SERMON 138B:
On Dissimulation
(A Fragment)Romans 12:9
Let love be without dissimulation.

From that most agreeable, as [also that] most indispensable duty, of loving our neighbour as ourselves, no Christian possibly can, and none ever desired to be, released. So express and frequently repeated are the precepts that enjoin it, that while their authority is allowed to be divine, their force can never be eluded. So great and numerous are the advantages resulting from it, as to all men, so in particular to him who himself observed it, that he would be far from desiring it if it could [be eluded].19 Love gives him spirit and vigour to attempt and conquer the most dangerous and difficult parts of his duty: and withal so sweetens the attempt that what without it would be tedious, if not painful, by means of this becomes highly pleasing. While we are employed in relieving one we love from pain, we ourselves can very hardly be sensible of any: while we bring an addition to his happiness we can't avoid increasing our own.
Yet from this, as from most other strong principles of acting, at least from the appearances of them, much evil as well as much good may result; to prevent which St. Paul lays down, in the words of the text, a very necessary caution concerning it: let love be without dissimulation; let our affection to our neighbor be true, genuine, and sincere; let no part of it, much less the whole, be put on to serve a turn. . . .
. . . We shall more evidently see the absolute necessity of this loving without dissimulation if we consider, first, the General Reasons there are. . . .20

SERMON 138C:
On Dissimulation (Another Fragment)

[I.] . . . that sort of deceit which of all others has most to plead [by way of] excuse. 'Will you speak wickedly', saith he, 'for God? And talk deceitfully for him?'21 'Shall not his excellency make you afraid, and his dread fall upon you?'d Now if we must not use deceit, then we must [not] dissemble, even for God's sake; the latter including the former. And if we must not dissemble for God's sake, much less may we do it for the sake of our neighbour or ourselves. And if we may not use deceit or dissimulation with a laudable end in view, least of all may we use it with no end at all, or merely for the sake of a jest: 'As a madman who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am I not in sport?'22

II. But of all dissimulation the most inexcusable is that which is now, in the second place, to be considered: that which counterfeits affection where there is none; or where there is, couples it with dissembling. For beside the reasons above repeated against dissimulation in general, there are several others over and above, which particularly require that our love should be without dissembling. Though were there none of these latter our obligation would nevertheless very plainly appear: for if all dissimulation be unlawful,23 every precept that enjoins the love of our neighbour enjoins love without dissimulation.

But setting this aside, to dissemble love implies either that we really have none, or that we strive to make the love we have appear greater than it is. But whether it be taken in one sense or the other it is a [practice] as despicable as it is foolish, and [odious] to God and man.24 For the folly of the dissembler in either case is evident, in that with the same if not less pains than he bestows on the appearance of this or any other Christian virtue he might purchase the reality. A man of no extraordinary parts with ordinary diligence may attain to the real love of his neighbour, may every day acquire farther degrees of it, and secure himself in the possession of them. And in none of these particulars can he possibly be disappointed, unless by his own fault; since if his own strength be not sufficient, one that is able to keep his promise has promised to supply him with more.25 He on the contrary who aims at the appearance of love only, should besides his natural parts―which ought doubtless to be exceeding good, since he is to depend wholly upon them―have an extraordinary share of diligence, the shadow being both more hard to be grasped, and more apt to slip from us afterwards, than the substance. When he has it, it requires at least as much pains to keep as it did at first to acquire it. And this it highly concerns him to do; for should he ever let it go, should he ever suffer the mask to drop off, all his designs are unravelled, all his labour vain. What folly is it, then, to take so great pains for what is of no value if obtained, and what you can neither be sure of obtaining nor of keeping it if you do; especially since a thing of the same kind, only infinitely more valuable, is to be obtained with far less labour; since this we can't fail of if we really desire it, any more than we can fail of being the better for having it.

Were it only on this account, were only his folly to be considered, a dissembler of love would be a very despicable character. And that it is so mankind is generally agreed; most men concurring in a sincere contempt of him who is insincere in his professions of love to others. Indeed, whether they did or no, there is something so extremely base, so particularly mean and servile in this sort of dissimulation, that a generous spirit could never descend to it. To act in perpetual contradiction to one's own desires and sentiments, to commend him for whom one has no real esteem, to watch over his interests for whom one has no real love, are instances of the most low and abject slavery. And yet these and numberless others is he we speak of under a necessity of submitting to.26 He must submit to perform all the tender offices that naturally flow from real affection, all which nothing but real affection can make pleasing. To perform them on any other principle is at best a dull, insipid task, commonly wearisome and painful. And yet as if all this were not enough, he usually overacts his part, generously taking on himself the only show of generosity he has, more pains than he need, than properly belong to his undertaking.

Such ungenerous, servile baseness of temper as this must needs raise contempt in all that are witnesses of it, unless themselves have reason to be afraid of the same condemnation. And hatred as well as contempt it can scarce fail of raising, seeing it is mischievous as well as servile. From professed enemies prudence and caution may secure us; but what will secure us from professing friends?27 'Tis easy to ward off a stroke, when we see it coming.28 But where is the fence against that which we do not suspect till we feel it? There is no fence against the mischief it does private men; and scarce any against the prejudice it brings to the interests of mankind in general. How destructive is it of mutual trust among men! Not only those who have been themselves betrayed, but all who hear of their misfortune will be afterwards less willing to trust anyone. How destructive is it of mutual love among men, for this very reason: if they must not trust others, they must not put themselves so much into their power as to be plain and open with them; but this love almost necessarily requires. Besides, if mutual confidence be taken away, we can never be sure of any man's love, notwithstanding his most ardent professions; but by our not believing the sincerity of his love to us one of the strongest motives to return it is lost.

It cannot be but that the occasion of so much ill to mankind must be odious as well to God as man;29 since as he is nearly concerned for the welfare of his creatures he must be sharply displeased at what impairs or destroys it; more particularly when it strikes at the root of their happiness by overthrowing that peace and goodwill which he knows was most necessary to it, and therefore made it one of the great commandments of his law, and inseparably joined it to the other, his own glory. Whatever prejudices this must needs be odious in his sight; and therefore. . . .