Upon What Account the Love of God is Termed the First and Greatest Commandment, How On These Two Commandments Hang All the Law and the Prophets, and How On These Two Commandments Hang All the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Jonathan Mayhew

“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. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” –Matthew 22:37-41.

Having, in two former discourses, considered the nature and obligation of the two duties here mentioned, viz., the love of God, and of our Neighbour, I proceed now, in the second place, to inquire,

II. In what sense, and upon what account, it is said that to love God is the first and great commandment.

We may observe that this assertion of our Lord contains an express and positive answer to the question proposed just before by the lawyer. It seems that the Jews (as was observed in the first discourse upon this subject) were not agreed amongst themselves which commandment in the law of Moses was the greatest, or most important. Some pitched upon that relating to circumcision, others that concerning the observation of the Sabbath, and so on. Now it was a resolution of this point, which the lawyer, in his query, desired of our Lord. And consequently the sense of our Lord's answer will be this: "In making a comparison between the various precepts of the Mosaic institution, the preeminence ought to be given to that which respects the love of God; this is the principal, the most important and fundamental of all duties, and which, therefore, demands your chief care and attention."

This is the purport of our Lord's answer. Now the inquiry which naturally arises here is: what is the reason and ground of this preference? Or, upon what account does our Lord style this the first and great commandment? The reason is too obvious to need mentioning, why the preeminence or first place should be given to this commandment, had the competition been only between the internal love and reverence of the one true God, and the rituals of religion ordained in the ceremonial law. But it appears that the comparison is made between all the commandments in general, moral as well as ritual. And that which may seem strange to some is that the love of God should be looked upon as of more importance than the love of our neighbour. As God is not externally “worshipped of men's hands, as though he needed anything” [Acts 17:25], so neither can our loving him “with all our heart” be any advantage to him, he being absolutely independent. But our righteousness and charity may profit men like ourselves: our neighbour may be really benefited by our love and good offices. And as we must suppose that the end of all God's commandments must be the advancement of the happiness of his creatures, and not his own, so one might possibly think that those commandments would be esteemed the most important, and claim our primary regard, in which the good of mankind is the most immediately concerned, such as justice, charity, and in short all those particular duties which are comprehended in the general one of love towards our neighbour. It might, therefore, have been expected that our Lord's answer would have run thus: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; this is the first and great commandment.” But we find, on the contrary, that he has assigned only the second place to this duty, and reserved the first for the love of God. Now if this should appear a difficulty to any, as probably it does, the difficulty may possibly be removed by the following considerations, which I shall scarce have more than time enough to mention.

1. If it be our duty to love God at all, this is the duty which is plainly first in the order of offices. Our obligation to our Creator is prior in the order of nature to our obligation to our   fellow men. This appears particularly from hence, that our obligation to love our neighbour arises principally from the will and command of God, but we could not have been under any obligation to comply with his will in this particular instance had we not been under some antecedent obligation to him in general. It is the perfections of God that induce upon us an obligation to obey him at all. Our obligation, therefore, to acknowledge the divine perfections, to cultivate a proper regard to our Maker, or, in the words of the text, to “love the Lord our God with all our heart,” is, in the nature of things, prior to all others. And upon this account it may be said that “this is the first and great commandment.” If, in our imaginations, we divest God of those perfections, which at present we suppose him to be possessed of, our obligation to obey him in any instance vanishes of course. But suppose him infinitely wise, good and powerful, and our obligation to love, honour, and obey him takes place immediately, so that our obligation to God is the first which we are under; it is, indeed, that into which all others may be resolved. There is no duty which we owe to our neighbour, considered as a religious duty, but what derives its obligatory force from the will and authority of God. And as the divine perfections are the original and sole ground of all religious obligations in general, so to have a suitable internal love and esteem of, and regard towards, those perfections is the primary and principal of all duties and obligations. But I shall explain myself farther upon this head, under a second observation, namely,

2. That the whole of religion, in the largest sense of the word, ought to be considered as the service of God, the supreme Governor of the universe, and in this light it is usually considered in scripture. Now 'tis apparent, that the first thing, not only in point of order, but of importance also, is to form just sentiments concerning the Being whom we serve, to be suitably affected towards him, to cultivate those regards of esteem, love, reverence, etc., which the perfections of his nature, and his relation to us, demand. Religion must originate here; there can be really no religion, no service, that God can look upon as done in obedience to him, but what proceeds from this principle of love to him, and such a principle does, as it were, ensure our obedience to him in all other instances. Loyalty of heart to our earthly sovereign, a proper sense of our duty to him, in general, is the foundation of obedience to him in all particular instances. The more our hearts are attached to our prince, the better prepared, and the more likely are we, to yield a thorough and universal obedience to his laws. I speak now of a temporal prince, but this holds equally with regard to God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. Piety, or the love of God, is the first and principal thing in religion, as much as loyalty to our earthly sovereign is the first and principal thing in the character of a good subject. And this is, doubtless, the reason why the Decalogue, that summary of man's duty, begins with our immediate duty to our Creator. When the law was given at Mount Sinai, it was ushered in thus: “I am the Lord thy God, etc…. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” [Exod. 20:2-3]. This injunction of loyalty to the one true God prepared the way to, and ushered in, all the other commandments. Nor was this order, in delivering the law, accidental, or without any particular design. It would be preposterous for a legislator to promulge any particular laws to his subjects, without first asserting his own authority and requiring his subjects to own, acknowledge, and honour him as their prince or lawgiver. This is the purport of the first commandment in the Decalogue: it requires those to whom it was given, to own, acknowledge, and honour the only true God, or, in the words of my text, to ‘love the Lord their God with all their heart.’ And there is something analogous to the divine conduct in this particular, in the conduct of earthly princes, who, in the first place, require an oath of allegiance from their subjects, in order to make way for their laws to be cordially received and obeyed. This is a custom which has prevailed pretty generally in the world; and it is plain that it answers good ends in government. Nor is it less proper in the divine government than in human that we should be required in the first place, and as the groundwork, the sum and substance of all, to have a suitable regard towards him whose subjects we are, i. e., to honour and respect him as our prince. The general reason of this, is the same in both cases, viz., the necessity of our acknowledging the legislator in order to our obeying his laws. And this brings me to observe, in the third place,

3. That the love of God is the only sure and steady principle of virtue and righteousness in our conduct towards our fellow men. The moral and social virtues are, indeed, amiable in themselves, worthy to be practiced, and it would (ordinarily at least) be the interest of mankind to practice them, even although there were no God at all. But considering the weakness of human reason, the strength of human passion, and the force and variety of temptation—considering what men are in themselves, and what a world they live in—it cannot well be supposed that they should uniformly act a virtuous part, from those considerations alone. Virtue is amiable, and excellent in itself, but the bulk of mankind are not formed to be so powerfully struck with the beauty and amiableness of it as to disarm temptation and cause them to adhere to truth and right at the expense of their present ease and pleasure. To the consideration of the fitness of righteousness and all other moral virtues, and the usual tendency of them towards happiness, it is necessary that the consideration of a righteous Governor of the world should be added, whose positive will and command it is that we should invariably practice those virtues which are in themselves good, and who will finally “render to every man according as his work shall be” [Rev. 22:12]. To exclude a God and a righteous providence from the world is (I will not say, wholly to break down the fence between vice and virtue and to make it wholly indifferent whether we practice the former or the latter; but it is) to deprive virtue of one of its greatest supports and guards. And it is to be remembered that not to love God, not to cultivate those religious regards towards him, which the perfections of his nature demand, is to exclude him to all intents and purposes, as to any influence which the knowledge and belief of him can have upon our behaviour. The acknowledging of a God can have no good effect upon our conduct any farther than our hearts are suitably affected towards him, so that there can be little or no real virtue without piety. If anything puts men upon doing their duty towards their neighbour and deters them from vice, when the eye of the world is not upon them, and when their temporal interest is forfeited thereby, it must be a sense of the divine perfections upon their hearts, i. e., a principle of love to God, in the large sense in which that duty was before explained. Without this, they will be continually in danger of relapsing into vice, whenever a present advantage is to be gained thereby, notwithstanding the beauty and amiableness of a contrary conduct. But let a man once have a suitable sense of the Deity upon his mind; let him really “love the Lord his God with all his heart,” and this will be a constant principle of virtuous conduct in all conditions and circumstances of life. It amounts to little less than a contradiction to suppose that a man mould really love God, and yet indulge himself in the practice of those sins which God has forbidden, and which he knows are contrary to the divine perfections. The connection between the love of God and obedience to his commandments is so close and inseparable that St. John tells that “this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” [1 John 5:3], and again, “Hereby do we know that we knew him, if we keep his commandments…. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” [1 John 2:2-3]. The love of our neighbour (which includes all moral virtues in it) necessarily flows from the love of God, according to the same apostle: “If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar” [1 John 4:20]—Nor is this less evident from reason than revelation. The love of God is the love of the divine perfections; 'tis the love of truth, goodness, justice, holiness, and all moral excellencies. And he that loves these perfections cannot indulge himself in those vices which are contrary to them, but will, of course, practice all the moral virtues in his own life. It is a common observation that similitude begets love; and it is equally true that love begets similitude. What we love and admire in others, we imitate, as naturally as we love in others those dispositions and humours that prevail in ourselves, so that if a man love God, who is possessed of all moral perfections, he must, of course, be moulded into the same image himself; he will naturally conform his own temper and behaviour to the moral character of God, and ‘be perfect, even as his Father which is in heaven is perfect’ [Matt. 5:48].

From these considerations it follows that, although the ultimate design of all the divine commandments were to bring us to a suitable temper and behaviour towards each other in order to our mutual happiness, yet still, to ‘love the Lord our God with all our heart’ would be ‘the first and great commandment’ upon account of the influence which the performance of this duty must necessarily have upon our moral conduct towards our neighbour, and the impossibility of our adhering steadfastly to the practice of virtue without such a principle of divine love. Where the love of God takes place, the love of mankind and all the virtues that are comprehended in it must necessarily take place also. Nor can the latter take place to any good purpose or degree where the former is wanting. The love of God is the fountain from whence the love of our neighbour flows, and to expect to find the latter in the breast where the former is not, is as vain as to expect to find a stream which has no source from whence it is derived. All moral excellencies in mankind have their origin here, in a proper regard and disposition of heart towards God, and this is sufficient, of itself, to entitle this command to the place which our Lord has assigned it. But

4. And lastly here, this may be said to be “the first and great commandment,” because the happiness of good men in this world consists principally in exercising those religious regards which are intended by the love of God. The duty consists in delight and complacency in God, in contemplating his perfections, in resignation of heart to his will, in trust and dependence upon him, and hope and confidence in his goodness. And he that is formed to such a divine and heavenly temper as this has the temper of happiness. He has within him a secret spring of peace and consolation that not only forbids him to be miserable, but also causes him to “rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory” [1 Pet. 1:8]. Without this principle of divine love and trust in God, there can be but little happiness enjoyed in such a world of confusion and disorder as this, where everything is in a fluctuating condition, where nothing can be depended upon. God is the adequate, the only adequate, object of our affections, and our supreme felicity in this world, as well as in the next, consists in the enjoyment of him, so that had God consulted only our present happiness, he could not have commanded us to do anything which has so great a tendency to promote it, and is so closely connected with it, as loving him with all our heart. This will, indeed, appear wild and fanciful to some men, who value themselves much upon their reason, but have no parts or capacity for devotion. However the happiness of those whose souls are formed to the love of God, the supreme and everlasting good is not the less because some men have no taste or relish for the sublime and exalted pleasures of piety.

Having thus briefly shown some of the grounds of that preeminence which our Lord gives to this commandment, I proceed

III. To inquire what our Lord intends by the assertion that “on these two commandments,” viz., the love of God and of our neighbour, “hang all the law and the prophets.” Now the full sense of this assertion may possibly be comprehended in the following particulars.

1. Under the Mosaic institution, and during the ministry of the Jewish prophets, the love of God and man were the principal and most important duties, more excellent in themselves, more acceptable to God, and more beneficial to mankind than the most punctilious observation of the ceremonial parts of the Law. The love of God, comprehending a sincere regard to, and hearty complacency in, all the divine perfections and the love of our neighbour, comprehending all moral, social, and relative virtues, were the sum and substance of religion under the legal dispensation. This is plainly implied in the assertion that “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Everything was of little account when put in competition with these great and excellent duties. And this is plainly the light in which the prophets constantly taught the Jews to look upon the various precepts of the Law. I shall have time to quote only two or three passages where such a preeminence is evidently given to the unalterable duties of inward piety, and a life of charity and holiness. To this effect are the words of the prophet Isaiah (chap. 1): “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord?… Bring no more vain oblations…. Your hands are full of blood. Wash ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” [vv. 11-17]. So Micah (6:5, and onwards): “Hear O my people! Remember now what Balak king of Moab consulted…. Where with shall 1 come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression; the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” These duties are the same with those in the text; and the same which our blessed Saviour styled “the weightier matters of the law”(Matt. 23:23), and with the omission of which, he upbraids the Pharisees (Luke 11:42): “But woe unto you Pharisees; for ye tythe mint and rue, and all manner of herbs; and pass over judgment and the love of God; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

2. The assertion before us may carry something more in it than that the love of God and man were the most important of any duties of the law—“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” This may possibly intend that these two general precepts do, in effect and in some sense, comprehend all other duties in them, of what kind soever—not strictly, indeed, for then no comparison could properly be made between them and others—but as he that obeys them, he that has a real principle of love to God and man in his heart, will naturally be led to do his duty in every other instance—to worship God in such manner as he requires, and to discharge all the duties which he owes to himself, and to his neighbour, in his particular station. These two virtues, as it were, comprehend all others in them. For he that sincerely loves and honours God in his heart cannot fail to perform all the external acts of piety which God has enjoined, all the duties of the first table, and from the love of our neighbour naturally flow all the duties of the second, all the duties which we owe to one another. So that to love God and our neighbour, is, in effect, to obey the whole law and the prophets; and to do all that God requires of us. And thus do ‘all the law and the prophets, hang on these two commandments.’

3. And lastly, in this position it may be implied that the end and design of all positive institutions, of all precepts not strictly comprehended in these natural and unalterable duties of piety and charity, was to bring men to the practice of them. All the rituals of religion, as appointed under the law, had some reference to these essential duties. They were not enjoined under the notion of having any natural and inherent excellence or goodness in them, but as means to bring men to a proper temper of mind towards their Maker and one another; neither were they valuable or beneficial any farther than as they promoted this end, even sincere piety, and a life of holiness and charity. In these things consisted real religion; and everything besides had no other relation to religion, but that of means to an end. The rituals of religion, though observed with the greatest exactness, were rather an abomination than a pleasure to the Lord, when they were not accompanied or followed by these natural and essential duties. Thus much is plainly implied in those words of the prophet (Isaiah 66:2-5): “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense as if he blessed an idol: yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their delusions—because when I called, none did answer; when I spake they did not hear; but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.”

Thus do ‘all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.’ They are the most important duties of the law and the prophets—all duties and virtues naturally flow from them—and all the ceremonials of religion were designed as a means for promoting the practice of them. They were the sum and substance, the alpha and omega, the beginning and end, of the Jewish religion.

Such was the religion of the Old Testament; and such also is the religion of the New. Which brings me to the fourth and last thing proposed, namely,

IV. To show that these two commandments have the same place and preeminence under the gospel-dispensation, which they had under the legal, or, in other words, that all the gospel of Jesus Christ hangs on these two commandments in the same sense that all the law and the prophets did.

Now, that I may avoid obscurity and obviate some objections which the ignorant or the caviling might, perhaps, raise against this assertion, I mall briefly premise two or three things for the explanation of it, before I proceed to prove it.

First then, it may be observed that this assertion relates only to duty, or practical religion, as distinguished from faith or belief. When our Saviour said that ‘all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments,’ he spoke of the perceptive part of the law, and the duty of Jews, who were supposed already to believe the law and the prophets, and to be fully convinced of their divine original. To such persons as these he says that there were no commands of so much importance as those which related to the love of God and of their neighbour. In these things consisted the sum and substance of duty under the Jewish economy. Our Lord was not speaking of what was the substance of natural religion, but of the Mosaic, which was of divine institution, and received as such by the posterity of Abraham. And accordingly, when it is now said under the gospel-dispensation that all the gospel of Jesus Christ hangs on these two commandments, the love of God and man, it is presupposed that Christianity is believed, that Christ is received as “a teacher sent from God” [John 3:2], as the promised Messiah, and that the doctrines of his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, and, in short, all the doctrines delivered either by himself or his inspired apostles are firmly believed. This being supposed, if the question were asked, “Which is the great commandment in the gospel?” the true answer to it (putting only the term gospel, instead of law and prophets) would be the same our Lord gives to the lawyer in the text: “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: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self: in these two commandments hangs all the Gospel.”

Secondly, it is not implied in this that it is of no importance whether Christians obey the positive institutions of the gospel or not, provided they practice the natural duties of piety and charity. As our Lord did not set aside the rituals of religion under the law entirely, by giving the preference to the love of God and of mankind, so neither are they set aside by those who apply his assertion concerning the law and prophets to the gospel. The contrary is rather implied. And it is a truth obvious to common sense that all God's commandments, without exception, are to be obeyed, those of a ritual, as well as those of a moral, nature. But still, as there were “the weightier matters of the law” under the Mosaic dispensation, when a comparison was made between the several commandments of it, so there are the weightier matters of the gospel also; and these are exactly the same under both dispensations.

Lastly here: When I speak of the substance of Christian duty, and the weightier matters of the gospel, as consisting in the natural duties of piety and charity, or the love of God and man, I would be supposed to intend that these duties should be performed upon evangelical principles. The duties in themselves are really duties of natural religion; but being adopted into Christianity, they are to be performed upon Christian principles and from gospel motives, with a proper regard to, and dependence upon, the Mediator of this new covenant, who gave himself for us.

With these explanations, I hope none will think the assertion strange that these two commands contain the sum of Christian duty, and that they ought to have the same preeminence under the gospel which they had under the law.

The main design of the Christian institution is evidently to bring men to that moral purity of heart and life which is comprised in the love of God and of our neighbour. Neither the most exact compliance with the positive precepts of the gospel, nor any kind or degree of faith unaccompanied with a principle of sincere piety and charity, nor, indeed, anything else where the love of God and man are wanting can entitle us to the divine acceptance hereafter, or “make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light” [Col. 1:12]. If we believe in Christ and his gospel, so far it is well, but this does but lay the foundation for our doing that upon which our salvation finally turns. A right faith is an excellent and valuable thing, but it is advantageous no farther than it purifies the heart and works by love, no farther than it transforms our minds into the divine likeness and leads us to live an holy and godly life. Thus the apostle Peter exhorts us to “give all diligence,” and to ‘add to our faith, virtue [constancy, resolution, fortitude], and to virtue, knowledge, and to knowledge, temperance, and to temperance, patience, and to patience, godliness, and to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness, charity.’ For, says he, “if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind” (2 Pet. 1:5-[7]). It is practical religion, the love of God, and a life of righteousness and charity, proceeding from faith in Christ and the gospel, that denominates us good men and good Christians—not wearing “the form of godliness” [2 Tim. 3:5]—not the belief of any doctrines, however true, concerning the atonement of Christ—not a lazy recumbency upon the righteousness of another—not any enthusiastic fervors of spirit—not a firm persuasion that we are elected of God and that our ‘names are written in the book of life’ [Phil. 4:3]—some of the worst men in the world have as much faith as any in it, attend upon sermons and sacraments as often, rely as confidently, have as warm frames and lively imaginations, and are as fully persuaded of their being chosen to salvation. But what does all this avail if that ‘faith be without works’ [James 2:14]?—if that ‘form of godliness be without the power’ [2 Tim. 3:5]?—if that reliance upon the righteousness of Christ be thought to supersede personal and inherent holiness?—if those fervors of soul are unattended by divine love and charity?—if those towering imaginations are but the vagaries of a wild fancy?—and that persuasion of their election proceed from vanity only, and not from their having ‘given diligence to make their calling and election sure’ [2 Pet. 1:10]?

The apostle Paul, in the 2^nd chapter of his epistle to Titus, charges him to inculcate various moral and relative duties in his preaching; and then enforces this charge with an argument taken from the general design of the gospel: “For the grace of God,” says he, “has appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world, looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify  unto himself a peculiar people, zealous  of good works” [vv. 11-14]. These words are plainly expressive of the main scope and intention of Christ's mediation, viz., the bringing of mankind to real holiness of heart and manners, or, in other words, to the love of God and of our neighbour. In the next chapter this same apostle commands Titus to teach the importance and necessity of Christian obedience and good works. “This is a faithful saying,” says he, “and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works: these things are good and profitable unto men” [v. 8]. In what does St. James place the substance of Religion? “Pure religion and undefiled before God, even the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep a man's self unspotted from the world” [James 1:27]. Does he not tell us that “the devils believe and tremble” [2:19]?—that “faith without works is dead” [2:26]?—that “faith cannot save us” [2:14]?—and that “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” [2:24]? The love of our neighbour is so essential that St. John makes it a certain evidence of a man's being in a state of favour with God, and the want of it as certain an evidence that our religion is of no value: “We know,” says he, “that we are passed from death to life, because we love the brethren…. But whoso hath this world's goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” [1 John 3:14, 17]. St. Paul also makes the want of charity a certain mark of a man's being nothing in a religious estimation, whatever faith, whatever gifts, whatever accomplishments he may be endowed with: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, l am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing….  Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” [1 Cor. 13:1-3, 13]. It would be endless to quote all the passages to this purpose in the writings of the apostles.

Our Lord's preaching tended to the same point. What is his sermon upon the mount, but a moral discourse wherein the excellency and necessity of internal piety and holiness of life is declared in the strongest terms? Has he not made charity the distinguishing character of his true disciples? —“Hereby shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another” [John 13:35]. And “herein,” says he, “is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit. So shall ye be my disciples” [John 15:8]. Has he not told us that ‘not every one that saith unto him Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of his Father which is in heaven’ [Matt. 7:21]? Has he not assured us that many will say unto him in the last day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name have done many wonderful works?” to whom he will then profess that be never knew them, because they wrought iniquity’ [Matt. 7:22-23]? Has he not said, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love…. This is my commandment that ye love one another as I have loved you?” [John 15:10, 12]. If we look to the account which our Lord has given of the proceedings, at the final judgment, when ‘he shall sit upon the throne of his glory, all nations being gathered before him’ to receive their doom [Matt. 25:31-32]—I say if we look to this account, what shall we find represented as the ground and reason of the righteous being acquitted, but charity and good works? —“Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was an hungered and ye gave me meat, thirsty, and ye gave me drink,” etc. [Matt. 25:34-36]. And what, on the other hand, is represented as the ground and reason of the condemnation of others, but the neglect of these same duties? —“Depart from me ye cursed; for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat; thirsty, and ye gave me no drink,” etc. [Matt. 25:41-43]. In short, the whole tenor of our Lord's preaching was moral: he seldom inculcated anything upon his hearers besides piety towards God, and righteousness and charity towards man, and all his discourses were just as contrary to the solifidian doctrines which too many have given into since, as light is to darkness, or Christ to Belial; nor can the former anymore have communion together than the latter. Our Lord insisted so much upon moral duties that some of late, in order to vindicate their own unscriptural and irrational manner of preaching, have even been compelled to deny that he preached the gospel, or designed to do it, alleging that his doctrines and manner of preaching were legal. The irresistible conviction, which these men have, that their own doctrines and discourses are of a very different cast and tenor from those of our blessed Saviour, has put them upon making this wretched and impious evasion. They apologize for themselves by condemning their Lord and Master. And rather than acknowledge, as they ought, that they do not preach the real gospel of Jesus Christ, they deny that Jesus Christ himself did. But notwithstanding they assert our Lord's preaching was legal, St. John the Baptist was plainly of a different opinion, for St. John the Evangelist informs us (chap. 1) that he “bare witness of him, saying,… ‘The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’” [John 1:15, 17]. And our Lord himself, when the Baptist lent to inquire of him who he was, told the messengers to tell John, among other things, that “the poor had the gospel preached to them,” and this in order to satisfy the Baptist that he was the true Messiah, and that another was not to be looked for [Luke 7:19-23]. I must, therefore, beg leave still to think that our Lord really preached his own gospel, although this may possibly be looked upon by some as an heterodox opinion, and a certain mark of my denying the doctrines of grace.

I hope it appears from what has been said that the love of God and of our neighbour, that sincere piety of heart, and a righteous, holy, and charitable life, are the weightier matters of the gospel, as well as of the law. Indeed these are more evidently the substance of Christian duty, than of Jewish. Under the gospel, rituals are of less account than they were under the law. It is not on this mountain, or that, that God is to be worshipped; every place is a Christian temple; for “the Father seeketh such to worship him” as will “worship him in spirit and in truth” [John 4:23-24]. Rituals were but a yoke and a burden, “weak and beggarly elements” even under the law [Acts 15:10; Gal. 4:9; 5:1]. And they are much more so under the Gospel, when compared to that spiritual sacrifice which Christians are to offer to God. And as to charity, this is more peculiarly an evangelical than a legal duty, for which reason it is that St. John styles this a new commandment, that we love one another.

Upon the whole then, the case seems to stand thus: Although the Christian revelation brings us acquainted with many truths besides those which the light of nature suggests, or Judaism plainly taught, although it enjoins us to do several things which would not have been obligatory without an explicit command, although it furnishes us with a great variety of new and excellent motives to excite us to the practice of our duty in all its branches, and although Christianity cannot, for these reasons, with any sense or propriety, be said to be the same with natural religion, or only a re-publication of the law of nature, yet the principal, the most important and fundamental duties required by Christianity are, nevertheless, the same which were enjoined as such under the legal dispensation, and the same which are dictated by the light of nature. They are natural and moral duties, enforced with revealed and supernatural motives, and to be performed from principles peculiar to the gospel. And, indeed, it is plain beyond dispute that the substance of true religion must necessarily be the same, not only under the Jewish and Christian dispensations, but also, in all countries, to all rational creatures, in all parts of the universe, in all periods of time. Modes and ceremonies of religion may, indeed, be various as the circumstances and conditions of men, and God may afford different degrees of light and knowledge in different times and places, but the sum of our duty results from the nature of God, our relation to him, and one another. And this must therefore be immutable as God himself, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” [James 1:17]. As God is the same in all times and places, as mankind bear the same general relation to him in all times and places, and as our relation to each other is always the same, except as to some trivial and merely circumstantial differences, so the substance of human duty must necessarily be the same also in all times and places. There cannot be any other than circumstantial differences in the duty, obligation and religion, of creatures who are the offspring of the same God, creatures endowed with the same common nature, and creatures bearing the same general relation to each other. Now that religion which must remain invariably the same, under every change of circumstance, through all ages, in all places, and to all rational beings, consists in the love and veneration of the supreme Father and Lord of the universe, and in the practice of righteousness and charity. This is the religion which is common to earth and heaven. It is the religion of angels and archangels above, as well as of saints below. This was the religion of paradise before the apostasy of mankind. This was the religion of Noah before the flood. This was the religion of the Patriarchs afterwards. This was the religion of the Israelites in Egypt before the law. This was the religion which was ratified by God at Mount Sinai. This was the religion of “the law and the prophets” to the day of the Messiah. This was the religion which He and his apostles principally inculcated upon mankind under the gospel dispensation. And this will be the religion, the employment and the happiness of “the spirits of just men made perfect” hereafter in the kingdom of heaven [Heb. 12:23]; for the love of God and ‘charity shall never fail,’ although ‘whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; and although, whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away’ [1 Cor. 13:8].

Thus do these two duties claim the same place and preeminence under the evangelical dispensation which they had in the law and the prophets: On these two commandments hangs all the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have now done with the four particulars which I proposed to discuss when I first entered upon this subject. There are various moral reflections and inferences which naturally arise from what has been now discoursed; and so I must beg your patience a few minutes longer.

1. Then, if the love of God and of our neighbour be the weightier matters of the gospel as well of the law, we are naturally led to bewail the folly and unhappy condition of those who, in a manner, leave these out of their religion. There are innumerable persons even in the Christian world, who, neglecting that substantial religion which consists in the practice of these sublime and heavenly duties, employ all their zeal, care, and diligence about things of little or no importance. Christianity is principally an institution of life and manners, designed to teach us how to be good men, and to show us the necessity of becoming so. But there are multitudes who call themselves Christians, who content themselves with an idle, speculative belief of certain notions and doctrines, without troubling themselves about that holiness, without which we are told that no man shall see the Lord. They know their duty so exactly, and believe it so firmly, that they imagine they may well be excused from doing it. If they have but a great deal of faith, and rely strongly upon the righteousness of Christ, they think they cannot miss of salvation, although, by their sins, they daily “crucify the son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” [Heb. 6:6]. Some are pleasing themselves with a round of empty formalities, imagining that religion consists chiefly in frequent fastings, attending upon sacraments, and worshipping God with a great deal of outward pomp and ceremony. They forget that “God is a spirit,” and to be worshipped chiefly “in spirit” [John 4:24], and love all kinds of ordinances much better than they love their neighbours. There are many, were they asked which was the first and great commandment, if they gave an answer agreeable to their own practice, must say, “Thou shalt tell beads devoutly, visit the sepulchres of ancient saints, fall down before relics, pay homage to painted canvas, to carved stones, and moulded clay, pray frequently to the mother of God, or the like; and if they thought at all of the love of God and our neighbour would assign them only that low place which our Lord gives to tithing mint, anise, and cumin. Others place religion chiefly in having frequent raptures, and strange transports of mechanical devotion, in which the less they exercise their reason, the better and more glorious it is. For till they have lost all human understanding, they think it impossible they should get a divine one. Thus they go on, railing themselves from one degree of religious frenzy to another, till they run quite divinely mad; and then they imagine that, with St. Paul, they are “caught up into the third heaven,” that they “hear unspeakable words,” that they “see visions,” and have “a multitude of revelations” given to them [2 Cor. 12:2-7]. And the consequence of this is, that they are “lifted up above measure.” They then look down with contempt upon all moral duties, as being below such spiritual men. They are for a religion that consists in something more refined and sublime than the love of God and their neighbour; these are but barely rational and natural duties, and fit only for carnal men, or, at best, babes in grace. Nothing can hit the refined taste of these Goliah's in Christianity, but what has some mysterious sublimity in it, and is quite remote from reason.    What is plain and obvious is too low and vulgar for such great proficients in grace and spiritual knowledge. God forbid that I should say anything to discourage a lively and warm devotion. But such enthusiastic flights as these have no countenance from the gospel of Christ. And the almost invariable consequence of indulging them is the neglect of solid, substantial religion, a rational love of God, of mankind, and the practice of moral virtue. When persons once get to gasping thus eagerly after immediate inspiration, they generally bewilder themselves, lose sight of common sense, and neglect sober religion for the sake of having fermented spirits and superficial flashes of joy. They impute all their ravings and follies and wild imaginations to the spirit of God, and usually think themselves converted, when the poor, unhappy creatures are only cut of their wits.

2. Since the substance of Christian duty consists in the love of God and of our neighbour, and in the practice of morality, this shows us what a gospel minister's preaching ought chiefly to turn upon. When he is concerned with such as are already Christians in belief and speculation, that which he has to do still is to bring them to be Christians in heart and behaviour, not to dwell upon speculative points—upon trifling distinctions, and upon metaphysical niceties, which can only perplex his hearers, without bettering their minds and morals—but to excite them to put on a temper of mind, and an outward conversation, which corresponds to their holy profession, and, in the words of my text, to ‘love the Lord their God with all their heart and their neighbour as themsehes.’ However, this is too plainly neglected by many. Their constant cry is: “Believe, believe”—“Come to Christ”—“Depend upon his righteousness.” As for holiness and good works, they very rarely mention them; and when they do, it is rather with a design to undervalue them, and persuade people that they are good for nothing, than to enforce them as the indispensable condition of salvation. Nay, these things are not only spoken of very often, as being perfectly useless, but even hazardous to the souls of men. Good God! that the design of thy gospel should be thus frustrated by those whose immediate office it is to enforce the holy precepts of it upon mankind!

3. Hence it follows that those people who are offended with moral discourses, under the notion that they are not evangelical, are grossly ignorant of the spirit and design of Christianity. They “know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm” [1 Tim. 1:7], and ‘need to be taught what are the rudiments and first principles of the oracles of God’ [Heb. 5:12]. Such ignorant, licentious perverters of the gospel, the apostle speaks of in his second epistle to Timothy: “The time will come,” says he, “when they will not endure sound doctrine. But after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables” [2 Tim. 4:3-4]. And, indeed, of all the fables that ever were deviled, there was never one that, either for silliness or impiety, equaled this: that faith without works, without the love of God and man, and a life of holiness, is sufficient to bring us to heaven.

4. From what has been said, we may see what those doctrines of the gospel are, which ought to be defended and propagated with the greatest zeal, viz. those which more immediately relate to practice, to the love of God and man. A zeal for all such doctrines is ‘a zeal according to knowledge’ [cf. Romans 10:2]. But it is apparent that these have been but little regarded by many Christians, in comparison of others which a man might disbelieve, without hurting his morals or endangering his salvation. Those things which have kept the Christian world in an eternal ferment, which have sharpened the spirits of men and set little angry bigots a-snarling and growling at one another, are nice metaphysical fooleries, scholastic distinctions without any difference, and mere words without a meaning. These are the things (or rather the nothings) which have been disputed about to the neglect of the weightier matters even to the destruction of all piety and brotherly love, of everything becoming a man and a Christian. So hot and furious have many professed Christians been in all ages, and so wrathful their contentions, about nothing, or mere trifles, that one unacquainted with the genius of their religion would be apt to think it a very different thing from what it is. He might be apt to think that the master of these furious railing and burning disputants had left it in express charge, as the distinguishing character of his disciples, not that they should “be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” [Matt. 10:16] —not that they should “love one another,” and practice mutual forbearance and condescension, and do unto all men as they would be done by—but that they should be venomous and malicious as serpents, hate one another with all their hearts, do to everyone as they would be willing to be done to by none, go together by the ears about words and sounds, drag each other to gaols and gibbets, to dungeons and the flames, and consign all over to hellfire at last, who could not immediately pronounce their uncouth shibboleths—But O blessed Jesus! Thou Saviour of the world! Is this for ‘thy disciples to love one another as thou hast loved them?’ Or didst thou mercifully make peace between God and man by the blood of thy cross, that men being at peace with God might thus make war upon one another and inhumanly shed each other’s blood? But,

5. And to conclude, suffer me to beseech you all seriously to consider of the nature, the great end and design of the gospel, and principally to regard what is of the greatest importance. Content not yourselves with believing well—with being zealous either for or against any particular doctrines—with practicing the rituals of religion—with being sanguine in the vindication of any particular sect or party, or in opposing any. These things will not secure your salvation. 'Tis then, and then only, that you will be the real disciples of Christ, such as he will own and reward at the last day, when your faith has its genuine influence upon your hearts and lives, when it inspires you with the love of God and of your neighbour, when it causes you to “break off your sins by repentance, and your iniquities by turning to the Lord.” This moral purity of heart and life is that religion which our blessed Saviour has taught; it is that religion which employed his lips, and which all his behaviour preached to the world more eloquently and louder than a thousand tongues. For God's sake, for your own sake, for the honour of the gospel and your profession, “let no man deceive you with vain words. He that doth righteousness,” and he only, “is righteous” [1 John 3:7]. Let no man amuse you with idle, impious stories, as if faith, and reliance upon Christ, were all that the gospel made necessary in order to your salvation. As surely as the gospel is a real revelation, so surely are these notions a mere dream—a fable—a fable wherein folly and wickedness seem to strive for precedency. As sure as there is a God in heaven, no man will go thither ‘to behold his glory’ [John 17:24], and to enjoy the everlasting pleasures that are at his right hand, unless he forsakes his sins and becomes holy as God is holy. I conclude with those words with which our blessed Saviour concluded his Sermon upon the Mount (Matt. 7:24-28): “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them, I will liken him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them not, shalt be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”