Of Self-Love; that it is the Foundation of our Love to God, and Love to Man, and even the Cause of our GENEROSITY. A SERMON PREACHED AT SAINT MARY's IN OXFORD, BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY, Ο Ν SUNDAY October 19, 1746; IN ANSWER to certain Opinions of the late Earl of Shaftsbury. Πάνων δὲ μάλις ̓ αἰσχύνεο σαυτόν. PYTHAGORAS. SERMON XI. I JOHN iv. 19. We love him, because he first loved us. A S the Love of God is a Duty to all Men, and the EMPLOYMENT of the best, it must be a Matter of Importance, that this Virtue be set in a true Light, and enforced upon proper Motives for otherwise it can never exift as it ought, or answer its intended End. GOD can never be pleased with an Affection, that mifreprefents him; that either fets up an Idol in his Room, or pays him Incense upon wrong Motives, or under improper Characters. THE Words I have read to you exhibit to us, in the first place, the MOTIVE of our Love to God, fome of the Properties of which have been described in the foregoing Verses. In the next place, as though it were included in the Y Love Love of GOD, and a Part of the fame thing, we are told, that if we profefs to love him, we muft, at the fame time, love our Neighbour. If we ask the Motive for this, there is none affigned, but the preceding: We love Göd, because he first loved us. BUT if the LOVE of Men be a Part of the LOVE of God, and confequently fimilar to it, we certainly love them upon a like Foundation. THE Words of the Text, then, will afford an Occasion of confidering the Propriety of the Motive, which from hence may be collected to be no other than Helf-Intereft in both Cafes; though, in Oppofition to this, there have been enthufiaftic Chriftians, who, in flat Contradiction to the Apostle, have taught us to fay in our Addreffes to God Almighty, "me love Thee more than myfelf, and not myself but for Thee." "Let THERE have been * religious DEISTS, who have advanced, "That whilft GoD is beloved + Wefley's Kempis, p. 130. only * Shaftsbury's Treatife on Virtue, p. 59. It is very remarkable, but at the fame time we fometimes find it true only as the Cause of private Good, he is no "otherwise beloved than as any other Inftru"ment or Means of Pleasure by any vicious "Creature: and that the more there is of pri true in Fact, that People of different Religions can concur in doing Mischief; as both thefe Writers, however wide afunder in their Drift and Profeffion, do yet agree in representing GOD ALMIGHTY as a very hard Master, reaping where he had not strewed, and MANKIND as very meri▾ torious and heroic Servants, prodigal of their Pains and Labour to Purposes they know not what, and without any fenfible Obligation. The DEIST, to whom it concerns me chiefly to reply, seems to have vented his Opinion, at the firft, for the Oftentation of Wit, and the Sake of having fupported a Paradox. Some Oppofition to his Scheme might cause the Revifal of the Piece, and be the Reason of putting it forth as a just Treatife; which, however, it is not. For tho' the Author has many excellent Reflections and fhews much INGENUITY and PIETY in his Way of Thinking, yet, for what relates to the main Argument, the TREATISE, for its WEAKNESS, may be replied to, and, for its TENDENCY, requires an Anfwer: For tho' it would be hard to fay, that the Author intended to weaken the Obligations to Virtue, by the Removal of the Doctrine of Rewards and Punishments, yet in fact, he has done little lefs, whether he intended it, or not, by endeavouring to make Virtue fubfift independent of that Doctrine, and grounding it upon certain romantic, airy Notions, which, like Pictures in the Clouds, as you approach nearer, or view them more diftinctly, either change their Shape, or vanish into nothing. |