The Hart of Faith Vol 1 by D.A. Sanford - HTML preview

Luther Hart Sermon 102

Plymouth July 1811

Bristol 1817 – 32

41

Luke 11:23 “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”

It is frequently the complaint of many who sit under the preaching of the word, that their ministers are too fond of discrimination both in points of doctrine and practice. As if they are willing that religion as to description and expression, should not be left wholly at loose ends, they wonder why the speaker need express himself on the subject in such short and plain sentences.

It seems to them that the same truths might be better received if they were expressed in a more round about manner. They tell you they have no objection to hearing the truth, but that they do not like to take so large a portion of it in one swallow, or would wish to have it a little diluted with something that will take off the rankness of the taste. Now whether such men do in fact love the truth, we will not here formally divide.

We all have reason and that will furnish every sober and candid man a correct opinion on this point. One thing is certain, to wit, Jesus Christ, the great preacher of righteousness, and the pattern of all his ministering servants, came to terms, plain and distinguishing terms, in every thing he uttered. He taught as one having authority and not as the Saxby and Pharisees. All his subjects were vast, and he did not treat them to amuse or accommodate the multitude.

It was meaning which he wished to communicate, not words mainly, with a harmonious, and captivating sound though it ought not to say the most comprehensive terms “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” His was coming to the point, his hearers could not mistake his meaning. There was no necessity for spending any time in debates about the real import of his language. From these plain words of Christ we derive this lain doctrine, to wit, There is no such thing as neutrality in religion. We will endeavor to prove and illustrate this doctrine by the following considerations.

1st In the very nature of the case, there can be medium between hating and loving God. It is true our hatred of an object may not always come into distinct and conscious exercise, but this is no proof that we are indifferent towards that object. We might as well say that a man is indifferent towards his worst enemy, when his thoughts are engaged with something else. And we might as well say a man is totally ignorant of every thing he once knew because it cannot all enter his mind at once.

Every man has and necessarily must have a disposition, either good or bad, or he would not be a moral agent. Men are accountable to God not because they steer along in a narrow channel between good and bad temper, but because it is impossible for them to get into such a channel. They must be on one side or the other.

There can be no freedom of will unless we prefer one object to another; all our moral freedom consists in our doing as we please, or as we chose. But there can be no choice unless in making a choice, we are more sharply inclined towards one object than another.

And if we are for one half have absolutely indifferent both towards sin and holiness, why do we live?

For that indifference would, from the time being, be the distinction of our moral freedom, if we have no freedom of will or in other words our preferences, and is the very 42

expense of it. Existence would not be worth receiving if we were not capable of living to some moral end. By our vary constitution God has put it out of our power to be for one moment in a state of neutrality as it regards moral subjects.

We may as well force ourselves to stop thinking (which by the way is impossible) as to free ourselves perfectly from all attachment and aversion. Some things are naturally agreeable to us and others odious, and we cannot help it. It would be a very undesirable predicament to be in if by a law of our nature we were compelled to regard all objects however different and opposite, good and evil, beneficial or hurtful, with the same feeling, or rather with no feeling at all. Life would be a burden if our feelings did not preponderate one way or the other.

In short there could be no such thing as feeling; for feeling always implies desire or aversion. But would a benevolent God create us to live as words of feeling as a stone; or if we could feel, would he create us, and place us in such a tormenting predicament as that we could not exercise the power of choice? And would an infinitely wide God who always outs in reference to an end, and commands us so to do, suffer us to remain an instant equally maligned to that which we aught to share and to that which we ought to obtain.

The idea is preposterous.

Both sin and holiness are intended to glorify God and if his own glory was the ultimate end he had in view in creating us, can we suppose him to be changeable with such a gross oversight, as to have made us capable of sliding for a moment into a state of neutrality, between a holy and unholy disposition, as that we should be attached to neither. But we are sinful only as we are attached to vice; and saintly only as we are attached to holiness. And glory from our creator, for in that case we should be neither holy nor unholy. Surely he would not miss his mark often this sort. It is not in our power to be destitute of a disposition. In all cases we must have an inclination, or live useless to ourselves and to God.

2nd ly A state of neutrality in matters of religion would involve the monstrous absurdity of our acting, if we acted at all, without motives. All that we mean by the human will is an inclination grounded by motives. And by motives we mean those objects and considerations which produce in us desires and induce us to act accordingly. Now if we were necessarily in a state of indifference towards objects, if we not in our nature more inclined to some things than others, motives would have no affect on us. We should be just as likely to run directly into danger, as from it.

There is an immutable and everlasting difference in the nature of things, and if we act without any regard to the particular qualities of those different and opposite things we have no freedom, except it be the freedom of idiocy. If a man as readily sows his grain on the ocean, or in the fire, as on good land, who can doubt of his distraction if he sowed it, indifferent whether he has a crop, or if he has, whether it shall prove a means of prolonging or of destroying his life, would you not deem him the most pitiable of all wretches?

Now if we have no motive before us when we act in relation to moral subjects, we are literally on the open sore of the profoundest madness. But a state of neutrality would destroy the efficacy of all motives, and when these produce no effect on us we cease to be rational beings. Then also we cease to be free agents, for moral freedom does not consist in the liberty of indifference which is no sort of freedom what ever, nor in efforts made at random, without any reason why they should be made, but solely in our doing as we please 43

in view of motives and a motive is but another name for reason why we act, or refrain from acting. The impossibility therefore of acting without motive, proves that we must either love or hate God.

3rd ly Men are so constituted as that they cannot but act, and the expense of these actions must be as their feelings are, either good or evil. Every thought, as it relates top God and to our obligations, is a moral act of the mind. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil! But why is every secret thought of a moral nature to be brought into judgment, unless it be good or evil, and how can it be good or evil, unless it proceed from a virtuous or vitious disposition, and if a man is in a state of neutrality, how can he be said to have any disposition at all.

We can no more avoid actions of a moral nature than we can stop thinking, but it would be impossible for any man to perform in a moral act, if he stood poised up half way between good and evil indications. And as we were sent into the world on purpose to perform moral actions, the Almighty would confront his own purpose, just so far as he suffered neutrality of sentiment or feelings to disqualify us for the performance of those actions.

4th ly Neutrality of sentiment or feelings in matters of religion would be no sentiment or feelings at all. If a man is inclined neither way, who does not see that he has no inclination.

But as before shown the want of an inclination destroys his moral agency. If he is not inclined at all to vice, he need no religion nor is he by nature an enemy to God or exposed to his wrath. But this supposition is directly in the face of scripture which concludes all men under sin. And God commands all men every where to repent.

On the other hand, if we are not inclined to holiness, what have we to do with him? Most surely it is no fear for those who have no relish for its enjoyments. Besides you can have no conception of a monstrous absurdity to suppose him to be in that awkward situation.

The dividing line between sin and holiness is too small for him to stand on. He must fall on one side or the other.

If you suppose him possessed of 20 degrees of feeling, and that they are exactly balanced across this line; the ten degrees on one side would cancel the ten on the other; so that he is without a character in part, for on the while he is totally with out feeling, being in this predicament, totally with out an inclination. If not, such a person would be absolutely useless to his fellow men, and an encumbrance to God’s moral system.

He could not justly be arraigned before the dread tribunal of God for as he had no inclination to act, he could not be considered a sinner, and as he had no inclination to holiness, he could not be considered a saint. As if he was inclined as much to the one as the other; if in his heart there were no preponderance of feeling in favor of one, the result would leave him without a settled character and in that case neither heaven nor hell would be any fear for him.

The same thing would hold him with regard to any given portions of his life. If for any hour of his life he were without a preponderation of feeling, he could not be brought the judgment for his conduct during that hour, except it were for this reason, that he ought to have had a preponderance in favor of virtue. There can be no sin or holiness without the feelings of the heart; for surely, they do not consist in intellectual exercises merely.

44

If then you annihilate his feelings, you annihilate his moral character. His whole soul is blemished. And if you put precisely as much feeling in one scale as in the other, still he is without moral agency. He is chained fast so that he can do neither good nor evil. He could not perform a good deed in consequences if his ten degrees of holy feelings because he would be held back by the strength of ten degrees of sinful feelings.

Nor could he for the time being commit a sinful action for he must necessarily be restrained from it by another temper operating equally strong. Such a person would not be a man, but a stupid, motionless block. And it would be a waste of creating and sustaining power to make and present beings doomed to perpetual inactivity. And if any part of a man’s life were thus spirit, it would so far be a waste of his existence. Therefore we may conclude it is utterly impossible for a man to be in that predicament for a single moment.

5th ly All men have duties to perform every moment of their lives, and this proves that there can be no neutrality as it regards religion. If we were completely neutral, it would destroy the possibility of our performing a single moral act, and where would be the justice of God’s imposing commands on beings, who are prevented from obedience by a natural impossibility? A state of perfect indifference is an absolute barrier in the way of all kinds of actions.

Who does not see that in order to obey the commands of God there must be decided inclination to obedience. The soul must be roused from a torpid indifference it must have a holy bent, and a relish for gospel truth. There can be no medium here. Holiness of the heart consists in something more than negative qualities, and so does sin. And the circumstances that we are under infinitely strong obligations every wakeful moment of our lives, to perform some actions, and to refrain from others, is proof that there can be no indifference towards any moral object since that indifference would totally disqualify us for the performance of any duty be more expressly made for action and God must have been defeated in the accomplishment of his purpose, had he not resolved upon this, to wit, that there would be no indifference in the mind of man to incapacitate him form action.

By an unalterable and ever operating law of his nature, every man does or does not perform his duty. He cannot shift off moral obligation by flinging himself into a state of neutrality; for if he could, the moral law as it regarded him, would exist to no purpose. God might as well command the stones to walk, or the trees to kneel down and pray. Total indifference on moral subjects, would reduce a man to the insensibility, and inactivity of a stone or a clod. But are moral agents suffered to wrench themselves out of God’s hands, to tear themselves away from the grand system, of which they are designed as important parts, and thus leave the Almighty a Governor with no subjects to control? Can a man stand halfway between holiness and sin, thus disqualifying himself for any moral action whatever, when it was the special design of God that we should act, and in the final day be judged according to that we have done! The absurdity of the idea needs no further illustration.

6th ly All mankind by nature are enemies to God. But enmity is a positive exercise. If man viewed God with absolute indifference or neutrality of affection, they could not inimical to him. But if they are not inimical to him before their hearts are renewed, the Sacred Scriptures are not to be relied on; for in that case they have uttered a falsehood. Men naturally love darkness rather than light, and this is their condemnation.

45

Now a man cannot be indifferent towards that which he loves. He loves are a contradiction. Of every man it may be said that he does or does not love, for the same reasons it may be said that he does or does not breath. In either of the cases there can be no medium. If the soul has not some qualities or affections either good or evil, it is but a hollow shell, with nothing to fill it, The soul was not made for the exception of neutrality.

The cage stand useless unless it contains birds clean and unclean. If men are to be condemned for their love of sin, can anything short of positive love of holiness, exempt them from condemnation. There is no place in the future world prepared for neutral characters. God knows of no such being on earth, and therefore has made no provision for him in the eternal world.

The carnal mind remains against God and till its conversion, it must remain so. But indifference or neutrality would destroy enmity as well as love. The nature of man forbids him to be indifferent to the character of God. It is as impossible for the un-renewed heart to be perfectly indifferent towards him, as for fire to contain its flame in the depths of the ocean. This is not only a moral but a philosophical truth. And the declaration of Christ proves it, “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”

It is no proof of neutrality in religion that a man may believe himself to be neutral.

Many things that men generally believe are false. Perhaps it will here be replied that a man is a perfect judge of his own feelings, and that what passes within him. But My Hearers, it is mere thing that men are ignorant of themselves. Stupidity is not neutrality. The more stupid a man is, the farther he is from neutrality, for the only reason why he is stupid is because his love of sin has mortified his conscious so that it cannot raise its vain to awaken him. The heart as deceitful above all beings, therefore it is not expected that stupid sinners will search it to the bottom, to discover all its determined aversion to God and holiness.

From our subject we learn that men who suppose themselves to stand on neutral ground with respect to religion imbibe a dangerous wort. It is dangerous because it sooths the conscious that ought never to be hushed: and because it endures them to think themselves better than they are. A person who fancies he is neutral, will frequently compliment himself, that if he be not positively good, he is not very sinful. And how many of us My Hearers, are there, who have for a long time rested easy, where we are, consoling ourselves with the delusion that, that we have risen far towards him, by dismissing at least all opposition to God even though we feel no ardent love towards him?

It is high time for us to undeceive ourselves, if we have been feeding on such wretched consideration. Every soul of us is God’s friend or foe. Every one of us has moral character, and it is either good or evil. We are this moment gathering with Christ on scattering abroad.[If we were not by nature prone to evil as the sparks are to fly upward. Satan would surely enlist us in his service, the instant we should be found idle in the vineyard of God. If we are idle in God’s service, we must necessarily be active in the service of Satan. We learn from our subject that neutrality even if it could exist, would be an egregious sin. Do you think God is satisfied with a perfect destruction of all religious feelings.

Do his requirements extend no further than to a disposition equally inclined to sin or holiness? Without faith it is impossible to please God and what is faith? Is indifference faith, Evangelical faith is the most noble and shining of all Christian graces; but does this do no more for the soul than to chain it down in perpetual apathy and insensibility? Are our 46

friends on earth satisfied with indifference and coldness on our part? Do they look with complacency bosoms that are frozen an in which the heart never beats.

No man values the friendship of another, unless that friendship has no more substance and takes a more inverting shape than mere neutrality of feeling, which is no feeling at all.

Thru time the blessed God asked Peter, saying “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” it was not the love of neutrality after which he inquired. No such love either did or could exist.

Every man is subject to a master, God or mammon. And it is a point which we ought to settle today, who it is that we serve. We cannot serve Satan more to his satisfaction, than by continuing in that stupidity which induces men to believe they are neutral, and being neutral, are not very criminal. Christ will have our affections or nothing. In proportion to the strength of the obligations we are under to love him in the same proportion, we are criminal for our indifference.

It matters not how high our pretensions to piety are, if we are not sincerely pious, we are sincerely inimical to God And since our heaven or hell hangs suspended on our being holy, or unholy, can we rest easy till we know that our characters need no further evidence that we are God’s enemies than to have no evidence that we are his friends. The evidence against us increases, in proportion as that is our favor lessons. And let this momentous subject incite us all to form a just and speedy conclusion respecting our sentiments our feelings and our practice.

END OF SERMON 102

47

How much do you love the right God?

Sermon 738

Strange title but it is appropriate. The subject for this sermon comes from Matthew 22:37-38 about the first of the two great commandments given us by Jesus. This is that we should love God with all our hearts, souls and minds. Every fiber of our beings should be devoted to the loving worship of god.

The reverend explains the curious statement of Jesus that “If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” shows us that Jesus was trying to say that if you compare the love of God to the love of family, the love of family will look like hate in comparison.

So what does this have to do with loving the right God? Reverend Hart tells us about God’s requirements of us for loving him but he also talks about the God we want or perceive versus the actual God of the scriptures. We look at the scriptures and say that we agree with the premise but “a loving God” really means this is correct, even if it is in conflict with the original text.

The God in the Sacred Scripture is the real God. Whenever we change or deviate from the scriptures, we are really saying that we do not love God and we create another God to suit our wishes rather than changing ourselves to God’s words.

I found this sermon to be enlightening on several levels. The text of the scriptures giving the rules of our love for God and the historical facts about the biblical times. They appear to be absolutely the same as today. See what you think. With the amount of times he gave this sermon it seems that it was one of his favorites also.

Daniel A. Sanford

48

Reverend Luther Hart Sermon 738

Plymouth Dec 1821 Waterbury 1822 Burlington 1822

Northing ton 1822 Bristol 1822 Mayville 1823

Bethlehem 1822 Litchfield 1822

Harwinton 1822 Agawam June 1822

Matthew 22:37-38 “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 greatest commandment.”

I know not but I delivered a discourse on this or a similar text, some years ago, but if I did, I have forgotten the particular train of thought which was perused, and it is quite possible that a great proportion of your memories, are as treacherous as my own. And, indeed, if that discourse were perfectly recollected by us all, it might not supersede the necessity of further attention to the important subject suggested by the words before us.

These words form a part of Christ’s notable reply to one of the Pharisees, who was a lawyer, that is a man who was brought up to the profession of expounding and teaching the divine law.

There were many of this profession among the Jews. They were called Rabbi’s as well as lawyers, and were properly what we should call divinity colleges, for in them they were instructed in the sacred language, the ancient Hebrew, not then the language of the country, in the law, and the traditions and the writings of the Prophets, the holy ceremonies; the statutes, customs and procedure of their judicatories, in a word, in what ever concerned the civil constitution and religion of the country.

Further, to give the greater luster to those seminaries, they were commonly men of note, in respect of their station and quality, as well as distinguished for their learning, who were appointed to preside and teach in them.

No sooner did audition become an object of national attention in Judea; no sooner were endowments made for advancing and promoting it, than the emulation of literary men were excited to attain the honorous peculiar to the profession by having the direction, or a principal part in the teaching in some noted school.

Even a certificate, from the person qualified, of being equal to the charge, was not little prized. Though, at first sight, it may appear but a small circumstance, it will be admitted, by the judicious, to be a considerable evidence that, in our Savior’s time, learning was general and high esteem among the Jews, to find that those titles which related to the business of teaching, were, with so much solitude displayed by persons of distinction.

Of this kind of titles was that of lawyer or doctor of law. Hence it appears that the lawyer who came to Christ with his question, was a man of learning and of distinction. And yet he was probably destitute of religion.

For not only was he a Pharisee, but he came to Christ for the insidious and base purpose of confounding him and putting him to silence. He had just seen the Savior triumphantly confute the Sadducees in argument, and could not bear to see him enjoy unmolested, the honor of victory.

Hence we read, “But when the Pharisees had heard that he (Jesus) had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them which was a lawyer, asked him a 49

question, tempting him and saying Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?”

Tempting him, that is hoping either that Christ would not be able to answer the question or that in answering it, he would open the door for a dispute which might end in his disgrace.

The lawyer was no doubt imaged to see him so victorious over the Sadducees and therefore the more ardently wished to entrap and confute him on another ground, before the people who were admiring him separated. But he was disappointed.

He was entrapped himself and that by means of his own question. Instead of silencing Christ, he was put to silence himself. He was vanquished too as well as the Sadducees and thus he involuntarily helped to load the Redeemer with additional honors in the sight of all the people.

His tempting question proved to be his own gallows, which while it made way for the renown of a greater than Mordecai. He was answered as in our text. “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 greatest commandment.”

To this the lawyer said not a word. He found that though he was a doctor of the law, he was dealing with a person who knew more about the great commandment in the law, than he did himself.

In this reply to the lawyer, Christ induces the whole law to the great commandments.

One requiring supreme love to God and the other, universal love to our neighbor, and thus silences him not only by answering his question correctly and fully, but by going altogether beyond it.

The lawyer, probably, was willing to own his obligation to love God supremely, but he had no idea of receiving a lecture at the same moment, on the subject of loving his neighbor as himself. Christ led him further than he intended to go. No wonder the Pharisee said nothing more. It was placing in him to hold his peace, thence fourth.

There are then two great commandments in the law. The first is that which is stated in the text, requiring us to love God. In further discourse on these words, our business will be to enquire:

I. Into the degree and

II. Into the reasons, of the love here demanded.

As to the degree of the love required. That it is the duty of all men to love God. To love him with great strength of affection, and indeed, to love him more than any other being, is a point which few, or none, ever call in question.

But though all who believe in God hold that we ought to love him intensely; still the most of them leave the subject in this indefinite form, and have no distinct ideas of the exact measure of love which is exacted. But our text drives away all mist from this point and causes the degree of love to God which every man ought to exercise.

To stand out with a distinctness and prominence, which leaves every child of Adam without excuse, who is in doubt, or undecided on this great subject. “Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and Mark adds, “with all thy strength.”

50

From this it is evident that the degree of love required of every individual of our race is that which shall exactly equal the measure of his natural faculties, or his intellectual powers.

It is quite possible that from the highest angel, down to the lowest of our own species, there are not two intelligent beings who are precisely and perfectly on a lead with each with each other in point of intellectual faculties. There is a difference among the heavenly hosts.

While some are angels, others are arch angels. And so, on earth, there is every grade of intellect from the lowest idiot that possesses a speck of reason, up to the mind of the greatest philosopher. God divideth to every man as he will. Some have one talent, others ten, and others an intermediate number. But of each individual, degrees of love are required, according to that he hath, and not according to that he hath not.

Hence, if two individuals of different natural faculties loved God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, they would necessarily love in different degrees. For it is physically impossible for a person to love God or any other object, beyond the extent of his faculties. And indeed, the intellectual faculties of the soul, are all that render in moral agents, and capable of loving or hating any object.

For, take away our intellect, that is, convert us into so many senseless blocks, and you can plainly see that we could not be objects of any kind of moral affection. It would be as impossible for us to love or hate, as it is for the stones of the street. But endow even the stones of the street with rationality, give them the same faculties of intellectual perception, that we have; and then in an instant they become as capable of loving God as we are, and are under an infinite moral obligation to do it, to the same extent.

Why is it universally agreed that a profound idiot, is not a moral object? The reason is, that the idiot, possesses not the natural faculties or affections, good or bad, towards an object, if he has no intellectual faculties by which to perceive the existence, and something of the qualities, of that object?

As well may a rock have feelings of love or aversion towards the rain which falls upon it upon it unperceived. But invest even a rock with the percipient powers of a rational being and then from the very necessity of its intelligent nature; it would not merely perceive, but be the subject of feeling towards the objects of its perceptions.

No angel love, nor devil hate, any object what ever, except as he is capacitated to do it, simply by the possession of those intellectual faculties which constitute him a rational being. These faculties, these natural faculties of the understanding which partake of the nature neither of holiness, nor of sin, are never the less all that render an angel capable of loving God or a devil capable of hating him.

It is just so with man. Those various intellectual powers in which his rationality consists, and which in themselves are the nature neither of virtue nor of vice, are the very things that render him capable of loving or hating any object, natural or moral.

The foundation of our obligation to love God lies in the fact that we possess the mental faculties which constitute rationality and therefore capable of loving him, for without these natural powers of intellect, it would be in the same sense impossible for us to do it, as it would be for a mountain or a tree.

But if both our capacity and our obligation to love God of infinite perfections, arise from our possessing the rational faculties of percipient and intelligent beings, then it instinctly follows that our love ought to be proportioned to our respective faculties. When it requires 51

us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength; that is with the powers, and to the full extent of all the powers which enter into the composition of our intelligent natures.

We are not required to love God beyond the measure of our intellectual capacity, and if we ever love him less, we violate his holy and righteous law. Hence it appears that the same invariable degree of love is not exacted of all whether they be old or young, learned or ignorant, strong or weak in intellect.

The giant in understanding, must love more than the dwarf in understanding, but in a degree precisely proportioned to their respective powers of intellect. If there be two persons of the same grade of natural understanding, one of them a little child and the other advanced in life, then the latter is under obligation to love God more than the former on account of the superior maturity of his faculties. But both in a measure exactly proportioned to their respective degrees of intellectual maturity.

In short no man loves God as much as the law requires, unless his love be so great that it cannot be greater, without an enlargement, or a further maturity, of his natural faculties.

We come now,

II. To enquire into the reasons why love, to this extent, is by the first great commandment of the law, required of every human being.

The following are some of the reasons which may be assigned.

God has expressly required it. The language of his law on this subject has now been under consideration. It requires nothing less than that we should love him with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength. And what is this less than that our love would be fully commensurate with all the mental faculties God has given us?

Besides, this seems to be the cardinal precept of the bible, for it is not only the essence of the first great commandment of the law, but it occurs in various parts of the Sacred Scriptures no less than eleven or twelve different times.

All parts of the bible concur to show, that our love to God must be commensurate with our powers. This is clearly indicated by the following declaration of Christ. “If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

How inexpressibly strong is the affection which we bear to such tender relatives as are here named, and especially to our own selves and lives. And must they all be hated? –

literally hated? No such thing. Far from the thoughts of the benevolent Jesus was it to require such a thing. No, he meant that we should continue to love our relatives and our lives, as much as ever, and thus gratify a most powerful instinct, as well as perform a most imperious duty. And yet he meant that our love to God should be so much greater than this, that this in comparison of that should be as it were hatred. Surely then he had his eye on the first and great commandment, and intended that no power of our intellect should be unemployed in the exercise of love to God.

2. The mercies we have received, and are still receiving, demand of us, all this love to God.

In him we live and move and have our being. If we had nothing to love him for but simply 52

the blessing of a rational and immortal existence, by which we are capacited for intellectual enjoyment, even this would in justice put in requisition all our powers of thankful affection.

But in our infancy, his kind hand rear our cradle, in our childhood it led us, in our ripe years it opened our path before us; and through all our life thus far, it has clothed our nakedness, satisfied our hunger, healed our sicknesses, removed our pains, succeeded our labors, encircled us with friends, guarded us in our slumbers, and guided us in our wakeful hours.

If temporal mercies were all that we had received at his hand, and we possessed the intellectual powers of Gabriel, even all those powers would not be too much to be everlastingly employed in love to God in consideration of his favors. But temporal mercies are only the small beginning, the mere shadow of God’s greater bounties to the children of men.

We were guilty, we were condemned, and our eternal hell was before us and what could all earthly favors help us, if after they were past, the rest of our immortal existence must be accursed? Oh My Hearers, What through our lives had been perceived and our temporal comforts had flowed in from every side. What though the sun had continued to shine pleasantly. And our fields to bring fourth abundantly? If endless damnation were to succeed the remembrance of those favors for ever past, would have but enhanced our wo.

It is clear then through Redemption from such a wretched end, is a blessing as much greater than any temporal mercies, as heaven is more desirable than hell. And yet, in a sense, we are all redeemed. A price no less than the life and blood of the son of God has been paid for every one of us.

The doors of the prison are flung open and we all may go forth. Oh My Christ less Hearers, leap from your dungeon, taste the joys of blood bought pardon, and blood bought exemptions from endless misery, and then say if like all other new concepts you do not feel that your utmost powers ought to be henceforth exerted in loving him who has thus put forth the omnipotence of his grace in providing such redemption for you.

3. Another reason for such great love to God as is mentioned in the text I, that we are not the only recipients of his favors, but that his tender mercies are over all his works. The world is but one vast theatre on which he is displaying and gratifying the infinite nature.

He causes the sun to go on with its mighty revolutions, but it is to quicken vegetation, and multiply comforts for others, as well as for us. Over millions of other pillows he watches by night with as much sedulity and tenderness, as he does over ours.

We are not the only ones on earth that are preserved in health, or have been raised from beds of distress by his benevolent hand. He has heard other groans besides ours, and in view of them graces went to his compassions.

He is this moment noticing millions of other wants besides ours and mercifully releasing them, and as if the whole family of man with all its wants and woes, were not large enough to furnish a sufficient field for the display of his kindness, he illustrates the benevolence of his nature, by his constant ministrations to every individual of the animal creation. There is not an insect but shares in the kindness of its Maker. “He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.”

But there is a greater exhibition of the divine benevolence than any of these: the gift of his Son, which the apostle calls the “unspeakable gift.” This gift was bestowed not for our 53

benefit only, but for the benefit of others, and that too with all the generosity of universal good will to men.

And as to the application of this grand restorative for fallen man, God can not gratify all the benevolence of his heart, by causing the deaf to hear, the blind to see, and the dead to live, in this place. In other places he is pouring out his Spirit and causing myriads of the lame to leap, and the dumb to sing.

Considering the vastness of the scale on which the almighty is proceeding, with his works of kindness; considering how he rolls onward the tide of hid mercies beyond the limits of any given circles of individuals, and as it were sweeps the whole earth with his mercies.

I do not wonder that the Psalmist breaks out four times in one and the same psalm “Oh that wonderful works to the children of men.” But the whole compass of the earth does not furnish a sufficient range for the benevolence of God.

He is the sole fountain at which the hosts of heaven are drinking their fill of joy. It is in his light that they see light and from him that they derive all their happiness and glory.

Now My Hearers setting aside the divine goodness to us, should we not feel, if we felt as we ought, that had we the powers of the greatest intellect the Almighty ever created, they ought to be everlastingly employed in loving and praising him for such a display of his benevolence through out all the earth, and throughout all heaven? - But 4. There is another reason, greater than all the preceding, why we should love God to the extent required in the text. And that is he is intrinsically worthy of all this devout affection.

This consideration is reason, I know, often brought into view in one of our discourses last Sabbath, but I am under no apprehension that we can possible speak or think too often or too much, on such an immortal theme. Oh what would heaven itself be at last, it its now enraptured inhabitants should ever become weary of contemplating such a theme as the inherent loveliness of their God? I say then the intrinsic glory of his character, more than any sensible displays that he made of himself, calls upon us to love him with all the powers he has given us.

For My Hearers how great a portion of his whole excellence, do you suppose it possible for him to display before us, as if he could display it all, how much of it do you think we could behold? Or ever bear to behold? How long can you stand and look directly into the unclouded sun, in broad mid-day?

In a moment, you would be blinded by the intensity of the light. What then if all the light that can be emitted from the face of the uncreated Go were to be poured upon you. It would be instant death to you. God told Moses, “Thou canst not see my face for there shall no man see me and live. His glory shines with beams so bright, no mortal can sustain the sight.”

All our faculties are imperfect because their finite. The best eye ever places in the head of man, is confined in its range within very narrow limits. A mountain at the distance of a hundred miles, can hardly be discounted. What therefore god were to spread out the whole earth before us in one entire and perfect plain; our eye could even then take in but a few comparatively of the material objects, illustrative of the power and wisdom of the creator.

As it is with the eye of the body, so it is and for ever will be, with the eye of the soul. It is infinitely too small, too limited in its vision to see all the displays that God could make of himself. Nay further, so imperfect is every created being, that no mind but the uncreated 54

can contain a perfectly adequate idea of God, any more than the hollow of your hand can contain all the waters of the ocean.

As the half of Solomon’s glory had not been told to the queen of the south; so the half of the glory of God’s character, can never be seen, by the united gaze of all the created beings that people the universe.

A few minutes since we have just been speaking of the divine benevolence as it is displayed in heaven and throughout this lower world, but what is all this that is seen, by all these hosts of finite spectators above and below, compared to all that which by reason of their limited faculties, they cannot see?

Doubtless God will be forever showing to his saints in heaven, more and more of his glory, but from the necessity of his nature, there will be everlasting an infinite remainder of glory undisclosed. The whole worth and excellence of the Almighty will never be known and never comprehended by any being but himself.

Is it too much for us poor worms of the dust, who are of yesterday and know nothing to love such a being to the extent required of us by the first and greatest commandment in the law? For should we love him to the utmost extent of our faculties, there would be as great a disparity between the measure of our love, and the measure of his worthiness, as there is between the finiteness of our nature and infinity of his own.

From all that has been said in this discourse, we see first how infinitely reasonable it is that we should be required to love God to the degree specified in out text, and also how guilty all are whop love him, with less than this, or none at all. God has exactly proportioned the duty to our powers.

He knows what an endless diversity there is in the mental capacities of his intelligent creatures and therefore does not command all to love him alike; that is in the same degree.

This would be physically impossible, for in no being can the measure of love exceed the measure of his intellect.

Therefore God, instead of specifying any particular degree of love to himself, and commanding all men to possess it, however great or small, strong or weak, may be their intellectual powers has taken an infinitely more equitable course, and commanded every mortal to love him with all his heart, and mind, and soul, and strength.

Each one of us is to love God, not with another man’s heart and soul but with his own; not with another man’s mind and strength, but with his own. Nothing but his own powers; his own faculties, is here brought into requisition. The duty exacted is only commensurate with his ability to perform it.

He is able to do what God asks of him. And this is not reasonable. If he has got a heart, he is able to love with all his heart. If he has got a soul, he is able to love with all his soul.

If he has got any mind and strength, he is able to love with all his mind and strength. And what more than this does God require?

Oh My Brethren, in the Lord, considering what the infinite God is in himself; what his benevolence is towards us, towards all heaven and earth, and considering the reasonableness of his law which requires us to love him only according to our ability., that is with all our heart, soul, mind and strength; how inexpressibly guilty are we that at times we hardly know perhaps whether to love him at all!

2. We see how great must be the guilt of all those who have no love to God but on the contrary are enemies to him? And do not many of you My Kindred belong to this very 55

class? God has been crowning you with blessedness ever since you were born and yet you have no love for him.

He has been steadily diffusing his bounties through out earth and heaven and blest all creatures from the insect to the angel, and yet you have no love to him. Independently of all that he has done for you or others, he is in himself infinitely lovely, and yet you have no love for him. He requires you to love him only according to your intellectual capacities, and yet you have no love for him.

Ah think what it will be to fall into his hands another day when amid the tenors fo the last judgment, wonder then that so many of those whose carnal minds are enmity against God should deny the fact and affirm that they love him and always loved him, when by the word of God they understand not the God of the Sacred Scriptures but the being whom they have painted out so agreeably to themselves in their own imagination?

I admit that the impious generally love, actually and in many instances ardently love the imaginary being that they take to be God. Different sinners have different gods, but each one, if buried in the slumber of stupidity, loves his own. God to the sinner whose God is one who, he thinks will save all men at last, and what will he say to the proposition that he is an enemy to God? Will he own it? No he really loves such a being. But such a being is not the God of the Sacred Scriptures.

Go to the sinner whose God is one who he thinks takes no notice of little sins, but knowing that mankind strong passions and many temptations, is inclined to overlook all but the most heinous and flagrant transgressions and what will he say to the fact that he is an enemy to God? He will deny it. He truth is, he loves such a God, but not the God of the Sacred Scriptures.

Go to the self righteous sinner whose God is one who he supposes is pleased with his routine of splendid moralities, and demands nothing more, and will he admit that his heart is opposed to such a being. No he loves him. But such is not the God of the Sacred Scriptures.

Go to the sinner whose God he imagines, is not disposed to press the duty of repentance upon him now, tonight in his youth; but is willing to wait upon some years still he can better attend to religion; or will regard his cries on a death bed, if he should chance to delay repentance till that time, and will he confess that he hates such a being? No, he loves that God. But that is not the God of the Sacred Scriptures.

Go to the sinner who believes in a God that has no further purpose, that has no degrees, that worketh not all things after the counsel of his will, and has chosen no one in Christ before the foundation of the world that he should be holy and will he not love this God of his? But this is not the God of the Sacred scriptures.

Go to the sinner who believes in a God that exercises no acts of sovereignty, that never takes one sinner and leaves another, that always does as much for one as another, and in short does not make one go unto honor, and another unto dishonor; and true enough he does love this ideal being. But this ideal being is not being is not the God of the Sacred Scriptures.

Go to the sinner who believes in a god that does not pour out his Spirit at one time and in one place, more than another; that has no agency in these revivals, but dislikes religious stirs, that disapproves of so many meetings as they occasion, and does not wish to see any bowed down under a sense of their sins, and will he tell you he is an enemy to God? No, such a God he loves, but such is not the God of the Sacred Scriptures. But why need I 56

add? For what can be plainer, than that one chief reason why so many in an impious state imagine they love God is, that they have wrong notions of his character?

But My un-renewed Hearers I bring before you the true God of the Bible, the holy, sin hating and sovereign God. The God who is so infinitely excellent as to be displeased with you, who commands you to love him with all your hearts to night, and who if you continue to disobey, has promised to cast you into hell. Till with a deviant cordiality you love this God you are on the way to certain ruin, love what other being you may.

He shall say, “But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, being hither, and slay them before me.

END OF SERMON 738

57

Do you love yourself?

Sermon 739

Can there be a simpler statement? “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Simple yes, if taken at face value but when Jesus spoke these words to the Pharisee he was actually talking to all of the multitude saying that you should love yourself as much as you should love your neighbor.

Many people can and will put on a brave and loving front. The will do anything for anyone at any time. We have all known people like that in the community. But if pressed to expose their inner feelings they do not have a good self image. They are only putting on a front and really are not obeying the commandment.

Reverend Hart touches upon the need of self love, which is not to be confused with self worship. He shows that the second great commandment implies that in order to love your neighbor you must love yourself. Only after we learn to love ourselves, can we ever hope to obey the second commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Daniel Sanford

58

Reverend Luther Hart Sermon 739

Plymouth December 1821

Matthew 22:39 “And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

This, as you readily perceive, is the remaining part of Christ’s reply to the question insidiously put to him by the lawyer of whom we made mention in the morning. This man had enquired which was the great commandment in the law, having reference, no doubt, to some particular precept which he supposed was of more importance than all the other precepts of the law put together.

But Christ disappoints and confounds him by answering the question in a way altogether different from what he had anticipated. For instead of pointing out ant one of the Ten Commandments as being of more importance than all the rest; he divides the dialogue nearly in the middle, and shows him that the first half which in effect inculcates nothing but supreme love to God constitutes, not the only, but the first great commandment in the law; and that the second half which in affect, inculcates nothing but love to our neighbor, constitutes another great commandment, like unto the first, because love is the object of both.

We have already considered the first. The second is now therefore to be the subject of our meditations. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Now this solemn injunction recognizes the principles that self love; a proper esteem for ourselves, is an imperious duty.

For if where we are required to love our neighbor as ourselves; we ought to have no love for ourselves; we ought to have no love for ourselves; you clearly see that we should in effect, be required by this command, to exercise no love towards our neighbor. But this would be totally to subvert both law and gospel.

No the injunction entirely defeats its en, if you do not proceed on the principle that we ought to love ourselves. This is so perfectly evident, that no more words are necessary on the subject.

But then it is to be considered that when we are required to love our neighbors as ourselves, it is necessarily implied that our love for ourselves be of the right kind, that it proceed from right motives and that it be neither excessive nor deficient in degree.

If a man were to love himself too much or to little, or in any other respect improperly, and should love his neighbor in the same improper manner. It is very obvious that he would violate the true spirit and intention of the text which clearly means that we are to love ourselves manner. In short the text implies that we have a proper kind and degree of self love; for self love in the true sense of the word is as different a thing from selfishness, as holiness is from sin.

Selfishness I that concept and odious affection of the soul which induces a man to pay no just regard to the real worth and interests of others of his affection and care. So far as a man is selfish he “grasps at all immediate advantages” to himself “regardless of the consequences which his conduct may have upon his neighbor.”

But so far as he possesses evangelical self love. He regards himself and his own interest, it is true, but never in a manner or a degree in compatible with a proper affection for others and their welfare.

59

I shall attempt to show

I. What it is to love our neighbors as ourselves, and II. Why we ought to do it’

I. Under the former head I observe

1. To love our neighbor as ourselves, is to exercise towards him the same kind of affection that we ought towards ourselves. Thus is indeed a kind of affection which we have, and ought to have, for ourselves, which we cannot feel for others.

We have an instinctive affection for ourselves, which is perfectly involuntary which we cannot feel for others. If we were like the angels of God, I doubt whether it would be possible for in the temper of our hearts be possible for us to possess exactly the same emotions in view of a tree falling on one of our fellow men, that we should have if we saw that tree just about crushing us to death.

When you see another parent weeping over the grave of his child, it is not possible for you to feel just as you would feel standing on the grave of your own child. But as these and many other kinds of love are instinctive and cannot be transferred in all their force to other objects than those to which they are appropriated by a law of our physical constitution, it is plain that they do not come within the limits of our text.

The second great commandment in the law was never designed to annihilate all that is peculiar in the attachment of a parent to his children, and then spread the residuum of their attachment equally over all the rest of the little children that inhabit the globe. No My Hearers, it relates to love that is of a moral, not of a instinctive kind.

It requires us first to exercise a holy affection towards ourselves, and then a holy affection towards all the rest of our species. The love which true religion requires us to cherish towards ourselves and all our interests, is exactly the love which it requires us to cherish towards others and all their interests.

Indeed there is but one kind of holy love in the universe, for there is but one kind of religion and the essence of that is love. Of course in our self love is of a holy or religious nature, it is exactly that which we shall appropriate to others as well as to ourselves.

2. To love our neighbor as we ought to love ourselves is to love the same things in him, if he possesses them, that we ought to love in ourselves if we possess them. Surely it is our duty to value our existence, our health, our freedom from pain, our temporal prosperity, our rational nature, our mental faculties, our capacities of enjoyment, and indeed all those natural qualities which distinguish us from the beasts. Together with those spiritual qualities which if they pertain to us, liken us to God.

All these are objects of great intrinsic worth, and ought to be proportionally esteemed by us every moment that they are in our possession. Religion requires us to love all those qualities in ourselves, whether natural or moral, which are God’s gifts to us and are in themselves desirable.

But if our neighbor possesses these same qualities, they ought to be contemplated with the same kind of satisfaction and esteem, as when we contemplate them in our selves. They possess just the same intrinsic worth in him that they do in us. We ought therefore to value him on account of them, as really as ourselves.

60

This leads me to observe,

3. That to obey the injunction in the text, is to exercise a universal affection towards all the interests and good qualities of others, just as we ought towards all our own interests and good qualities. It is very natural for us to value not only a few, but all of those things without exception, in which we think either our excellence or interest consists. And it is our duty to do so.

The great thing we have to fear is our excessive valuation of these possessions. But as we value all these things when ours, if our attachment to them be not disproportioned to their worth, so we ought to value all these things, when we see them pertaining to others. We are not to wish them well in regard to some things, and ill in regard to other things. Hence if we love our neighbor as we ought ourselves, we shall spread the eye of affectionate regard over the whole field of estimable qualities and delight in them all.

We shall love the soul of our neighbor as well as his body and his everlasting welfare, as well as his temporal. And now to try ourselves whether we do obey the second great command, in the manner just explained.

Let us ask ourselves whether while we may have regard to our neighbors good generally, he has not some one good quality which excites our envy, or some one possession which we covet, or some one trouble in which we are unwilling to sympathize, or some one want which we would not raise a finger to supply, or some one grievance to which we are backward to listen.

If this be the case, we do not love him as well we ought, nr indeed as we actually do ourselves. For we are accustomed to pay an affectionate regard to all our own good qualities, all our wants and troubles, and indeed, all our interests, except it be the single one which relates to our eternity.

4. To comply with the injunction in our text, is, if we love ourselves as we ought, to love, that in our neighbor as sincerely, as ardently, as much, as we do the same thing in ourselves.

The question has long been debated both by the learned and the ignorant, the righteous and the wicked, and probably will be for a long time to come, whether the second great commandment in the law does actually require us to love others as much as ourselves. But one would think there is no occasion for any doubt or difference of opinion on this point, unless it be a fact that the same thing in others possesses less intrinsic excellence, than it does in us.

But who ill pretend to this? Who can suppose that in the estimation of God who looks upon things as they are, one quality of body or mind is intrinsically of more worth in one man, than the same degree of that quality, in another man.

The great reason why any quality is of more value in God than it is in us, is not because it is of a different nature, for this is not, but merely because he possesses it in an infinitely greater degree. And the great reason why we ought to love him more than any other being is that he possesses so many excellences which have no existences in an infinitely grater degree than they are possessed by any of his intelligent creatures.

Were all the natural and moral qualities of God exactly what ours are, both as to number and degree, than it would be obliviously our duty to love him and ourselves alike, for then his intrinsic excellence and ours would be of the same nature and amount.

61

Nothing can be more certain from the nature of things than that any quality of a given kind and measure, must be precisely of the same value in itself, whether it be in me or my neighbor; in God or man.

If then I possess ten degrees of excellence, and love myself in the view of it neither more nor less than I ought, and if at the same time I know that my neighbor possesses five degrees of the same quality, in view of it I love him just half as much as I do myself, then so far as this quality is concerned, I actually love him as I do myself according to the true spirit and intent of the command in the text.

For surely it was not the design of this command that we should love our neighbor as ourselves in any contrary sense. If he possesses more inherent worth than we do, we are to love him more, if less, we are to love him less, than we do ourselves. And be it that that the degree of his and my inherent worth are ever so different, yet if, in view of mine, I love myself as I ought, and in view of his love him as I ought, that is proportionally, then, in this sense I love him as I do myself, that is I love the same portions of worth, whether in him or me alike. I know of no contrary sense in which it is our duty to love our neighbor as ourselves.

5. To obey the command under consideration, is to love our neighbor constantly, without intermission. We make ourselves the objects of our constant care, solicitude and affection.

The apostle tells us, “No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it.” You see the whole world of mankind, with but few exceptions, assiduous, each to promote what he deems his own interest. Though hated by others, everyone loves himself, with as much constancy as the sun shines, or the seasons revolve.

And it is right, it is a duty which each owes to himself. But the duty ought to be performed to all others also. For if it is only occasionally, by fits and starts, just when we happen to be in the mood for it, or when we have received some favor from them, that we feel a glow of attachment to our fellow creatures, it is plain that we do not love them as ourselves.

6. If we love our neighbor as we do ourselves, our love to him will be of a practical nature.

What would the highest degree of self love be worth to us, if it spent all its force in the mere exercise of affection, and did not prompt us it stir a hand or foot for preservation or our comfort.

But the truth is that the love which we bear to ourselves is altogether of a practical kind.

We could not have a more certain proof that a man did not love himself at all, than that he put forth no active exertions to promote his own welfare. How manifest is it then, that we love our fellow creatures as ourselves no further than we practically improve our opportunities to do them good!

Having shown what it is to love our neighbor as ourselves, let us consider.

II. Why we ought to do it. If I assign three good reasons I presume you will deem them sufficient. Therefore

62

The duty is enforced by the authority of God. Sin of the Ten Commandments concern in laying all their stress on it. It is not a duty to which we are pointed by some solitary and independent precept of the gospel. It stands prominently out to view, and Decalogue stretches as it were, no less than six hands everlastingly pointing to it day an night; for as we have already seen, Jesus Christ himself resolves all the commandments of the second table, into one precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.

Wherefore we may make what we please of it, we may consider it a very trivial affair, one of the slightest of all offences, if indeed we will so much allow it to be an offence; but the truth is, it is absolute rebellion against the known law, and external authority of God, and of course an infinite sin, not to love our neighbor as ourselves.

2. The duty in question is enforced not only by the authority, but also by the example of God. He sends his love abroad over all the works of his hands. We saw in the morning how from the impulse of his affectionate nature, he calls his tide of benevolence wherever there is a human being or an insect on the footstool, to behold and enjoy it. “He has says a distinguished divine of the last century.”

An infinite propensity to do good and that in cases where there is no motive from without to excite him, yea, where there is everything to the contrary. He loves to make his sun to rise and his rain to fall, upon the evil and unthankful.

He loves to fill the hearts of all with food and gladness and to strew innumerable blessings round a guilty, God-hating world, yea, out of his great goodness, he has given his only son to die for sinners and offers grace and glory. And all good things, through him being ready to pardon and receive to favor, any poor, guilty wretch, that will repent, and return to him, through Jesus Christ.

And now for us, after all this, not to love our fellow men, yea, not to love our worst enemies, is very vile. Since God has so loved us, we ought to love one another. Since he has treated us, his enemies so kindly, we ought now, as dear children, to imitate him and love our enemies and bless them that curses us, and do good to them that hate us and pray for them which disrespectfully use us and persecute us. Look at this example of the infinite God and then say if we have not a motive as weighty as eternity, to love our neighbor as ourselves. But

3. It is right and fit in itself, that we should do this. Independently of all commands and all consequences, it is in its own nature right and therefore binding. The author before quoted observes, the reason of God’s requiring of us to love our neighbor as ourselves, is because it is, in its own nature, right that we should; and this ought therefore to move and influence us to do so.

There is the same general reason why I should love my neighbor, as I should love myself. Lovely things are as worthy of being loved in him, as in me, and therefore, by me, ought in all reason to be loved as much. There is the same reason why my neighbor should be esteemed as being what he is, and according to the station he stands in, as that I should.

To esteem myself above my neighbor merely because I am myself, without any other reason, is unfit and wrong at first sight. My very worst enemy ought, by me, to be considered and esteem as being what he is, with, an impartiality perfectly disinterested, as well as my very best friend.

63

Good properties are not at all better, merely for belonging to me, or to my friends, not the worst for belonging to my neighbor, or my enemy. Thus we see that in its own nature it is right that we should we should love others as we do ourselves, right I say, not because it will just answer for us to do it, but in this sense that if we do not do it, we absolutely violate and trample on the constitution and order of the moral world.

I have now explained the duty and assigned some of the reasons on which it is grounded.

But all along through the discourse some of you perhaps have been ready to ask, what will become of us in this world, if we love others as ourselves. Families and societies will all be unhinged and broken up.

Our husbands and wives and children, and other dear relatives will all be lost sight of and starve, through our universal affection for all mankind. The thief and drunkard and all other pests of society, will share our affections, and let into our councils and secrets equally with our nearest companions and friends.

No such thing My Hearers. This universal and disinterested affection neither annihilate, nor does away the necessity of those instinctive and circumstantial affections, which binds us together in families and other civil and social ties. All these earthly ties were ordained of God and were designed to answer various beneficial purposes of a worldly nature.

It is quite consistent for us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and at the same time feel a different kind of attachment to our kindred and intimate friends, and do more to promote their welfare. There is such a thing as natural affection which although not in itself a moral kind, we should be odiously guilty in not possessing. This natural affection centers principally on those who are bound to us by the ties of kindred.

Nor is there any thing in the nature of gospel love to extinguish, but much to cherish, to purify, and exalt this inferior affection for our relatives. And besides, the fact that Providence has cast our children upon our care and given us more opportunity to feed, cloth and instruct them, than he has to perform these offices for others.

No My Hearers the object of the second great commandment in the law is not to destroy our instinctive and local attachments, nor to make us love ourselves and ours, too little but to make us like our Lord and Master, devoutly benevolent in our feeling, and so far as circumstances will allow, in our actions, towards al mankind.

END OF SERMON 739

64

Did you return, or were you brought back to the flock by the good shepherd?

Sermon 338

This sermon is about returning to the flock. Reverend Hart puts forth that most of the people that “go astray from the flock” do not return to the flock, they are found by the shepherd who leaves the flock to look for the lost lamb.

He makes the point that all the things that are in religion, God, Jesus and the Sacred Scriptures are all there in their present form. Nothing changed, so you must have changed.

The question to answer is why. Reverend Hart shows that, with the Exodus 10 plagues, that fear or even God’s commands can have the opposite reaction in some humans.

You must be of a free heart when you come back because fear and obligation can only word while the apparent danger is present. Once the battle is over those that earnestly prayed, in the foxhole, due to fear of death, almost to a man will not remain. They did not return to the flock, they ran to the flock for self preservation only..

The burdens’ he talks about are universal. There is a saying that has been around forever, “God will not give you a burden that your shoulders can’t carry.” It is only through a change in our perception of the weight of that burden do we see that it was nothing that we could not handle. The change in perception is the process of being brought back to the flock by the good shepherd.

Please enjoy Sermon 338 taken from 1st Peter 2:25 “For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishops of your souls”

Daniel Sanford

65

Reverend Luther Hart Sermon 338

Plymouth Jan 1815 Communal Service 1825

Waterbury Oct 1816

1 Peter 2:25 “ For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishops of your souls”

Some of the most precious instructions contained in the Sacred Scriptures is conveyed to us in similes and parables. The parable of Jotham, and of Nathan, and the riddle of Samson, had a most salutary effect , being singularly calculated to administer instruction and reproof.

In instructions of the Old Testament virtues, Jesus Christ when he came, used the same method of conveying instruction. And after him, the apostles taught by a great variety of figures, similes and allusions, many of which had been prevalently employed by himself.

Christ had often spoke of his fold, of the sheep of his fold, and of the sheep that were not in his fold. Now these plain allusions to an earthly Shepherd, fold and sheep, were far more striking than if he had dropper all figures, and spoken to his hearers, in direct language, of his spiritual kingdom, and his spiritual subjects.

David many centuries before perceived the beauty of this kingdom of simile: therefore he says “Know ye that the Lord he is God it is he that hath made us, and not us ourselves, we are his peoples and the sheep of his pastures.”

The beauty of this simile is readily perceived by every man, and it is still employed by all denominations of Christians. Hence we read in the Episcopal service book this confession.

All we like lost sheep have gone astray.

But Peter in his epistle to his brethren in the Lord gives us the complete figure in all its parts when he says to then as in the text “For ye are as sheep going astray, but are now returned unto the shepherd and Bishop of your souls.” He here point as to sheep, to sheep that had gone astray, to sheep that were returned, and returned to their shepherd, or Bishop which word means an overseer.

Christ is the great overseer of his flock. All his ministering servants are overseers or Bishops of their respective flocks, though in a subordinate sense. For Paul addressing the presbyters or common clergy, says to them, take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers or Bishops as the word is in original Greek. But Christ is the great Head of the church and therefore the chief Shepherd or Bishop of souls.

As peter in the text addressed himself directly to his brethren in the Lord so in what remains of this discourse I shall address myself directly to you My Brethren. And taking it for granted that you are Christians, I shall

I. Show what your condition was before you were returned to the great Shepherd of the flock; and

II. Enquire how you came back to him.

I. I am to show what your condition was before you were returned to the great Shepherd of the flock.

66

You were out of the fold. Time was when you were not out of the visible church only, but out of the kingdom of God exposed to wolves here, and eternal wrath hereafter. Bad as the condition of all these impious sinners now is, yours was once just the same. As surely as they would go to hell, were they now to die, just so surely would you have gone thither long since had you died before you entered the fold of Christ.

You enjoyed in no duty with a right heart; no light from heaven broke in upon your eyes, no spiritual food nourished you for you fed on husks in a strange land. No spiritual comforts gladdened your hearts, but your way, like the way of all transgressors was hard.

You have heard Christians converse, but it was not music to your ears. You came to the house of God but were not refreshed by the sincere milk of the word.

Safe as you now are beneath the shadow of Christ’s wings, once you were under condemnation, and the wrath of God abode on you. And if you are Christians, you are conscious to yourselves that this was your dreadful condition.

Like the whole race of Adam, you were born without the fold of Christ, and you cannot but remember with regret and shame the many long years during which you lived estranged from God. You are ready to acknowledge it to man, and do actually confess it in your prayers to the Most High.

2. You were far from the fold. All your days till the moment you were converted, you were not only out of the fold, but far out of it. You had no conformity of heart to God, for your heart was fully set in you to do evil. On the contrary, you were conformed to the world, the fashion of which passeth away. Perfectly at ease in you sins, you mingled with the company, and partook of the amusements of God’s enemies. You were selfish, covetous, avaricious, worldly-minded, and forgetful of God.

You were often told of your guilt but it did not move you, and of your exposure to ravening wolves, but it did not alarm you. You once found fault with those very truths which you now love.

I put it to your conscious, if you did not raise your vials and heart along with those of your wicked companions against many of the doctrines of the gospel and against the faithful preaching of those doctrines. Your hearts often rose against God and taxed him with being a partial and a hard Mentor.

God often warned by his word, providence and ministers, still you remained unmoved, strangers to the covenants of promise and aliens from the common wealth of Israel.

Though you often went to the house of God and worshipped him with your lips, your hearts were far from him.

The very subjects that are most calculated to animate and comfort the Christians, were often treated of, in your hearing, but you saw no beauty in them, or comeliness in their divine author, that they should be desired. If they were ever interesting to you, they were so only as matters of speculation or dispute.

Your hearts were desperately wicked and harder than the nether millstone. Neither mercies nor judgments did you any good. You received not the things of the Spirit of God for they were foolishness unto you, neither could you know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Oh My Hearers, nothing is more certain than the fact that if you are now made nigh by the blood of Christ, you were once far off. But –

67

3. Though you were out of Christ’s fold and far out of it, you were going still further from it, till the moment of your conversion. You were enemies till the very instant that you were made friends.

It was not enough that you drew contagion with your breath, but you grew up a juster prey for death. You lived only to commit fresh sins and contract fresh guilt every day and hour and moment. You were indulged with the most numerous and precious means of grace, but they only hardened your hearts. In spite of all these you waned worst and worse.

This was the case not only when you were stupid and thoughtless, but also when under conviction. All the convictions you ever had, made you no better; for till your hearts bowed at the feet of Jesus you were nothing better but rather worse.

Never perhaps does a sinner rush faster upon the thick bosses of the Almighty’s buckles, than when he is under conviction, for then he retains his impious temper, and returns it in spite of the superior light he enjoys. He resists the Spirit every instant till he submits, be his convictions ever so pungent. And the longer he resists the Spirit, the further he rushes away from the great Shepherd of the fold.

No sinner, be he stupid or thoughtful, is any better in heart, till his heart is renewed. But he continually grows worse, and therefore continually goes further from Christ from the moment that he becomes a moral agent till the moment of his conversion.

This was the case with My Hearers. When you were first awakened you did not stop sinning. All the conviction you ever experienced did not diminish the rebellion of your heart. The more pungent your conviction the more dreadfully you sinned, for then you sinned against greater light than ever.

Your road was straight down to hell, and you never stopped an instant, till by almighty grace you were turned about. Till you were born again, you, like Israel, revolted more and more and more and more treasured up wrath against the day of wrath. We were as sheep going astray up to the moment when you turned towards the fold, and that was the moment a new spirit was put within you. Ye were as sheep having no shepherd that wander further and further from the fold, the longer they are absent from it. Surely then your connection was once an awful one.

How then

II. Did you come back? The perishing multitude are still God’s enemies; and such were you but now ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord God and by the spirit of our God.

Sometimes ye were darkness, but now are ye are light in the Lord. Once you were out of the fold, for out of it, and going still further from it, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your soul. And you were far off, but now are you made nigh by the blood of Christ. And how did you come back? Did you come back of your own accord?

No, My Hearers for you had no love for the Shepherd, for the fold, nor the sheep of the fold. Till you were actually within Christ’s enclosure, you were some of those of whom he says they hatest me without cause. Till your hearts were changed, he was without form or comeliness to you. And till then you saw no beauty in him that he should be desired.

To you his yoke was not easy, nor his burden light, till your imaginations, and every high thing in you that exalted itself against the knowledge of God were cast down, and till your very thoughts were brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

68

One moment before your conversion you had no more real affection for Jesus than the Jews who put him to death. So that love to the Shepherd was not the cause of your returning to the fold, for you had no love to him. Neither did you love his fold, while you were out of it.

His pasture was not sweet to your taste. Its cooling water brooks did not slake your thirst; they were loathsome to your vitiated taste. The sincere milk of the word did not nourish you. Duty was not the delight of your hearts.

Till you actually entered his fold, you rejoiced more when your corn and vine were increased, than when the soul humbling and God exalting doctrines and precepts of the gospel were set before you and the duties of religion were pressed upon you. Therefore love to the fold was not the reason why you came back to the Shepherd.

Neither did you love the sheep of the fold. The society and conversation of God’s people were never dear to you, till you possessed their temper. Had you sincerely loved the people of God before your conversion, you would have been converted before your conversion, which is a palpable contradiction.

Love to the brethren is a positive proof of the new birth. Therefore if you sincerely loved them before you came back, before you did return, which is an impossibility. The conclusion then is that you had no holy love to Christ’s people, till you became his people yourselves. So that love of the sheep of his pasture was not the reason why you came back.

Nor

2. Did you come back because you heard the voice of the Shepherd. When he saw you wandering further and further from his fold, he called after you, but you did not hear his voice. You did indeed often hear the most precious invitations of the gospel in their letter, but not in their sweetness spiritually and power. There is no hearing his voice in this manner, but with the ear of the heart. Christ says My sheep hear my voice, by which he means that none but his sheep hear it.

And the Psalmist compares all others to the deaf adder. Thus he says “The wicked, are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Then poison is like the poison of a serpent, they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth his ear, which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely!

It was just so with you My Brethren. You did not spiritually hear the voice of the Shepherd, till you came back to his fold. Therefore this was not the reason why you came back. Nor

3. Did you come back because you knew the way. The way you did not know. It can be known only by experience. But you did not know it by experience before you traveled it.

All you’re your days you had been told that Christ was the way, all the while you were under the pangs of conviction you were told that he was the way, but as you had no experimental knowledge of him, you had no saving knowledge of the way back to his fold.

Till you were actually in his green pastures, your hearts felt as if good works, reading, meditation and prayer, were the way. All the way you knew or tried, was the way the Pharisees trod, and that way was not Christ.

For a long time after you were first awakened, you tried various methods of your own devising in order to obtained salvation. But they were none of them Christ. You tried every way you could think of before you knew anything about the right way, and the very instant 69

you found that you were already safe in the fold. Therefore you did not come back because you knew the way before hand. Nor

4. Did you come back because you had any desire to return. You indeed had already a desire to be saved, and especially when under conviction you were alarmed in view of the tenors of the Lord. But this was not a desire to return to Jesus Christ.

The selfish desire of salvation is quite a different thing from a sincere desire after Christ.

If you had had any holy desire to return to the fold, you would have returned long before you did; for this holy desire is the return.

As soon as the sinner devoutly wishes to come back, he does come back, for this sort of wishing is the very returning itself. But you had no such holy wishes till your hearts were changed; for we have before shown that till the very instant you came back, you were going still further astray.

Therefore till you actually returned you had no holy desire to return. And since you were back in the fold, the instant you had this desire, the desire itself could no more have been the cause of your coming back, then your coming back, the cause of that desire.

Still the mighty question is not answered. Again then I ask, How did you come back?

The only answer that can be given Brethren is, The good Shepherd himself went after you and brought you back. For had you not been brought, you never would come back.

You came into the world with your faces set towards hell, and you never would have stopped, if he had not gone after you and brought you back in his arms. All this is virtually expresses in the text, which says For ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned.

It is not affirmed actively that ye returned, but positively, ye are returned, not actively, Ye came back yourselves but possibly, ye are brought back. No sinner ever came back to the fold, of his own accord. And no one ever will come unless he is brought.

For says Christ himself no man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him. He must be drawn or carried, as he never will come. Hence the meaning of the following passages of scripture is plain. Draw us and we will run after this, He shall carry the lambs in his bosom.

Every sinner whether under conviction or not, whether doing his best or his worst, is straying still further from the fold, and would never be willing to return, unless he was made willing. Hence the propriety of the following declaration, Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. No ordinary influences of the spirit are sufficient, It requires the day of God’s almighty power to make them willing.

Our subject teaches us the deplorable condition of all the impious. Their condition is so awfully deplorable not because they cannot come back if they would, but because they will not, now that they may. They wander and love to wander from Christ’s fold. The language of their hearts to God is depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. They need only to be left to themselves, and they would as certainly perish as there is a hell. All the tender cries of their hearts point to hell, and to no other place. So long as they live in their impertinence, they are all going thither and not one of them will ever turn if God do not turn him.

Hence the propriety of Jeremiah’s prayer, in behalf of the wicked Jews whom no monies, nor judgment could reclaim. Turn then us unto thee Oh Lord and we shall be turned.”

And let us My Kindred of this church learn from our subject a lesson of gratitude. Are we now in the fold of the chief shepherd, only because while we were straying down to 70

hell, he came leaping upon the mountains, and with almighty love and power brought us back. How ought we to love him, and serve him, and if need be, die in the support of his cause.

Every day ought to be to us like the day of our espousal to him, Oh how ought we to keep a perpetual Christmas, our everlasting jubilee. Once we were on the confines of hell, but he brought us back, to this table, to peace of mind and joy in the Holy Ghost. Oh My Hearers where ever we are, and whatever be our employments, let us remember Christ and whether living or dying, let be our song and the song of all that are redeemed by blood. He hath brought us back, He has hath brought us back.

END OF SERMON 338

71

Render unto Caesar or Understanding your “God’s Time Sermon 301

This sermon is based on Matthew 22:20-21 where Jesus is asked about tribute to Caesar.

The passage is were the saying render unto Caesar that which is Caesar comes from.

Reverend Hart explains that there is certain things that must belong to the government, such as money, service and governmental laws. Since these things belong to Caesar give them to Caesar.

Our lives thus our time however, are given to us by God, along with any talents that we possess. Reverend Hart talks about how few of us realize this. We have a tendency to believe that these are our own creation so they are mine. I created this book, it’s mine, painted a painting it’s mine but since the talent and time is God’s the true owner of the product is God.

We are also told that it is understood that there are times that we all must render unto Caesar when there is a need for civic service. There is a time to defend our freedom, a time to work to provide for your family. A time to deal with all the needs of life, but remember that this is Caesar’s.

Every one has a special talent for something, even though you may not think it is a special talent. What the reverend will show is that we all need to realize, more over, what it means to render unto God what is God’s.

Some of the interesting points he makes is that he gives some background to the reason the Pharisees asked the question of Jesus. Reverend Hart explains what is and what is not our sacred duty to God with regards to our time and talents.

Daniel Sanford

72

Reverend Luther Hart Sermon 301

Plymouth May 1814

Matthew 22: 20-21 “And he saith unto them, “whose is this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar’s. then he saith unto them, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”

At this time the Jews had been under the Roman government about one hundred years.

The Pharisees are distinguished above all the rest of the Jews for their violent opposition to the payment of tribute money to Caesar, the Roman emperor.

The preceding parable of the marriage of the King’s son had covered them with confusion and disgrace. They now therefore wish to take revenge on Jesus. They accordingly ask him a question on state affairs, to wit whether it were lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not, well knowing that if he answered in the affirmative, the wrath of the whole body of the Pharisees would be inflamed against him and that if he answered in the negative, he would excite the hatred of all the Romans and all the friends to that government.

They knew that the question could not be evaded, and that he must answer it. But thinking it possible that he might decide it unlawful to give tribute unto Caesar, and thus coincide with their own opinion, they took with them some of the Herodians, who were the avowed advocates of the Romans claims upon them for tribute money.

Their plot consisted in asking such a question as in their judgment could not be answered without giving offence either to themselves, or to the Herodians. This wicked plot was the fruit of their taking counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. Having thus artfully arranging their affairs, they were sure of entangling him. They therefore in league with their enemies the Herodians, addressed him with a hypocritical acknowledgement of his divinity “saying, Master, we know thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men.” (Read from Matthew 22 17th to the 21st )

How were they disappointed and chagrined at his discover of their malicious intentions, and at his wonderful defeat of their plot. Their design was to involve him in the dilemma of giving offence either to themselves, o to the friends of the Roman government; both of which bodies of men were numerous, and formidable. But his answer was so full of wisdom; that when they had heard it, they marveled and left him, and went their way confounded. The conclusion is drawn from their own premises, you acknowledge this to be Caesar’s coin; this coin shows the country to be under the Roman government and your acknowledgement that it is Caesar’s, proves you to have submitted. Don’t therefore be unjust, but render to Caesar the things which you acknowledge to be his at the same time, be not impious, but render unto God the things which belong to God.

This answer is full of consummate wisdom. It establishes the limits, regulates the rights, and distinguishes the jurisdiction of the two empires of heaven and earth. The image of princes stamped on their coins denote that temporal things belong all to their government.

The image of God stamped on the soul denotes, that all its faculties and power belong to the Most High, and should be employed in his service. But while the earth is agitated and distracted with the question of political rights and wrongs, you will naturally ask What 73

does a man owe to Caesar, to the civil government under which he lives? Our Lord has answered the question that which is Caesars’.

But what is it that is Caesars’? Honor, obedience and tribute.

1st The civil government under which a man lives, and by which he is protected demands his honor and reverence.

2nd The laws which are made for suppression of evil duos’ and the maintenances of good order, which are calculated to promote the benefit of the whole and the comfort of the individual should be religiously obeyed.

3rd The government that charged itself with the support and defense of the whole, should have its unavoidable expenses however great, repaid by the people, in whose behalf they are incurred; therefore we should pay tribute.

But, remember if Caesar should intrude into the things of God coin a new creed, or broach a new gospel and affect to rule the congregation while he rules the state, in these things Caesar is not to be obeyed. – Give not therefore God’s things to Caesar, and give not Caesar’s things.

Though all the duties we owe to public bodies and our fellow men as individuals. Our duties which God requires us to perform, and which are therefore are due to him, yet there are other duties which have a more particular respect to him. The authorities and powers that be, are ordained of God and so far as we can do it consistently with good reason and right conviction, he requires us to obey. He requires us to obey salutary laws of human appointment, as well as his own.

All that bears the image and subscription of civil government must be rendered to those that are in authority over us and that which has the image and subscription of God must be rendered to him.

But the great difficulty with the generality of mankind is not that they are unwilling to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but that they are backwards to render to God the things that are God’s.

There are many political demagogues in the world, but not half so many as there are religious demagogues, if I may use the expression. However numerous are the men who are dissatisfied with their earthly rulers, in every country there are more that are faithful and obedient to them than to god. It matters little whether the rulers are just or unjust, and whether their measures are wise or unwise, more can be found in every land that yield to their authority and their claims, than willingly submit to the government of God.

If you were to survey the whole of Christendom, you would probably find twenty if not forty that cheerfully pay tribute to Caesar, where you will find one that cordially pays his dues to the Lord. None but the real the real Christian pays tribute to God. All earthly governments are supported by the tribute of the people. They as already pay the taxes which are levied upon them. And as no human government can exist where the majority of the people withhold from their rulers that which is their due; the inference is that wherever there is a civil government supported , there the majority of the people actually render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. And yet how few comparatively of those came men are equally faithful and obedient to god.

74

In these U.S. a half of country more than 14 hundred miles square, every man not specially exempted by law, pays his taxes, to government; and yet how few of these seven millions of people pay the least possible tribute to the Almighty. A great proportion of those who are most ready to comply with the exactions of the chief magistrate of the country or of the state, are among the negligent to pay the lord his dues. I do not mention this because it is peculiar to the advocates of our own government. My object is not to represent them as being worse, in this respect than the great body of any people who approve of their rulers , and their government.

My object is simply this, to show how much more faithful, obedient and just mankind generally are to their earthly rulers than they are to their heavenly ruler. Does the temporal prince require tribute at the hands if all the inhabitants of the globe. Immutable justice is one the attributes of the Deity, and while in equity he insists upon our enduring unfailing obedience to the salutary laws of our civil rulers, is it with less equity that that he reveals and enforces his own claims upon our obedience?

It is a matter of no importance whether render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, if it be not a matter of infinite importance that we should also render unto God the things that are God’s. But what does he require that we should render unto him. The answer is all that bears his image and superscription. The money coined in this country is stamped with certain appropriate figures, which show that as it was issued by the authority of the government so in a certain sense it belongs to the government as well as to the individual in whose immediate possession it is found.

On any public emergency, so much of it as the occasion requires, is to be rendered back into the hands of those by whose authority it was coined. The superscription upon it shows that its coinage and its dispersion among the people is a state affair, and that it is therefore without any image to the rights of individuals, the property of the government.

Our time bears the image and superscription of God and is therefore to be debited to him.

God is the author of our existence and the continuation of it. It was with a view to our improving it in his service that he created it and gave us the benefit of it. Some of our time is indeed to be devoted to civil, military, professional or domestic purposes; but even this part of our time ought not to be so exclusively devoted to the world as to banish God from our thoughts and affections.

We owe many duties to the public, to our families and to every individual of our acquaintance, but ought to be preformed with religious views, for in this sense they duties which we owe to God. The whole of our time is God’s, and even that part if it in which we are fulfilling our obligation to others, it should so be spent as that god will accept the improvement of it. But every day brings us duties which we owe only to God. No small portion of our time should be spent in prayer.

The Sacred Scriptures contain such directions as these, Pray always, Pray without ceasing, And we cannot render unto God the things that are God’s unless we devote a part of our time to him in prayer. It is impossible to spend our time more acceptably to him or more profitably to our souls, than in pouring out our most fervent desires at the foot of his throne.

Certain it is that we devote none our time to him, if none of it be consecrated to this noble use. For he that possesses not the spirit of prayer, and never prays, is constantly destitute of that spirit, which only can fit a rational being for the discharge of any duty. Nor does he ever offer an acceptable prayer, who does not habitually call upon God both in 75

secret and the family. He who neglects the one never performs the other acceptably to God.

It would be necessity to specify all the duties in the performance of which the whole of our time should be devoted to God. As the bible allows to waste not a single moment in supine ness and indolence, the inference is that the whole of our probationary season is the Lord’s and should be actively employed in his service. But there is one day in seven which he emphatically calls his own. It is not Caesar’s, it cannot be lawfully laid under constitution to governmental or secular concerns.

The welfare of the community requires us to devote some of our time to the purpose of choosing rulers, paying them tribute, and investing in our national circumstances. But the Sabbath is the Lord’s and no mortal authority over us has the right to the political services of the people on that day. I do not say that the emergency of a nation may not sometimes be such as to require the soldier to bear arms and other men to enter into employment which would not otherwise be awful on the Sabbath.

My meaning is, that the situation of any country is rarely so perilous as to justify a man in dispensing with acts of devotion on the Sabbath and entering into the bustling scenes of either political or domestic life. And yet a great proportion of those who pretend to keep the Sabbath strictly. Are found to converse during the day on political and secular subjects, as freely as if the sacred hours belonged exclusively to Caesar.

People are too much accustomed to conduct on the Sabbath as if no part of it belonged to the Lord and especially no part of it except that which is employed in the service of the sanctuary. Nor do I suppose that those who inhabit the greater part of New England, are sinners beyond the Galileans in this town. I wish you to make use of your own observation in answering me when I ask if the conversation of the most of those with whom you associate during intermission of divine worship on the Sabbath day not savor more of this world than of that which is to come? Is not that sacred hour which is as much the Lord’s as any in the day, spent by fifties, if not hundreds in this congregation in discussing the affairs of the Prince regent, Bonaparte and Madison?

Probably more news of various kinds evaluated through out our country on the Sabbath than during all the rest of the week. It is not enough that mankind reads the newspapers on the week days they must rehearse their contents on the Lord’s day. And is almost every sanctuary, while divine service is performing, some of the audience sleep and some play.

And so prone to levity and disturbance are a part of the youth in the generality of religious assemblies, that all societies find it necessary to appoint and put under oath a set of men, to preserve decorum on the Lord’s day, and even in the courts of the living God.

Unless we have too much virtue and too much respect for the propriety of the Lord not to be shocked at the rehearsal of insults offered to him by congregations not a few, it would have no good effect to mention the audacious villainies customarily practiced in sanctuaries not far distant from this.

I could paint you a house erected for public worship not sixteen miles from us in which it has been for several months the determined purpose of many of the youth to break the heart of Christ’s messenger, and interrupt the devotion of the whole assembly. And it is remarked that not a few of those same persons who are so determined not to render unto God the things that are God’s are among the first to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. they are ready to do honor to the governor of the state, and to escort, him whenever he passes.

76

They would despise those holding unjustly in their possession the property of other men.

In presence of an earthly judicature, and even in a town meeting they would be civil, and neither say nor do anything to interrupt the progress of business. In a fashionable circle, their conduct would be such as to give no uneasiness to the company. But every time they enter the sanctuary they do all that they can to destroy its devotions, and that only because the day and the house and the worship are the Lord’s. if the day were one that had been set apart for the commemoration of our national independence, if the house were a ball room, and if the worship were professedly paid to the idol gods of the heathens, they would be more civil in their demeanor and give less disturbance to the assembly. Nor of all the hundreds of 1000 who customarily sleep during the hour of divine service, would many drowse if the prayers only so many invocations to Jupiter or Bacchus, or were the sermon of political oration.

It is because the tribute of wakefulness and attention is to be rendered unto God that they so readily withhold it. If the concerns of Caesar, that is the characters measures and claims of their earthly rulers, were to be brought into the desk, no mortal would sleep.

Those who are now most forward to extenuate drowsiness under the most pungent preaching of the cross by the consideration of their laboring hard on weekdays, would be wakeful as any of the audience, if the desk were transformed into a stage for political declamation.

If the sermon had nothing to do with the kingdom of God or with the eternal destinies of men, if it had respect only to the public affairs of America or Europe, what mortal in this assembly could be found sleeping during its delivery. When the messages of the President of the United States are read on the floor of the congress, what auditor was ever seen sleeping. And when in the council chambers of this state the governor delivers his inaugural speech, what individual of the vast multitude that crowd in to hear it, was ever discoursed with so much as his eyes shut. When in a civil court the judge is delivering his charge to the jury, or the lawyer is passionately pleading for or against a criminal at the bar, who of all that customarily throng in on such occasions, was ever so much as supposed to be drowsy? They are all wakeful, and many of them because they consider the time and occasion to be Caesar’s not the Lord’s.

I pass on to show 2nd ly That our talents as well as our time bear the image and superscription of God. Whatever faculty either of body or mind we have, it is the Lord’s for he is the author of it. He was by account of his sovereignty that we are distinguished from the brutes in the form of our bodies, and in structure of our minds. In a restricted sense these faculties belong to Caesar, that is the public, and all our acquaintances have a claim upon us to employ them so far as is in our power or their good. But this claim is only of a secondary nature.

It is founded on the consideration that the glory of God is promoted by all our honest endeavors to do good to every man as we have opportunity. But mankind are prone to consider their talents as their own or that if they are to use them for the benefit of any body besides themselves, it is for the benefit of their fellow men, and not for the glory of God.

The majority of sinners perhaps are kind to their families and neighbors, and improve every opportunity to do them good, which is not inconsistent with their own selfish schemes, but they are never incited to these friendly exactions by the consideration that they derive all their power of (missing portion of page)tion from God and that they ought 77

therefore to employ faculties in this matter chiefly because the honor of the great proportion of their talents is promoted by it.

God has given most men sufficient powers of mind to investigate and comprehend many of the most interesting and abstruse subjects of divinity he has given most of the inhabitants of gospel lands learning sufficient to read and understand the Sacred Scriptures and sufficient strength of intellect to admit of their being adept in the science of theology and yet how few of all the millions thus privileged are any the wiser in spiritual things for their talents and means of improvement.

Those talents which God made to be devoted more extensively to the study of the bible, than to the study of any thing else, are by the generality of mankind, taken away from their rightful owner, with drawn from their divinely intended use, devoted in all their vigor to Caesar. This wide world ought to be but one vast school room of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Corporally ought those who are privileged with the gospel to learn investigate and if possible comprehend the contents of the bible, rather than any or all other books that were ever written. The acquisition of this divine knowledge is a duty they owe to God for all their talents were primarily given them to fit them for the discharge of it. And yet how little is the bible read.

How ignorant are the generality of gospel sinners on the subjects of the gospel doctrine and gospel precept. The newspapers, profane histories and romances, comedies, and tragedies of Caesar, engross most of the investigations of generality of writers an readers.

Most of the inhabitants of the U.S. by means of reading observation and reflection are well acquainted with the political state of the country, but alas, how few of them comparatively have ever searched the Sacred Scriptures enough to become acquainted with the dreadful condition of their impious soul. As politicians they are learned (portion missing) of Christ.

They are shamefully ignorant.

Once more the soul of man as the seat the affections, bears the image and superscription of God, and ought therefore to be devoted to him, rather than to Caesar and the world. The adorable fountain of all intelligence has breathed into us a reasonable soul, and made us susceptible of love. But instead of loving him in whom every possible excellence is comprehended, the greater proportion of the world love most those things which are most unlike him. They love sin and hate holiness. They love the guilty pleasures of earth, and hate the rational sublime and everlasting enjoyments of heaven.

Every un-renewed soul that ought to love god to the very extent of its power, is filled with enmity against him. Among all the millions of impious there are no symptoms of attachment to the character and service of their creator. If they love the creator and service of their creator, if they loved the creator as much as they do the creature, if they loved God as much as they do the world they could not perish, for then they would love him with all their soul, heart, mind and strength. And this brings us to our concluding remark, which is, If mankind loved god with all the heart, they would infallibly render to God the things that are God’s, and also to Caesar the things which are Caesars.

Nothing but love to our Maker is wanting to secure our obedience to him. If we had this love we should render to God his due by obeying his laws as well as those of man, by keeping his holy faculty of our bodies and souls, to promote his glory. We should profane no sanctuary and no ordinance of his; and should conscientiously appropriate to God all that is his. But alas! How different from this is our conduct. We give most of our time 78

talents and affections to the world, and glory be to our abused God if the world does not ultimately prove ruin.

END OF SERMON 301

79

Am I pardoned or am I justified?

Sermon 44

Justification and pardoned, two words that, by societies standards, are mutually exclusive. You do not be pardoned if you are justified in an act, nor can you be justified if you are pardoned. Or can you?

This sermon is based on the religious premise that both terms apply to each other. All of us, being children of Adam, ultimately present at the original sin as Adam’s seed, therefore we are all born sinners. We were then pardoned for that sin by the crucifixion.

Reverend Hart shows us that, “No man is holy, only as he is made so by Christ, and that which Christ forms in us cannot be called absolutely and exclusively ours.” We are not made holy by our deeds, but by the devotion to performing those deeds for the glory of God.

We are pardoned by the blood of Christ and justified by our faith, we only need to claim our salvation. This salvation can only be received as a gift. It can not be bought for any price. The old saying applies that the gift is in the giving and God only gives. He doesn’t sell.

Moral, civil and religious laws all have their place, but the reverend shows that above all, the way to peace, glory and salvation is only obtained by letting God give you the gift. You must obey the first two but the third set of laws are actually the first and most important laws. Enjoy.

Daniel Sanford

80

Rev Luther Hart Sermon 44

Plymouth Oct 1812 – 1821

Romans 4:5 “But to him that workith not, but believes in him that justifeith the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

Justification is a judicial term being originally used with the sole reference to civil courts. But its theological sense imparts more. Justification in its legal sense, can mean no more than that the person accused, never performed the action alleged against him or if he did, that it was no crime.

In the civil view, pardon and justification are incompatible. Although a criminal may be pardoned, he can never be justified for an offence. So justice by him would be to say, he did not need pardon, for if he did need it, it would be wrong to justify him in a deed which was sinful and which as such required pardon or punishment. Or if the human court acquit a person, which is all that can be meant by justification, it implies only what he stands right in the view of law.

The law promises no reward to him who obeys it, it only exempts him from censure. He therefore that is innocent, cannot need pardon, and he who is pardoned cannot be justified, since it would imply that he was not guilty of the crime for which he was pardoned.

But in scriptural sense, justification is perfectly consistent with pardon. And indeed they are intimately connected. That they are never confused separately. Pardon and justification however are doubtless distinct exhibitions of God’s goodness according to our catechism, there appear to be two constituent parts of justification; one wherein he pardoneth all our sins and the other, wherein he accepteth us as righteous in his sight.

It is granted that both take place instantaneously and together, yet there are probably two distinct arts of God in it. If there be only one art in it. I see not why our system of religion need have but one part and one name; and why it might not be striped of every term except one, which relates to the restoration of the sinner.

Although the terms conversion, represents faith, love, adoption, sanctification salvation and are always consistent, do they all, of course, admit of the same definition, and imply only a simple art of God in their production?

We are pardoned through the efficacy of Jesus’ atonement, which satisfies the law which we are sentenced to death. Our pardon implies that our sins, when he suffered on the cross, were imparted to him; not however so imparted to him as to render him guilty of our sins; but so as that in perfect innocence he might atone for them. But our justification implies that his righteousness, is imparted to us.

Pardon of itself, it appears to me, can mean no more that an exemption from deserved punishment; but justification, imparts in addition to this freedom from punishment, a title to positive happiness. This is manifest from the words of the apostles, Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access unto this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God and in the acts of the apostles we read, “That they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me” Justification then 81

evidently goes beyond pardon it entitles its subject to a reward, and us in stead of that holiness which by our fall we had lost.

It is not indeed our righteousness, it is only counted to us for righteousness. No man is holy, only as he is made so by Christ, and that which Christ forms in us cannot be called absolutely and exclusively ours. When a sinner is converted, he is justified not because there is anything good in him, which he can call his own, but because Christ sees in his heart his own image which by divine grace he had planted there. Christ sees nothing in humbled soul which he himself did not plant it.

That is nothing which can be a ground of justification. Justification is an art of free grace.

It supposes that there is nothing in us which can render us acceptable in the eyes of God.

Were there any thing in us which is by nature holy, we could demand the reward of holiness, but the sufferings and death of Christ prove both, that we have no holiness of heart, and of course no claims on God for a reward.

We are totally corrupt our sins being committed against an infinite God, are infinitely heinous. Certainly there cannot be any thing in us on the account of which God can justify us. On the contrary we are all naturally under condemnation, for not believing the truth.

Every man comes into the world with a heart of unbelief. And no temper or frailty can render the sinner more odious in the view of God. By nature we are under a curse, and until this is taken off, justification is impossible. But we cannot remove the curse.

We delight in the very temper and conduct which place us in the state of condemnation.

Therefore wherever a sinner is justified, it must be done by the self moved compassion and power of God. This is perfect consistent with, and in the stain of the words in our text. But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifeith the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

II I proceed to show that we are justified by faith and that too without the deeds of the law.

Several passages which I have already quoted go to prove this point. No doctrine is more clearly asserted in the Bible than the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The apostle says of Christ “that he might be just, and the justification of him which believeth in Jesus. He did not say of him which worketh for such a declaration would have contradicted a plain assertion to the contrary, which he had just before made!

“Therefore by the deeds of the law. There shall no flesh be justified in his sight.”

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God . For if Abraham were justified by works he hath where of to glory, but not before God. For what saith the scriptures Abraham believed God and it was counted to him. For righteousness. They that be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. And in direct terms St. Paul affirms , a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.

If you can show me a sentiment in the bible expressed in more unequal oral language.

The reason why the deeds of the law are ineffectual is evident. No law can at the same time justify and condemn. We have all broken the law and are under condemnation. How then can we hope to be acquitted by the very law which condemns us?

The law itself knows no pardon. Its language is, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. how far from righteousness therefore are we, when every action is sin, and our highest efforts of obedience are 82

miserable imperfect! Faith was the ground of Abraham acceptance with God and is the ground of the salvation of all the redeemed.

The deeds of the law are of no importance compared faith, “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of no effect. But it is impossible that the promise of God should not be performed, for it is as sure as his throne, therefore that which is connected with, or relies on the promise, cannot be made void.

Faith is the ground of justification, only as it receives the gift of righteousness from Christ without money and without price; therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace and if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace, and the apostles tell us “for by grace ye are saved; and this is the only foundation of hope. And any thing which could infringe upon the system of grace as would a reliance on works, would defeat our salvation.

When the Apostles says “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified” many make use of a wretched and shameful shift. They suppose the works of the criminal law only are intended. But that the apostle did not mean works of the ceremonial law only, is manifest from the following considerations.

1st In other places the apostle does not speak of the works of any law either ceremonial, or moral; but of works in general sense. In our text it is said, “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifeith, and in another place, God imputeth righteousness without works. For by grace are ye saved, through faith not of works.

These are not a quarter of the passages in which works are spoken of with out reference to any law whatever. What right then has the objector to apply then works to ceremonial law, when no such law mentioned in distinction from any other. If such licentious freedom is given to a man, as this he can prove Christ disprove every doctrine of the gospel.

Inclination and convenience form a most wretched rule by which to interpret the scriptures.

2ndly Whenever the phrase “the law” occurs in the preceding part of the apostles, the moral law must be principally intended. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law. Merely the want of the ceremonial law could form no reason why any should perish; for no body, not even the objector himself ever supposed, that the deeds of this law could save sinners. This is the very thing which he disclaims is this argument.

Therefore as there is nothing saving in having the ceremonial law, they, being destitute of it, can be no reason why any should perish.

Again thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal, than that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God. What but the moral law can be here intended.

The ceremonial says nothing about such crimes such as stealing, committing adultery, and idolatry. But the moral law does and very explicitly. And it was the moral law that the young man in the gospel said he had kept from his youth up and this he said with an air of boasting.

3rdly In the chapter preceding the one from which our text is taken, it is said by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Pray, does the knowledge of sin come by the ceremonial law? If so, why is it now 83

abolished? And since it is abolished why are we not all ignorant of sin, and justifiable in doing that which seemeth right in our own eyes? No My Hearers, such reasoning will not answer. It is the moral law, by which we chiefly arrive to the knowledge of sins; if not why is it called a moral law?

4thly When the apostle says we are not justified by the deeds of the law. He excludes all our own virtue, for this evident reason; “That boasting might be excluded,” Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By What law? Of works? Nay, but the law of faith. Therefore we conclude a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. For by grace are ye saved, through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God.

Not of works, but any man should boast. But how is boasting excluded if ceremonial law only is intended. Men always boast of some supposed goodness which they profess; but they do not suppose that goodness consists in obeying the ceremonial law. They boast because they fancy they have kept the moral law, but if this justifies them, surely boasting is not excluded and the apostles argument is good for nothing.

5thly The apostle has the same objection against our being justified by our own righteousness as he has against our being justified by the works of the law, and he plainly uses own righteousness and works of the law as signifying the same thing. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto righteousness of god. But it is evident that St. Paul does not a ceremonial righteousness. There can be no such thing.

No, he means by the phrase, going about to establish their own righteousness, an attempt of theirs to procure salvation, by obeying the moral law. As before noticed this was the righteousness of the young ruler, as appears by his own confession. Christ spoke this parable unto certain which trusted in them selves that they were righteous and despised others.

Now this righteousness was framed on an obedience to the moral law principally, is clear from the parable itself for the proud Pharisee boasted that he was not an extortion, unjust nor an adulterer.

All these crimes are forbidden in the moral law, but the ceremonial had nothing to do with them, and if the apostle had nothing but this law in view when he said boasting is excluded, certainly the Pharisee and every other man may boast, whose rule of action is the moral law. But boasting is excluded in sermons alters as much by one law as another; and an obedience to no law can either save us, or allow of boasting, For in another place he says,

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the washing God. These arguments are abundantly sufficient to show that the moral law is principally intended, when it is said

“by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” And this is for several reasons,

1st We need a perfect righteousness. Nothing short of this will answer the demands of the law, which is perfectly holy. God cannot justify sinners at the expense of his law, that must be maintained in all its original honor. Alas! How poor is our obedience, when compared with the perfect requirements of the law and can God sacrifice the honor of his law, or his 84

own honor by justifying us for anything short of a perfect righteousness. No, the whole role of sinners had better have perished, than that law which God has determined to support, to magnify and make honorable, should be repealed or given up.

2ndly If justification were by our own works, it could not be by grace. But our only hope is in divine grace. The apostle places it thee, and so does reason 3rdly Justification cannot be by works of the law, for then we might boast; but the gospel plan excludes boasting. It goes on the supposition that we can do; nothing acceptable to God that we are impotent and wretched. “For when we were without strength in our time Christ died for the ungodly.”

Before we can be justified, we must feel our need of a salvation. We must humble ourselves in the dust, and see the justice of God is casting us off forever. With these views and feelings, we cannot boast. We should feel unworthy to receive a crumb that falls from Christ’s table. We are guilty wretched creatures, and we must know it, and realize it. Our in ability to help it before we can receive any benefit from the mediation of Christ.

III I shall briefly consider the peculiar nature of faith, and the manner in which it justifies.

Saving faith, according to the heart, whereby we receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel. This faith is not speculative. It demands the whole heart and all its affection. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.

It demands assent upon the authority of God’s word, even when we have no consummate testimony of sensation and experience, said our Lord to Thomas, Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.” As to the manner in which faith justifies, In deed faith does not justify us; it is only the instrument by which we receive Christ who himself justifies the ungodly.

He that has saving faith is justified not because it is in itself meritorious but because it is the condition of justification. Faith cannot be meritorious for 5 reasons.

1st it might justify be required of us, through there no reward connected with it. We ought all to believe in Christ and receive him with cordial affections; even if we were at last to be cast off into outer darkness. We are justified by faith, yet not for faith.

2nd In this world faith cannot be perfect; of course it does not answer demands of the divine law, and therefore cannot be a perfect righteousness.

3rd ly We are justified on account of the righteousness of faith itself then cannot be that for which we are justified. The exercise of faith as a ground of justification, is opposed to all works but the promise of this blessing is to him that worketh not but believeth’

4th ly If faith itself be that on account of which we are justified. Then some believers are justified by a man and some by a less perfect righteousness. According to the strength or weakness of their faith. But the righteousness on account of which we are justified must be to the greatest possible degree perfect; no other will answer in the eye of the law. The 85

righteousness then can be no other then the perfect obedience of Christ, which certainly is not our faith, Christ is end of the law for righteousness to every one which believeth.

5th ly Were faith itself our righteousness we might depend upon it for justification and acceptance with God but this would be making a righteousness of our own, and disregarding that of Christ. On this plain faith would be the only thing and that which would justify us but this would be absurd, it would be making something which existed in the creative, a ground of his justification.

Hence it appears that there is nothing meritorious in faith. Nothing can belong to us as creatures which would render it proper for God to justify us. Faith indeed render it proper as it is given to us by Christ and as it receives him in all mediatorial offices. It places no dependence on itself, but relies solely on the righteousness of Christ. In short, we are justified by faith, because it is so intimately connected with, and is the great recipient of that righteousness of Christ, which is infinitely meritorious.

In the language of a celebrated writer, “it appears therefore, that free grace is the source of our justification that the righteousness and atonement of Emmanuel are the meritorious cause of it and that faith is the only recipient of the blessing justification may therefore be ascribed either to the source, to the meritorious causes or to the recipient of it, even as a drowning person may be said to be saved, either by the man or the bank of the river, or by the rope handed out to him, by his hand apprehending the rope, according to the different ways in which we speak on the subject.

The manner in which faith justifies, may be illustrated, by considering in what sense a bank note pays a demand made on a person. The intrinsic value of the paper is not one fast thing: but refers the creditor to a company who are engaged and competent to answer the demands; and therefore it is accounted to the debtor as so much paid in spare. Thus faith refers God the Father to Christ, who is able and willing to answer for every believer, and therefore it is imparted to us for righteousness.”

From this subject My Hearers we learn how wretched our state is by nature. By the fall we were undone, we were plunged into a gulf of misery from which no mortal arm could raise us. Alas how full of sin and wo is the world into which we were born, and we enter it only to multiply the evils consignment upon the apostasy of man. But here we lie under the weight of a curse which we cannot remove; we our under the most solemn obligations to obey a law, which by our voluntary disobedience we have rendered ourselves morally incapable of obeying.