SERMON XXIII. LOVE TO GOD AND MAN THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. MATTHEW xxii. 35-40. 35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. THE love we owe to God and man, the subject of these verses, is of the very greatest importance, and should be well understood by every man, as we are assured by our Lord himself, that the whole of religion is comprised in thus loving God and our neighbour. But, What is religion? And, What is the true religion? These are questions that have been seriously asked by some who were inquiring the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward; and earnestly wishing to know how they might escape the perdition of ungodly men: and a similar inquiry has been made captiously by others, from a supercilious incredulity; taking for granted, that their question could not be solved in a satisfactory manner. The Christian religion is a revelation from God himself, giving a knowledge of His own being, at tributes, and works: and of man, his nature, present state, and necessities; shewing also the way in which the whole human race may have all their spiritual wants supplied, their souls delivered from evil passions, and be made partakers of a divine nature, escape the corruption that is in the world, through evil desire, and being made truly holy, become in consequence contented and happy, and stand in a continual preparation for the blessedness of the eternal world. But how is this religion, this holiness, content, and happiness, to be acquired? "In itself," say objectors," it seems impossible, in such a state of imperfection and sinfulness as the present is and whatever may be stated by theory, fact and general experience seem to prove that such a state cannot be enjoyed on earth; and if, to be in such a state, be what is termed true religion, and no such state is to be found below-then, there is no such thing as this true religion-orit was not made for the sons of men." But do such assertions as these prove that the objectors have deeply considered the subject? Is it, after the fullest investigation of the question, that they have come to this conclusion! Or, is this an echo of the wicked word of a lying world, that knows as little of God as of His religion; and goes on sowing to the flesh, and of it reaping corruption and ruin. But should there be any honest seriousness in such objectors, a proper consideration of our Lord's words in the text will, I hope, lead them to form a different conclusion. The occasion of this discourse was as follows:-A lawyer, apparently of the sect of the Pharisees, who had been present when our Lord had confounded the Herodians, ver. 16 -22; and had silenced the Sadducees, ver. 23-32; hoping to succeed better than the former, as having a better cause, came forward, questioned him, and said, Master, which is the great commandment of the law? As the word lawyer, in its common acceptation among us, may mislead, as it has not the same meaning in the New Testament, it may be necessary to make a few observations upon it. The word voμixos, signifies a teacher of the law; and thus our ancient Anglo-Saxon version, æ-laɲeop, a law-teacher, or a doctor of the law. These teachers of the law were the same as the scribes, or what Dr. Wotton calls letter-men, whom he supposes to be the same as the Karaïtes, a sect of the Jews who rejected all the traditions of the elders, and admitted nothing but the written word. These are allowed to have kept more closely to the spiritual meaning of the law and the prophets, than the Pharisees did; and hence the question proposed by this lawyer, (who in Mark xii. 28. is called one of the scribes,) was of a more spiritual and refined nature than those proposed by the Herodians and Sadducees already mentioned. But this question, howsoever good in itself, was not candidly proposed by this law-teacher ;-he asked, tempting him, trying to convict him of ignorance, or to confound him by subtlety. To connect this the better with the context, and see the situation in which our blessed Lord was now placed, it will be necessary to observe, that we have here exhibited to our view, three kinds of enemies and false-accusers that rose up against our Lord; and the three sorts of accusations brought against Him; viz.: 1. The Herodians, or politicians, or courtiers, belonging to Herod, who form their questions and accusations on the rights of the prince and matters of state:-they came forward, with, Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not? ver. 17. 2. The Sadducees, or libertines, who founded their question upon matters of religion and articles of faith, which themselves did not believe. Hence, they propose a question concerning the resurrection, and that provision of the Mosaic law, which states, "if a man take a wife and he die childless, his brother shall take his widow and raise up a posterity, that shall succeed to the first brother's estate, and to all his rights and privileges." Master, Moses said, &c., ver. 24. 3. The Pharisees, whether scribes or Karaïtes, who were all hypercritical pretenders to devotion, they came and proposed a question on that vital and practical godliness, the love of God and man, of which they wished themselves to be thought the sole proprietors,-Master, which is the great command'ment? ver. 36. To this question our Lord immediately answers, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In these two commandments mention is made of three kinds of love :-viz. 1. The love we owe to GOD. 2. The love we owe to our NEIGHBOUR. 3. The love we owe to ourselves. These must not be confounded; and to prevent this, a correct definition should be given of each for the term love in relation to God, to our neighbour, and to ourselves, does not present the same sense, though all partake of the same radical idea. Though we may define the term, which, however, is not very easily done, yet the thing is extremely difficult: and philosophers, critics, and divines, have spent their strength on it. Scarcely any definition yet given, is sufficiently simple. That the thing itself has for its basis ESTEEM and DESIRE, ́there can be little doubt. Dr. South, whose definition has been admired, has rather described the effects than the principle. “Love," says he," is such an affection as cannot so properly be said to be in the soul, as the soul to be in that. It is the great instrument of nature; the bond and cement of society; the spirit and spring of the universe. It is the whole man wrapt up in one desire." When we see goodness and excellence, we cannot but esteem them; and the possessor of them seems peculiarly entitled to our respect. Aware of the utility of such virtues, we cannot but desire their acquisition. If the possession of the person or thing in which these reside, be possible, we earnestly desire that possession. Esteem and desire, produce anxiety and strenuous endeavour to gain this possession: and the ardour of the desire will be in proportion to the view we have of that goodness and excellence, and the conviction we feel of their being necessary to our happiness. Hence, indeed, it may be said, The whole man is wrapt up in one desire. But as the term love is that on which the whole strength of these commandments rests, it will be necessary to inquire here also into its grammatical or literal meaning, as was found to be expedient in other places. The word Αγαπη, from αγαπαω, I love, is variously compounded and derived by lexicographers and critics. I shall produce those which seem to bear the most directly on the subject. Ayan is supposed to be compounded of ayav, and To, to act vehemently, or intensely; or of ayev XATA TAV, because love is always active, and will work in every possible way; for he who loves, is with all his affection and desire carried forward to the beloved object, in order to possess and enjoy it. Some derive it from ayav and waveσbai, to be completely at rest, or to be intensely satisfied with that which he loves; and this resting completely on it, because perfectly satisfied with it, constitutes essentially, what is called love. Others derive it from ayav and raw, because a person eagerly embraces and vigorously holds fast, that which is the object of his affection. Lastly, others suppose it to be compounded of ayan, I admire, and avoμas, I rest, because that which a person loves intensely, he rests in with fixed admiration and contemplation. This shews that genuine love changes not, but always abides steadily attached to that which is the sole object of its regard. Our English term love, we have from the Anglo-Saxon, lora, or lupa, from lupan and lurian, to desire, love, favour, cherish and both are most probably derived from the Teutonic, leben, to live; because love is the means, dispenser, and preserver of life; and without it, life would have nothing desirable, nor indeed, any thing even supportable. The Latin amo, I love, has been derived by Minshieu, from the Hebrew chamah, to burn, to waste and dry up, parch: and, considering it as an animal affection, having an animal object, this is sufficiently descriptive of its nature and effects; hence these Leonine verses, Nescio quid sit Amor: nec amor, nec amor, nec amavi, At scio, si quis amat, uritur igni gravi. I do not know what love is; I do not love, I am not loved, nor have I loved. But this I know, that whosoever is in love, is burnt up by a strong fire. This is the effect of hopeless love, where it is intense and undivided. So the poet, who in the following lines has painted it in a very affecting manner :— "She never told her love, But let concealment, like a worm i' the bud, Smiling at grief. Was not this love indeed ?" If I understand them right, it is in this way, and with this kind of love, that some ascetic or mystical writers would |