sposition which seeks the welfare of others, the principle which in man leads to effort and sacrifice that others may be benefited, which in God diffuses blessings in nature and providence, and has led to the crifice of his Son, and the gift of his Spirit for the life of the world. This is the love which is the essence of the Divine nature, and in which all God's feelings towards his creatures are embraced.

This love, as you will perceive, is not to be confounded with admiration for the qualities of its objects. It does not necessarily imply any approval of their character. It is not complacency. And it is very important that in speaking of it we should distinguish between the two. It is from overlooking this distinction sometimes that men demur to and attempt to explain away the definition of our text. They know that God is not always complacent, that he is displeased as well as pleased, and that his abhorrence of wrong is as strong as his approval of right; and hence, mistaking its meaning, they begin to qualify and curtail this glorious revelation. Now we readily admit - nay, we strongly affirm and insist that God is not love in the sense of approving of all that his creatures do. He is not admiration everywhere and at all times. He is not complacency. He approves only of those qualities which are truly worthy of approval. He is pleased with his creatures only when they act a part which is truly good. "He is angry with the wicked every day." "His wrath is revealed from heaven against all angodliness, and unrighteousness of men." In this sense he abhors the workers of iniquity.

I should be as much afraid as any one of receiving the text in an unlimited and unqualified sense, did I think that love was complacency. For just think what such a sentence would mean. Why that God was pleased with everything, and approved of everything whether good or ril Twere terrible for me to think that God was love in that sense! I should be left without a God. 'Twere a terrible fact for the poor universe! What! no Infinite Being who is opposed to evil, and who befriends the good! No one to see to it, that evil shall not triumph, and that good shall not be crushed! Such a fact would ring the deathneil of the world's hopes, and cause hell to hold jubilee. I am thankfal, and can never be sufficiently thankful, that the Bible does not tell

me that.

It will be further seen, from this definition of love, that it is not to be confounded with that blind fondness which gratifies every wish of its objects without respect to their welfare, and is too weak to inflict pain, even for the sake of future and higher good. There are many who have no higher conception of love than this. You will hear them y, If God be love, why is there suffering in the world? Why does henot gratify our desires? Why are we denied one thing and thwarted in another? Why does not God give us what we wish? That indeed would prove that he is love. Would it? You see a child crying for something which its parent will not give to it-some edge tool to play with, or some sweetmeat to eat and you say, "Why keep the child crying; why vex and tease the little dear? Let it have what

it wants. That will show that you love it." Will it? I think a trul loving parent will rather be careful to consider first whether or n it will be good for the child, ere he will let it have what it cries fo What if it should be likely to cut itself with that edge tool? What those sweetmeats should prove poisonous? What if it should be likel to surfeit itself with them? What if yielding to its wish be likely t spoil its temper, make it self-indulgent, and exacting, and discontented and peevish, so injuring it both in body and in soul? I think in the case a truly loving parent will deny the child's wish; not hesitating cause present grief and to inflict present pain, for the sake of its futu good. And so, I say, what if, in our blindness, we should desire som thing not very good for us? What if we need to learn habits of sel restraint? What if gratifying our present desires might have an w happy influence on our temper and disposition? What if it were render us self-indulgent and exacting-apt to gratify ourselves at th expense of others? Why, then, if God is love, I think, he will with hold from us that which we seek; will thwart our desires, and inflic present pain in order to our future profit. And the thought more over is not one which has originated with me, nor has it sprung up the present generation. It is at least as old as Paul; for Paul says "Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth." David knew something o it too, when he said, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted Before I was afflicted I went astray."

But the sufferings of the future world are a still greater stumbling block to our friends than the trials and disappointments of the present They might get over these, and believe that God is love in spit of them, if only there were no hell. But how that statement can consi with the existence of a hell they know not. If God be love, the say, why does not he make all his creatures happy-why does h consign some of them to perdition? Let him extinguish hell, an make all his creatures finally and perfectly happy; we could believ that he is love then. Could you? I question if I could then. question if then I should not have more difficulty in believing it than have now. You see a king there who professes to love his subject and the majority of whose acts, at least, agree with his protestations you could almost believe that he really does love them, were it no for that great prison-house in which some of them are incarcerated and to which others are being consigned. How can he love hi subjects when he is depriving some of them of their freedom, an shutting them up in those narrow cells? How can he love them whe he excludes them from those fair scenes and immures them in tha dreary dungeon? Let him pull down his prison, and set thos prisoners free to breathe the fresh air and roam over the fi landscape, and then you will believe in his love. Yes, let him do that and what will be the result? Why those prisoners will return their old crimes; they will prey upon and injure the orderly member of the community; others will be led to follow their example; the bonds of society will be loosened; the restraint of law will be se

side; throughout the whole kingdom anarchy and ruin will peedily ensue. You would call that love, would you? I call it alpable weakness, in which love has no place. Fondness it may be or the criminal portion of his subjects. It is unmitigated cruelty to the others. Even so, instead of deeming the existence of a hell compatible with the statement that "God is love," I might find it ifficult to believe in his love were there no hell. Were rebels left to roam abroad at will, dragging others into rebellion, assailing all who would not join them, and thus inducing wide-spread anarchy-would that be love? Love! It might indicate fondness for the rebelsweak fondness; but to every loyal subject it would be the most flagrant injustice and the grossest cruelty. Hence, although there is a hell, yea, because there is a hell-a prison-house to which the bad are confined-I can believe that God is love.

This leads me in the second place to show, as I purposed, that from its very nature this definition of the Divine character is and must be true. The very sublimity of the sentence might almost suffice to prove this. Grander truth the Bible does not contain, more honourable to God, or assuring and consoling to his creatures. Grander truth is not to be found in the universe, written on any page, or deposited in any archive. Grander truth does not exist. Grander truth cannot be onceived of. For, in truth, this love in its highest sense is the sum of all excellence.

He does not understand it who does not see that it implies the possession of every perfection. Even in the creature, love-if it be love indeed, not partiality, not blind fondness, but true love, benevolence that is-is the measure of creature goodness. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." And infinite love, the love which is in God, the love which is intended when his character is thus defined, implies all possible perfections. Rectitude: for how can love tolerate the wretchedness which flows from wrong? Justice: for how can love countenance the injury which injustice would inflict on some portion of the universe? Faithfulness: for how can love deceive? Holiness: for sin is impurity, derangement, and love cannot consent to these; it must desire for its objects the attainment of the highest perfection of which their nature is capable. It is when our minds are hampered by system, blinded by technicalities, that we conceive of these attributes as opposed to or as limiting the exercise of love. not then understand properly what love means-have not yet mastered the word. When we so conceive of it that we can rise from the technical to the essential-from the formula to the fact we may be able to perceive that there can be no more satisfactory and glorious definition of the Divine than is contained in these three words, "God

a love."

We do

There is another definition, I know, given by the same Apostle, rivalling this in brevity, though not perhaps in comprehensiveness"God is light." But that does not, as is imagined, oppose or limit this. That relates to principle, this to person. As regards principle,

"God is light;" there is no impurity, no wrong, in him. As regards person, "God is love;" there is no malevolence, no hatred, in him. But surely it need not be supposed that in these statements there is anything hostile, that the one requires a limitation of the other. S far from their being counter-statements, or statements which inpinge the one on the other, they appear to us to be guarantees the one for the other. We should say, "If God is love he must be light; it light he must be love." The characters which these words describe are not opposites. They harmonize with and secure the existenc of each other.

"God is love."

The definition is such that, to my mind, it bear on its front the impress of its divinity. I need no evidence beyon itself to convince me that it is of God. Suppose for a moment, fo argument's sake, that it is an invention. It could only be invented by devils or men. Invented by devils! Can it be? The devil-the father of lies, the accuser, the slanderer-when he wishes t calumniate the character of God, publishes to the world that "Go is love!" They may believe that who can. For my part I do not think the devil is such a fool.

Then do you suppose men invented it? You cannot believe that without going directly counter to the facts of history and human experience. Think of the conceptions which heathen nations have formed of the Divine. See the characters which they have attributed to their imaginary gods. Love is certainly not its prevailing feature. They are distinguished by injustice and cruelty, and lying and lust: by all that is bad in man and bad in the devil; but not by love. There are, indeed, the two rival deities-the one good and the other evil-always contending with and outwitting each other, which mer have devised to account for the apparently conflicting phenomena of the universe; but, in all the Pantheons of heathendom, there is n Supreme Being who makes the most distant approach to, or resemble in the remotest degree, the Apostle's definition, "God is love."

Then see how slow men are to believe in the love of God even when it has been proclaimed to them. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the popular conception of God is one into which the element of love largely enters. It is rather one into which love scarcely enters at all. Men do not in general think of God as kind and loving, but only as terrible, nay stern, almost cruel; so strong that it is well to keep on good terms with him-who will take care that those who displease him shall not escape the punishment which is their due. Such is the conception which most men form of the Divine. I do not say at present how far this conception is true or false. I do not deny that there may be an element of truth in it, but so distorted as to become an infernal lie. I only call attention to the fact that it is the popular conception; I do not say universal, but certainly, so far as my observation goes, it is the prevailing one. Thus, when God's love is proclaimed, men are slow to believe in it. The devil has taken such hold of their depraved nature that they are

low to let it go. They cast over all the Bible representations of the Divine character the shadow of their own dark conception. When the truth has been presented to them, suspicion after suspicion arises in their mind, doubt after doubt; and often it is not until it has been insisted on repeatedly that they fairly look at, and waken up to the perception of, the truth, and, while they rejoice to see how divine a thing it is, feel ashamed of the calumnies which, in their unbelief, they cast on the character of God.

See, too, how prone men are, after they have believed the Gospel, to lose sight of or to question the Divine love. Owing to their former habit and to their remaining depravity, it is only by a constant struggle that they can practically realize it. Their habitual tendency is to think of God as if he were a being like themselves; and it is only by an effort that they can counteract this tendency of their lower nature, and conceive of God in a manner which accords with the revelations of his word.

Now, if you think of all this-the conceptions which heathen nations have formed of the Divine Being-the slowness of men to believe in the Divine love, even when revelation proclaims it-the tendency of believers to question it--you will find it difficult to believe, I imagine, that any man could have invented the sentence, "God is love." No, it is, it must be, Divine. It could not be originated in hell. It could not spring from any earthly source. It must be God's own revelation of his own heart. Only God could tell us that "God is love."

But though men could not have invented this definition of the Divine character, now that it has been revealed, if we reflect on it sufficiently to perceive its meaning, our higher nature at once acknowledges that it is and must be Divine. Any definition which differs from this must be inferior to it, for we cannot conceive of anything which is superior. This, so far as we can see, is the best possible. And a right conception of the Divine requires us to believe that nothing is or can be better than God. All other beings must be inferior to him. He is better than the best. No other can be so good as he. Accordingly, as this is the best definition of which I can conceive, I must believe that it applies to God. Were I ignorant of this, you might describe the being whom you call God in the language which appears to you most appropriate, and, after you had attributed to him every excellence of which you could think, I might, in my ignorance of something better, admit that the being whom you had so described was God. But no sooner does this definition of John's flash upon my perception than your description, excellent as it is, is rejected. Immediately my heart tells me that this-not yours, with all its excellence, bat this"God is love," is the correct description of the Divine Being. When once I have seen this I never can adore any other being, actual or conceivable, as the Supreme. As they are all inferior to this, it is in this direction that my heart must pay its profoundest homage. Just as the sun conceals the stars-as all lights