Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

SERMON II.

Preached May 31, 1676.

I JOHN IV. 20.

He that loveth not his Brother, whom he hath feen; how can he love GOD, whom he hath not feen?

I

N my former difcourfe I told you, that my

defign from this Scripture was not to handle

fingly and apart either the love of GoD,

or of our brother: but to fpeak of them comparatively, with respect to the greater or less facility attending the exercise of the one or the other, according to their different objects; the object of the one being visible, and of the other, invisible.

THE first observation raised from the words, after fettling the acceptation of love, was this: That it is more difficult to live in the exercise of love to God, than towards men; because he is not the object of fight as we are one to another. In which doctrine, as we obferved, there are two things to be confidered.

I. THAT it is more difficult to love God, than our brother. This has been proved from experience,

experience, and the common obfervation of the SER M. world, in feveral particulars. The

II BRANCH Contained in this propofition, which we are now to speak to is this; that one great reafon of this difficulty is, that men cannot fee God, whereas they do fee one another. In the profecuting of this part of my fubject it will be more neceffary to infift on the explication, than on the proof of it; and still more upon the application than on either of the former. Something I fhall endeavour to fay to all, as the time fhall allow.

FOR the explication of this matter, namely, how we are to underftand, that the not feeing GOD as we do men, is a cause of its being more difficult to love him than it is to love them, take these few propofitions. As,

1. THAT it is not an impoffible thing in itfelf to love the unfeen GoD: for if the not feeing him, did make it impoffible to love him, he could never be loved by any one; because he is feen by none with the bodily eye, as we fee one another. But it is plainly implied in our text, that there are some that love Gon, notwithstanding his invifibility. And the Apostle therefore endeavours only to evince the abfurdity and guilt of not loving our brother, because from thence a man may be convicted of being no lover of God, which he accounts as a moft intolerable thing. The not seeing him therefore doth not make it impoffible to love GOD, but only renders it lefs

[blocks in formation]

II.

[ocr errors]

VOL. eafy. That is, it is not fimply impoffible, and therefore he who can do all poffible things, can

I.

make the nature of man to love him; he, I fay, can form the nature of man to the love of himself.

2. THE not seeing of GoD cannot be understood to be a neceffary cause of this fad thing. It is not fuch a caufe as doth neceffitate this evil, and horrid effect. For that would be to reflect upon GoD, as if he had made a reasonable and intelligent creature, that was by the neceffity of his nature prevented from loving him. This would be to fuppofe, that the feeing of GOD with the bodily eye, were neceffary to the loving of him; which would make it altogether impoffible that he should be loved by any of us at all, fince he is visible to none. Nay we might fay further, he were never to be loved by any being, no not by himself, on the fame grounds. The caufe therefore of this difficulty is such as doth not neceffitate the thing caufed: for that indeed would imply that the nature of man is fuch as would never admit of his loving GoD, and fo there would be a contradiction in men's very nature; to wit, that they fhould be capable of being bleffed in him only, whom at the fame time they are not capable of loving. For experience fheweth, that there is nothing else in which we can be blessed; nothing below, or befides GoD. Therefore this would infer, that man must be a creature made on purpose for mifery; for it is evident he can be happy in no creature; neither

II.

in GoD could he be happy, if it were fimply im- SER M. poffible he should ever love him, which is to cast the whole matter upon GoD himself. For if this were the cafe, then a man might fay, "GoD "hath given me fuch a nature as renders it im"poffible for me ever to exercife love towards "him." But far be it from us that we fhould entertain fuch a thought of GOD! that he fhould make man, a creature indued with an intellectual mind, and yet not capable of loving him, who is the author and original of his life and being! This it were even horrid to think of. And ́ again,

3. NOR hath this always been the cause of fuch an effect; for there åre fome that are actually brought to love Go D, though they never faw him in the fenfe we fpeak of, to wit, with the bodily eye. It was not fo with man from the beginning, that because he could not fee GoD, therefore he loved him not, or was for that reafon the lefs inclined to love him. He was formed, at first, for the love of his Maker, fo as to take the higheft complacency in him, and to make him his fupreme delight. Man, I fay, was made thus upright; but he hath fince been trying inventions, to fee if he could be happy any other And therefore fince way, or upon other terms. this is not the neceffary, nor the conftant caufe of fuch an effect as this, we must add,

4. THAT it cannot be a cause of it felf alone, but muft needs be a caufe in conjunction with some other caufe; by the intervention of fome C 4 other

I.

VOL. other thing, by the concurrence of which this fad effect is brought about. For if it be true, that there have been men who have loved GOD, though they never faw him with the bodily eye, there must be fome other caufe of the want of love to God in thofe perfons who love him not, befides his invifibility. Because otherwise, since GOD was always invifible, and never seen with the bodily eye, it would neceffarily follow that he could never have been loved at all. And hence again we may obferve,

5. THAT the other caufe therefore, which is confiderable in this cafe, must needs be the degeneracy of man's nature. It is not to be imagined, that man in a state of integrity should be incapable of loving GOD further than he could fee him or that the fight of his eye fhould be the conductor of his affections, and of the motions of his foul, which is a reasonable intelligent fpirit. But the nature of man is not now, what it was. Certainly the cafe was better with him formerly, than it is now in this lapsed state, in which we must confefs him to be; fince there is fo great an alteration in his very nature. This even the Heathens themselves have feen, confeffed, and lamented. I remember Plato brings in Socrates, fomewhere fpeaking to this fenfe, upon a fuppofition of the pre-existence of his foul: "There was a time, fays he, when I could have “feen, and did fee the FIRST BEAUTY, the "highest and most perfect comeliness, and loveli"nefs; but now being fubject to the body, all

"that

« AnteriorContinua »