Ecclus. xxxv. 12.

n Si cliens ea munera ultro, vel etiam edicta, ordine suo offerat, et solemnia regis observet, non ex fide tamen, nec corde puro, nec pleno circa cœtera quoque obsequia (leg. obsequio) nonne consequens ut rex ille, vel dives, exclamet: Quo mihi multitudinem munerum tuorum? Plenus sum: et solennitates et dies festos, et vestra sabbata odit anima mea. Vestra dicendo, quæ secundum libidinem suam, non secundum religionem Dei celebrando, sua jam, non Dei fecerant. Conditionalem idcirco et rationalem demonstravit recusationem eorum quæ administranda præscripserat. Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. ii. c. 22. p. 393.

• Nec enim iis, cultum divinitus institutum Prophetæ redarguunt et taxant, sed populi hypocrisin, et obfirmatam ad scelera mentem, cui externum sacrificiorum, festorum, oblationumque opus prætendebant; præclare de se actum censentes, modo holocausta offerrent, et externo ritu sacra obirent, licet absque fide, absque ulla vitæ emendatione, impœnitentes, indurati, sceleribus adhuc immersi. Carpzov. Introd. ad Libr. Bibl. part. ii.