THE

LIBERAL PREACHER.

VOL. I.]

FEBRUARY, 1828.

SERMON XI.

BY REV. HENRY WARE, JR. BOSTON, MASS.

[No. 8.

[Preached before the Fragment Society of Boston, and (with variations) before the Female Humane Society of Marblehead.]

THE DUTY OF USEFULNESS.

I CORINTHIANS X. 24.

LET NO MAN SEEK HIS OWN, BUT EVERY MAN ANOTHER'S WEALTH, (OR WELFARE.)

THE precepts of the gospel sometimes fall in with, and sometimes oppose, the natural feelings of the heart. Every disposition and propensity which is kind, amiable, and just, leading to uprightness, truth, and virtue, Christianity smiles upon and cherishes. Every disposition and propensity which leads to falsehood, malice, and mischief, it frowns upon and condemns.

One of the strongest natural feelings is self love. It is inherent in all beings. Whether rational or irrational, whether more or less exalted, they all love themselves and seek their own happiness. This principle in man is rebuked or countenanced by the doctrine of Christ, according to the manner in which it is modified by other principles. If it be single, unmixt, uncontrolled, the only motive which governs the character and directs the life; it is then a thorough selfishness which leads to all sin, and is utterly and peremptorily denounced. But when it is kept under sober control, regulated by reason, limited by regard to the rights and happiness of others, and to the laws of equity, kindness, and truth; then it is allowed and advocated by Christianity. Our Lord would blot out and destroy none of the native characteristics of man; he seeks but to correct, renew, and exalt them.

And in doing this, he applies a man's love for himself as the rule by which to regulate his love for his neighbor-Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; a precept, which has been nowhere better paraphrased than by Dr. Watts :

And let thy kindness to thyself,

MEASURE AND RULE thy love to him.

"No one," says the apostle, "ever hated his own flesh;" neither does God require it of him; but so to control his partiality for it, as that it shall never interfere with the regard which is due to his neighbor. Accordingly, it is the purpose of the gospel to bring the benevolent principle to an equality, as far as possible, with the selfish. It would adjust the one by the other, graduate them side by side, and make them equal, active, and successful partners in the promotion of human happiness. And, as "love is the fulfilling of the law," it would thus instruct the Christian to perform all his duties toward man, with the same ardor and fidelity with which he instinctively follows the promptings of self love and the natural desire of happiness.

To effect this, is obviously no slight operation. It is part of that great change which the gospel contemplates in the character of man. It is not to be denied, that originally the selfish principle predominates. The human creature, on first coming into existence, while as yet the only being of whose happiness he knows himself to have any charge, and before the reasoning faculty has attained any supremacy over the animal nature, cares for his own happiness without respect to that of others, and readily sacrifices their interests to his. And indeed, notwithstanding all which has been effected by education, experience, and Christianity, this instinctive principle of self love still retains in too many its ascendancy over the character, and stifles the growth of the benevolent sentiment. But this is to be changed by the spirit of the gospel, which addresses its rebuke to the selfishness of the soul, and breathes into it the most extensive and disinterested generosity, and publishes precepts of kindness and regard for others the most distinct and positive. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's welfare."

Here, you observe, there is nothing optional. It is not left to a man's opinion, or judgment, or convenience, or interest. But it is bound upon him as a duty. The authority which makes it a duty to be honest, makes it also a duty to be generous; and no more leaves it to a man's choice whether he may be benevolent, than whether he may be just.

This is placing the matter in a light in which many seem unwilling to regard it. Men would claim the greater virtue in their charity from being allowed, as they fancy, not to be charitable except they please. But no such permission is given in the gospel of Christ; and, therefore, he who avoids this virtue, must bear the double shame of having no heart for the most amiable of all graces, and no allegiance for the highest of all authority.

These remarks are sufficient to introduce the point which I have specially in view. Since the Christian religion is thoroughly adverse to all selfishness, and to every mode of life which is governed by selfish views and devoted to selfish ends; it is an obvious consequence, that it is man's duty, in all his habits and pursuits, to have regard to others as well as to himself; that is, as it is expressed by Paul in the text, to seek not only his own welfare, but that of others also. This is saying in other words, that it is every man's duty to be as useful as he can. To this point your attention is invited; and I ask you to look at it practically, not as a matter of speculation, or an abstract proposition in ethics; but as a rule of actual life, to be applied to the government of your habitual conduct.

My doctrine is, that there is an obligation on men to lead useful lives; and that every man is bound to make usefulness his rule in his plans and pursuits.

That is to say, a man is not to regard himself as an insulated being, sent upon earth only for his own happiness; but as one of a multitude, for all of whom the common Parent equally cares, and whose happiness he is therefore not at liberty to disregard. This consideration should always be present with him. In forming his plans of life and projects of personal good, he is to inquire whether they interfere with the interests of another. If so, no profit which they may bring to himself, will excuse him for prosecuting them.

He may have a legal right to go on and advance his own interest, however it may be to the detriment of another. He may trample on the poor man his neighbor, and avail himself of the defencelessness of the widow, and take advantage of the unskilful in trade, and obstruct the inexperience of youth. But all this, which the policy of the world may allow, the kind spirit of the gospel, yes, the eternal rule of equity, condemns.-So also of the character of his pursuits. He may have a legal right to enter upon any occupation which shall grant a livelihood, or make him rich, without regard to its injurious operation on others. But he has no moral right, no Christian right, to do it. He may erect a building for the single purpose of spreading the temptations to intemperance, or for affording accommodations and enticements to gambling, or for pernicious entertainments which corrupt the taste and debauch the morals of the community; the Law may grant him its honorable licence, and spread over him the wing of its strong protection; it may, perchance, be the most profitable employment which he can follow; it may yield to him a more generous support than is given to the teachers of your high seminaries of learning, the ministers of the everlasting gospel, or the magistrates and legislators of the land. But what then? He is still living by iniquity; he is engaged in spreading corruption; he flourishes on the ruin of his fellow-men; his prosperity is in proportion to their disgrace, and he lives by hastening their death. Whatever human laws may say, he has no right to do this. It was not for this that he was sent into the world. Both natural morality and Christian precept cry out against this prostitution of his power, and lay upon him their imperative injunction to pursue an occupation innocent at least, if he cannot make it absolutely beneficial.

And here it may be necessary to observe a distinction; for I have no intention of straining a point of duty beyond reasonable bounds. It would do injury to a cause which I have greatly at heart. We are not, then, to interpret this obligation of usefulness so straitly as to infer, that no pursuit is allowable but such as promotes directly the welfare of other men or of society. If we should insist upon this, it is plain that the major part of men would find no occupation.

It must be accounted sufficient that a man's calling be not injurious, or that it be indirectly useful to the whole by its benefit to those whom scripture calls HIS OWN. For it is worthy of observation, that that skilful system of the 'division of labor,' of which man has so happily availed himself, as a fortunate invention for the advancement of human improvement, has been most beautifully exemplified in the original constitution of things. The great Founder of Society has provided for its welfare by committing it, in separate small portions, to the care of separate responsible individuals, dividing the whole into families, each having its own head and protector. There it is that lies every man's first duty; and a large portion of mankind have little allotted to them beyond this natural sphere of their action. Providence has committed to them nothing more than the charge of their "own households." It is enough, then, as regards the general welfare, that the business by which they support their families be of no detriment to other men. They are not required to make it directly subservient to the general good.

It is to be observed further, that in a civilized state of society, there are many callings essential to the general comfort and refinement, which cannot be, and ought not to be, dispensed with, which can yet in only a very secondary sense be denominated useful. Much that pertains to the habitual conveniences and accommodations of polished life, to the graces and elegancies, without which society returns to a barbarous state, to the arts, and the fine arts, is to be numbered among matters which no one could pursue, because useful in a strictly religious sense. Yet they are so indispensable to the highest advancement of human society, that they are not to be proscribed by religion. They were too scrupulous interpreters of religious obligation, who forbad to Christians the arts of music and painting and all ornamental accomplishments. They are not, it is true, to be ranked with the labors of instructors, pastors, magistrates, and philanthropists. But they fill a necessary place. Society could not well do without them. They are like the inferior members of the body, less honorable than the head and the main limbs, but not therefore to be despised. All cannot