ceafed, and having no iffue, left his wife unto his brother: likewife the fecond alfo, and the third, unto the feventh': and last of all the woman died alfo; therefore in the refurrection, whose wife shall she be of the feven? for they all had her. Jefus anfwered and faid unto them, ye dọ err, not knowing the fcriptures nor the power of God; for in the refurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. But as touching the refurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was fpoken unto you by God, faying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob! God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." This anfwer of our Saviour's has by fome been thought to be obfcure, and not to go directly to the point of proving a refurrection, which the Sadducees denied, and which their objection was meant to overthrow. In our Lord's reply, no argument feems to be advanced, nor any plain text of fcripture produced to establish the doctrine of a refurrection of the body, and its re-animation by the foul. It is only contended, that as God declares himfelf to be the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, the fouls of thofe perfons muft ftill be in exiftence in a feparate state; because God could not be faid to be the God of those who were no longer in being. This is undeniable. But how (it is faid) does this prove a refurrection? To explain this, it must be obferved, that Chrift's answer confifts of two parts: in the first, he folves the difficulty ftarted by the Sadducees refpecting a refurrection, by telling them that it arofe entirely from their not attending to the power of God, which could effect with the utmost ease what to them appeared impoffible; and from their ignorance of the state of human beings in heaven, which resembled that of angels, and required not a conftant fucceffion to be kept up by marriage. The cafe therefore they had stated refpecting the marriage of the feven brethren with one woman was a very unfortunate one, because it happened that in heaven there would be no fuch thing as marriage; which destroyed at once the whole of that objection which they deemed fo formidable. In the fecond part he completely fubverts the falfe principle on which their difbelief of a refurrection and a future state was entirely founded. This principle was, that the foul had no feparate existence, but fell into nothing at the diffolution of its union with the body. This we learn from the Acts of the Apostles*, where it is faid, "that the Sadducees believe neither angel nor fpirit:" and from Jofephus, who tells us, that the Sadducees held that the foul vanishes (as he expreffes it) with the body, and rejected the doctrine of its duration after death+. It was this principle therefore, which our Saviour undertook to overthrow, which he does effectually in the 31ft and 32d verses, by fhewing it to be a clear inference from the words of fcripture, that although the bodies of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob had long been in their graves, yet their fouls had furvived, and were at that moment in exiftence. From hence it neceffarily followed that the foul did not perifh with the body, as the Sadducees believed, but that it continued in being after death; and at the general refurrection would be again united with the body, and live for ever in a future state of happiness or of misery. But though arguments may be confuted, and abfurdities expofed, the thorough-paced caviller is not easily filenced. One should have thought that the disgraceful failure of so many attempts to furprize and enfnare Jefus, would have taught his adversaries a little modesty and a little prudence but these are qualities with which profeffed difputers and fophifts do not ufually much abound. When therefore, the Pharifees had heard' that Jefus had put the Sadducees to filence, instead of being difcouraged from making any more experiments of that nature, they were gathered together, probably to confult how they might renew their attacks upon him with more fuccefs. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, afked him a question, tempting him, and faying, "Mafter, which is the great. commandment in the law? Jefus faid unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy foul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the fecond is like unto it, * Chap. xxiii. 8. Sunapbanizei tois sōmasi. Antiq. I. xviii. c. 2, p. 793. Ed. Huds thou fhalt love thy neighbor as thyfelf. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." The question here proposed to Jefus by the lawyer, or interpreter of the Mofaic law, took its rise probably from a maxim. which feems to have been received among the Scribes and Pharifees as a firft principle, namely, that fuch a multiplicity of precepts as the law contained was too great for any one to obferve; and therefore all that! could be required was, that each fhould felect to himself one or two great and important duties, on account of, which, if inviolably observed, his tranfgreffions in other refpects would be overlooked. But then immediately arose a question, which were these great and important duties that ought to have the preference to all the rest, and on which they might fecurely ground all their merit and all their pretences to the favor of God. And on this pueftion a variety of fects were formed, under their ref pective leaders, who difputed about the chief duty much in the fame manner as the ancient pagan philofophers did about the chief good; and exactly with the fame benefit to themfelves and to the world. It was with a reference therefore to these disputes, which were fo warmly agitated among the Pharifees, that the lawyer afked our Lord, "which was the great commandment of the law?" Our Saviour's answer was, "thou fhall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy foul, and with all thy mind. This is the firft and great commandment.” He decided therefore immediately in favor of the moral law, and yet with his usual prudence did not neglect the ceremonial; for this very commandment of the love of God was written upon their phy lacteries. This then being declared by our Saviour himself to be the first of the commandments, must be confidered by every Christian as ftanding at the head of that evangelical code of laws which he is bound to obey, and as entitled therefore to his firft and highest regard. He is to love the Lord his God" with all his heart, with all his foul, and with all his mind:" and the chief teft by which the Gof pel orders us to try and measure our love to God is, the regard we pay to his commands. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, fays our Lord, he it is that loveth me*." St. John in ftill ftronger terms, affures us, that" whofo keepeth God's word, in him verily is the love of God perfected." The love of our Maker then is neither a mere unmeaning animal fervor, nor a lifelefs formal worship or obedience. It confifts in devoutness of heart as well as purity of life; and from comparing together the different paffages of Scripture relating to it, we may define it to be fuch a reverential admiration of God's perfections in general, and fuch a grateful fense of his infinite goodness in particular, as render the contemplation and the worship of him delightful to us, and produce in us a constant defire and endeavor to please him in every part of our moral and religious conduct. This is, in a few words, what the feriptures mean by the love of God, and what our Lord here calls the FIRST AND GREAT COMMANDMENT. It is juftly fo called for various reafons: because he who is the object of it is the first and greatest of all beings, and therefore the duties owing to him must have the precedence and pre-eminence over every other; because it is the grand leading principle of right conduct, the original fource and fountain from which all Christian graces flow, from whence the living waters of religion take their rise, and branch out into all the various duties of human life; because, in fine, it is, when fervent and fincere, the grand masterspring of human conduct; the only motive fufficiently powerful to fubdue our ftrongest paffions, to carry us triumphantly through the feverest trials, and render us fuperior to the most formida ble temptations. Next to this in order and in excellence, or, as our Saviour expreffes it, like unto it, is, that other divine command, "thou fhalt love thy neighbor as thyself." By the word neighbor is here to be understood, every man with whom we have any concern; every one who stands in need of our kindness, and to whom we are able t John, ii. 5· * John. xiv. 21. to extend it; which includes not only our relations, friends, and countrymen, but even our enemies; as appears from the parable of the good Samaritan. The precept therefore requires us generally to love our fellow-creatures as we do ourselves. To this it has been objected that the precept is impracticable and impoffible. Self-love, it is contended, is a paffion implanted in our breafts by the hand of God himfelf; and though focial love is also another affection which he has given us, yet there is no comparison between the ftrength of the two principles; and no man can or does love all mankind as well as he does himself. It is perfectly true; nor does the precept before us require it. The words are not thou shalt love thy neighbor as much as thyfelf, but thou fhalt love thy neighbor as thyfelf; that is, thou fhalt entertain for him an affection fimilar in kind, though not equal in degree, to that which thou entertaineft for thyfelf. Our felf-love prompts us to feek our own happiness, as far as is confiftent with the duties we owe to God and to man. Our focial love fhould in the fame manner prompt us to feek the happiness of our neighbor, as far as is confiftent with the duty we owe to God and ourfelves. But in all equal circumftances, our love for ourfelves must have a priority in degree to the love we have for our neighbor. If, for instance, my neighbor is in extreme want of food, and I am in the fame want, I am not bound to give him that food which is indifpenfably neceffary for my own prefervation, but that only which is confiftent with it. The rule in fhort can never be mistaken by any man of common fenfe. Our bufinefs is to take care to carry it far enough: nature will take fufficient care that we do not carry it too far. It is in fact nothing more than what we are taught by another divine rule very nearly allied to this, and which all men allow to be reasonable, equitable and practicable; "whatsoever ye would that men fhould do unto you, do ye even fo unto them*." This is precifely what is meant by loving our neighbor as ourselves; for when we treat him exactly as we would expect and hope to be treated by him in the fame circum * Matth. vii. 12. |