Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

or ought to be esteemed religion, that is not reducible to one or other of these principles. What then, it may be said, become of the institutions of religion, which cannot properly be referred to either? are they then no part of religion? It is answered to this, that there is a manifest difference between religion and the means of religion: whatever is part of religion, and yet not so on account of moral reason, can only be esteemed as means, ordained not for their own sake, but for the sake of that religion which is founded on moral reason. This distinction might teach men where to point their best endeavors, and where to place their hopes: for if our zeal be spent only on the means, and goes no farther, we are yet in our sins.

Hence also it is shown that there can be no competition or disagreement between the duties called moral and those called positive.

DISCOURSE XIII.

MATTHEW, CHAP. XXII.-VERSE 40.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

[ocr errors]

THE two commandments here referred to are set down in the verses immediately preceding the words of the text. At verse 37, we read, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: This is the first and great commandment:' verse 38. At verse 39 follows, 'And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Then come the words of the text, ' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets :' the meaning of which saying is plainly this, that the whole reason of 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 neighbor. In speaking of these words, I shall,

First, Show you the true meaning and import of them; and, Secondly, Make some useful remarks on the whole.

In St. Mark's gospel the same thing is said in different words, though to the same 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 a 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 restrained. The reason of this is plain: for the relation between God and man being once known, the first conclusion is, That we ought to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, with all our souls,

[ocr errors]

and with all our minds;' that is, to the utmost of our power : and until this general principle be established, the particular duties owing to God cannot fall under our consideration. There is no room to inquire after the proper instances of expressing our love to God, till the general obligation of loving God be known and admitted. The same reason holds likewise as to the other general head of religion, the love of our neighbor:' for the relation between man and man, and the common relation of all to one great Master, being supposed, the result is, that we ought to love our neighbor as ourself:' that is, to do all we can to promote the happiness of each other and unless we have this general sense, we cannot be concerned to know in any particular case what is the proper instance of love which we ought to show towards our neighbor.

But these general principles being once established, the particular duties flow from them naturally. The love of God and the love of our neighbor, if carefully attended to, will easily 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 on the mere view of the different circumstances of the persons concerned. Love, with regard to a superior, becomes honor and respect, and shows itself in a cheerful obedience and a willing submission to the commands of authority: love, with respect to our equals, is friendship and benevolence: towards inferiors it is courtesy and condescension: if it regards the happy and prosperous, it is joy and pleasure, which envy cannot corrupt: if it looks towards the miserable, it is pity and compassion; it is a tenderness which will discover itself in all the acts of mercy and humanity.

In negative duties this principle is no less effectual than in positive. Love will not permit us to injure, oppress, or offend our brother: it will not give us leave to neglect our betters, or to despise our inferiors: it will restrain every inordinate passion, and not suffer us either to gratify our envy at the expense of our neighbor's credit and reputation, or our lust by violating his wife or his daughter; but it will preserve us harmless and innocent for love worketh no ill to its neighbor.' This deduction of particular duties from this general principle was made by

6

[ocr errors]

St. Paul long since: Owe no man,' says he, any thing, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law: Rom. xiii. 8, &c.

[ocr errors]

This notion of love, as being the fulness of the law, and of all the commandments being comprehended in this saying, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' will lead us to the true and natural interpretation of a passage 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 absurd: 'Whosoever,' says he, shall keep the whole law, and offend in one point, he is guilty of all:' chap. ii. 10. This is a position something strange, 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 Apostle's reason in the next verse: • For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.' This reason, as interpreters commonly expound it, amounts to this: all laws are founded on one and the same authority of God; therefore every offence against any law is a contempt of the authority on which all laws depend; and therefore every act of disobedience is a breach of the whole law, because subversive of that authority on which the whole law stands. But there are many objections against the reason thus stated: first, it is liable evidently to all the difficulties of the Stoics' paradox, that all offences are equal: for if the guilt of sin depends not on the nature and circumstances of the sinful action, but on the authority of the lawgiver, then every sin, being an offence against the same authority, is of the same guilt and heinousness; and there will be no difference between killing your neighbor or

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

your neighbor's horse; for he that has forbid you killing your neighbor, has likewise forbid you doing any act to the hurt and detriment of your neighbor: secondly, the Apostle's inference in the latter part of the verse does not answer to the principle laid down in the former part: He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.' ́ This is his principle; and he infers,Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law :' no doubt of it; because there is a law against murder as well as against adultery. But what is this towards showing that the breach of one law is the breach of all? The inference therefore should have been on this foot: now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art guilty of all the laws by disobeying the Author of all laws.

6

But this passage of St. James will have another appearance, when fairly examined. In order to it, we must look back to that which gave occasion to it, and follow the Apostle's argument step by step. The whole depends on the notion which is common to the writers of the New Testament, that love is the fulfilling of the law.' St. James considers the whole duty of man to man as contained in one law, namely, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:' and then he argues rightly, he who offends in one point is guilty of the whole law for whether it be theft, or murder, or adultery, that you commit, it matters not; for any of these crimes is inconsistent with the law, which contains and is the whole, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' But hear the Apostle's own words; in the eighth verse you read thus: If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:' where, first, you are to observe that he calls this the royal law; not because given by Christ the King, as some tell us, for all laws are in that sense royal laws; but because it is the first supreme law, from which all others proceed as distinct branches, and by which they must all be governed. Secondly, you must take notice what stress the Apostle lays on their fulfilling' this royal law: If ye fulfil the royal law -ye do well:' that is, if you attend to it in all instances, so as not to offend against it in any case, ye then will do well. The Apostle proceeds in the next verse, 'But, if ye have respect to

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »