The Second Like unto the First

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. — Mark xii. 31.

If man had been placed alone upon earth, or so far separated from all other rational creatures that he could have had no knowledge of them, there would have existed no foundation for this commandment. But man was made to live in society, and mutual love is the very cement of society. Men should love one another, because they are all the workmanship of the same almighty hand; because they all partake of the same nature, being the descendants of the same original parents; because they are all subjected to the same evils and infirmities; and because they are all under the same responsibility, and hastening to the same termination of their earthly existence. Originally man was created m the image and likeness of God, in knowledge and true holiness, and this was the foundation of the obligation to exercise mutual esteem and moral complacency. But this likeness ,to God having been defaced, we cannot be required to love one another with this kind of love, until we are renewed in the spirit of our mind; renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created us. Certainly, God requires no one to approve of that which He disapproves, or to love that which He hates. But the loss of the moral image of God does not release us from the obligation to love one another as the creatures of God, and as proceeding from the same stock. The love of benevolence which regards the happiness of the person beloved, may be exercised to the utmost extent, toward those whose moral character is not amiable. When God is said to love the world of mankind, it cannot be supposed that he approves their sinful character, but that he seeks their best interests — their everlasting welfare. So, when his law requires men to love one another, it must be the love of benevolence which is primarily required, while they remain in an unholy state. But whenever his image is in any degree restored in any of our fallen race, it is evident that we should love them on account of that image, for the same reason that we should love the moral excellence of God himself.

The principal difficulty whiuh has been found in explaining this second commandment is the degree of love which is required of us, toward our neighbour. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy-SELF.’, Now, to many this seems to be simply impossible. Some expositors have therefore explained the meaning to be, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as truly as thyself, or with the same kind of love. But this cannot be admitted to be the true import of this commandment. For in the first and greatest commandment, the degree in which we should love God is fixed. It must be with all the heart, all the soul, all the mind, and all the strength. If it had only been intended to teach that we should love our neighbour in some degree, there would have been no use in saying” as thyself.” And according to this interpretation, the least conceivable degree of love would have answered the demands of the law. Undoubtedly, the commandment should be taken in its plain and obvious meaning. It does require, that we should love our neighbour as much as we love ourselves. And however impossible this may be to fallen man, it would not be so, if he were perfectly holy. First then, whatever of excellence my neighbour may possess, I should have the same esteem for it, as if that excellence belonged to myself. Paul, who is a good expositor of the law, exhorts, “to esteem others better than ourselves.” “Why should we value moral worth when perceived in our own character, more than when the same is observed in the character of another? And as self-love would lead us, under views of truth, to desire our own moral improvement, so the law of God requires us to seek the moral improvement of our brother, with the same intensity of desire.

Again, we should desire and seek his happiness, as much as we seek our own. Here is the point of difficulty; and to remove it, I would remark, that it is not the instinctive desire of well-being which is implanted in us, and in all living creatures, to which reference is had. This principle of self-preservation is not at all under the control of the will. We can no more divest ourselves of it, than of our existence. No principle of the same kind and strength is implanted in us, in relation to the well-being of others. And no rational, voluntary affection can ever be so strong as to countervail this instinctive desire of the continuance of life and of happiness. This instinctive principle, so deeply inherent in our constitution, is not of a moral nature. It exists in equal strength in the good and the bad, in angels and devils. But, besides this, there is in man a rational regard to his own best interests, leading him to adopt and pursue such measures as appear to him to be best adapted to promote his highest happiness. Now this regard to our own best interests is a duty recognized in this very commandment; for we are required to love our neighbour as ourselves; that is, as we love ourselves. The rule of duty prescribed is this: As you will not omit to pay a regard to your own welfare and happiness, for the principle of self-preservation will prompt you to this; so pay the same regard to the welfare and best interests of your neighbour. This kind and degree of affection to one another does not require us to neglect or disregard our own happiness. If I had a disposition to seek my neighbour’s happiness as much as I do my own, this would not lessen but increase my personal happiness; for true enjoyment is not so much connected with the exercise of self-love, as with the indulgence of benevolence. But to bring this matter fairly before the moral judgment of our minds, I will suppose this case; that I have it in my power by some act of mine to increase my own happiness, by depriving my neighbour of an equal portion of his, would it be right for me to do so? Every mind of right moral feelings would answer promptly and unhesitatingly, It would not. But why would it not? No reason can be assigned but this, that I am bound by the law of God, to regard the happiness of my neighbour as much as I do my own. If this were not the true principle of duty — if it were lawful for me to love myself more than I love my neighbour, then it would be lawful for me to detract from his happiness to increase my own.

“What has been remarked respecting the instinctive principle of self-preservation, is equally applicable to what are called the natural affections, as of parents to their children. These affections are a part of our constitution, and are often exceedingly strong, and intended, like the principle of self-preservation, to secure what could not be so well provided for, by any perfection of reason or conscience. And no love governed by reason and a sense of duty can commonly overcome these strong instinctive affections. They are, however,, not so uncontrolable as the principle of self-preservation. These affections belong, not to the class of selfish, but benevolent feelings; and therefore they do not directly serve to illustrate our subject.

Though we are bound by the law of God to desire and seek our neighbour’s welfare, as much as our own, it does not follow, that we have as much in our power, in regard to him, as ourselves. Every man, so to speak, is put in charge of himself, but not in the same degree of his brother. We have a power over our own minds, but no direct power over the mind of another. We are ever present, with ourselves, but only occasionally with others; therefore we can do much more to promote our own happiness, than the happiness of others. On the same principle, without interfering with this commandment, we have many more duties to perform to our own families and dependents than toward those with whom we do not stand in the same relations. But whenever a case occurs in which I have the same opportunity and ability to advance his welfare as my own, I am bound to have an equal regard to it, and to use the means to promote it, as much as my own, and to avoid every thing which would have a tendency to injure him, as vigilantly, and earnestly, as I would avoid those things which would be injurious to my own interests. And, as was before said, this obligation to love my neighbour as myself cannot injure me, or interfere with the pursuit of my own happiness. There is no collision, nor interference between the selfish and benevolent affection, or rather, the exercise of love to others in the full extent of the commandment, is the most effectual method of promoting my own happiness.

The Jews before our Saviour’s time, had a proverbial saying, “thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.” They therefore thought, that they owed no good will or kindness to those whom they reckoned to be enemies. They felt free, therefore, to indulge their hatred toward such, and had reduced it to a law or maxim. But our blessed Lord gave to the commandment of God its true extent and import, teaching that we should love our enemies and do good to them that hate us. On one occasion, a certain scribe thought to puzzle him with this very question, in relation to this commandment, “and who is my neighbour?” which led him to deliver one of the most beautiful, touching, and instructive discourses which is to be found in the New Testament. It is as follows.

11 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

The shortest and most comprehensive commentary ever given of this commandment is that of our Lord, several times repeated; “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.” This is declared to be “the law and the prophets;” that is, it comprehends all the duties which we owe to our fellow men, inculcated in the law and the prophets. The whole that the law requires of us is, that we love our neighbour as ourselves; and the treatment of our neighbour which this love leads us to observe, is comprehended in the aforesaid precept; for as we never fail in a proper degree of love to ourselves, if we make this the rule of our conduct to our neighbour, we shall then be found fulfilling the law. Self-love always demands of others fully as much as they are bound in duty to do unto us. But may not self-love be excessive and demand too much? then this rule will serve to check the excess and reduce it to what is just and reasonable. Suppose a man should indulge the unreasonable desire that his neighbour should bestow upon him his whole estate. Then by this precept he would be bound to give back the whole to his neighbour. This precept well deserves the appellation of the “golden rule,” for while it teaches us the measure of our duty, it provides an effectual guard against the disposition unduly to favour ourselves.

From this subject we learn the true foundation of justice among men. It is the application of this commandment to the common intercourse of society. Whatever in our dealings with men, proceeds from a disposition to give the preference to our own interest, when it comes in competition with that of another, is in violation of this law. We never can innocently aim at making gain by that which will be our neighbour’s loss. In barter, or the commutation of articles of value, there should be a disposition to do equal justice; for lawful trade should be mutually profitable to those engaged in it. It is true, my neighbour is the proper judge of what he wants, and of what he will give in exchange for articles which I possess; and if he judges erroneously, we cannot be accountable for it, unless we by our words or actions mislead him; then are we guilty of injustice. All attempts, therefore, to undervalue the articles which he offers in exchange; or to exaggerate the value of our own, so as to bring about an unfair result, is evidently unjust. So also, if I know that his goods are more valuable than he supposes, and acting on my superior information, obtain his property for less than he would have taken for it, had he possessed my information, I do not love my neighbour as myself. I ought not to wish to get possession of my neighbour’s property for less than its real value. What this may be, is a matter on which men may differ in opinion. And if men are honest in forming their opinions, there may be nothing wrong. But to put off a defective article without making known its defects, is evidently unjust, as also to put off in trade goods as being of a different kind from what we know they are. If these principles be correct, then you will say, the world is full of injustice. All our shops and markets are scenes of injustice. And it may be asked, if these strict rules are obligatory, who is there, that has clean hands? And what profit would there be in commerce? Lawful commerce was never intended to permit one man to make gain by the loss of others; but I may have articles which

I do not need but which my neighbour wants; so he may have articles which he does not need, but which suit me; or not having such articles himself, he can give me that which will enable me to procure them. And thus lawful commerce is mutually beneficial. But how can a man make his fortune by trade, on these principles? No man has any right to grow rich on the losses of his fellow creatures. He has no right to enrich himself by impoverishing them. But if a merchant takes the pains, and runs the risk of carrying goods to a foreign country, and bringing back in exchange articles which are needed by thousands, they may be willing to allow him for these articles which they need, what will be great gain to him, and at the same time a great convenience to them. There is then cause for honest gain, and such acquisitions are worth possessing; but unjust gain, never. The blessing of God rests upon the one, but his curse upon the other. On this principle the Sci Lptures so frequently condemn deceitful weights and measures. It is plain, if we love our neighbour as ourselves, we shall be far from plotting against him, from doing violence to him or injuring his reputation, or even wounding his feelings, except for his benefit. It is unnecessary to enumerate the crimes which are in violation of this commandment. They are exceedingly numerous. Our prisons, our courts of justice, and our laws give testimony, that the world is full of crimes forbidden by this precept. Indeed our very locks and bolts, our bonds and mutual covenants, are intended to guard against injustice. Now, let us suppose for a moment, that all men were disposed to love others as themselves, and to do justice to every one, what a change would there be in the condition of the world! Every body would have a sufficiency, and all would be far happier than at present. Some think to excuse themselve for overreaching and taking advantage of the simple, that most others do the same, and they are under the necessity of acting in this manner, in self-defence. If this were a valid apology for the common practices in the commerce of men, it would be sufficient to justify stealing and forgery, and every crime committed against property. No, there is no necessity for any species of dishonesty. The old proverb is true, “Honesty is the best policy.”

The duty of charity, or giving, as far as may be in our power, relief to the indigent and distressed, owes its obligation to this command. As the number of those who need relief is so great in every country, if the heart of any one was influenced to the degree it should be, by love to his fellow-men, he would be constantly labouring for their relief. “Well, in proportion as we feel good will to men, we shall be disposed to open wide the hand of charity, in giving alms to the poor, and in extending relief to the suffering of all descriptions. It would matter not to what country or sect he belonged, or how degraded and depraved he might be, still he is our neighbour, and we are bound to love him as ourselves. The only limit to our acts of kindness and beneficence should be our ability; and we should seek industriously, the means of doing good; and should seek out the most suitable objects of charity, when we can only relieve a part. Our

Lord required some to sell all that they had, and give to the poor. This could never be a duty generally incumbent, for then the giver would become poor and the receivers made rich; on which they would be bound to give all back again; and so there would be nothing but a perpetual change of condition between the rich and the poor. But Christ did command that we should give alms of what we possess. But alms-giving is but a small part of the duties of charity which arise from this commandment, of loving our neighbour. In the description of the day of judgment, given by Christ, in the xxv. of Matthew, we have an emphatical lesson on the importance which on that day will be given to this duty. For the King having separated the righteous and the wicked, as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats, and having placed the sheep on his right hand and the goats on the left, will say to them on his right hand, “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: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in 7 or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

But our love must not be confined, nor principally directed to the welfare of the body. The immortal soul chiefly calls for our benevolent exertions. To rescue souls from everlasting ruin, is the noblest charity. And here, what a field of exertion opens to the truly benevolent! The people are perishing for lack of knowledge: will not love to your neighbour impel you to send them the Bible, and to teach them to read it? Will it not make you willing to forego ease and selfish indulgence, that you may have the means of sending the living teacher to instruct the ignorant? But the number who labour under a spiritual dearth is so great, that it is in vain to think of supplying them all; and of what account will be the exertions of an individual, and especially of one poor and destitute of talents? You need not take in the whole field of destitution. Consider what is within your reach. If it be ever so small a spot of earth that you can cultivate, withhold not your hand. “Sow your seed in the morning, and in the evening withhold not your hand.” Do what you can and leave it to God to raise up other labourers to supply the fields which you cannot reach. Despise not the day of small things. The word is the seed, and is often prolific, bringing forth an hundred-fold. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” And whether your labours for the salvation of souls are successful or not; yet your duty in the case is plain and must be performed. And whether the people be converted by your labours or not, you shall receive your reward. The Lord never forgets “works of faith and labours of love.” And as the power of man is able to accomplish nothing in this business without divine aid, O wrestle with God in prayer, day and night, for the outpouring of his Holy Spirit, and for the propagation of the Gospel over the whole world. Give him no rest until he establish and make Jerusalem a praise in all the earth. Say, “For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be silent, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.”