3. Doubtful actions are sinful.
He that doubts is damned if he eats, because he eats not
in faith; whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans
14:28)
It was a custom among the idolatrous heathen to offer
the bodies of
slain beasts in sacrifice. A part of every beast that
was offered
belonged to the priest. The priests used to send their
portion to market
to sell, and it was sold in the shambles as any other
meat. The
Christian Jews that were scattered everywhere were very
particular as
to what meats they ate, so as not even to run the least
danger of
violating the Mosaic law, and they raised doubts, and
created disputes
and difficulties among the churches. This was one of
the subjects
about which the church of Corinth was divided and
agitated, until they
finally wrote to the apostle Paul for directions. A
part of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians was doubtless written as a
reply to such
inquiries. It seems there were some who carried their
scruples so far
that they thought it not proper to eat any meat; for if
they went to
market for it, they were continually in danger of
buying that which was
offered to idols. Others thought it made no difference;
they had a right
to eat meat, and they would buy it in the market as
they found it, and
give themselves no trouble about the matter.
To quell
the dispute, they
wrote to Paul, and in chapter six, he takes up the
subject and
discusses it in full.
"Now, as touching things offered unto idols, we
know that we all have
knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies.
And if any man
think that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet
as he ought to
know. But if any man love God, the same is known of
him. As
concerning therefore the eating of those things that
are offered in
sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing
in the world, and
that there is none other God but one. For though there
be that are
called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there
be gods many,
and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the
Father, of whom
are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in
every man that
knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol unto
this hour eat it
as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience,
being weak, is
defiled.
"His conscience is defiled," that is, he
regards it as a meat offered to
an idol, and is really practicing idolatry.
The eating
of meat is a matter
of total indifference, in itself.
"But meat commends us not to God; for neither if
we eat are we the
better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse. But
take heed lest by
any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling
block to them that
are weak. For if any man see thee, which hast
knowledge, sit at meat
in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him
which is weak be
emboldened to eat those things offered to idols; and
through thy
knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ
died?"
Although they might have a sufficient knowledge on the
subject to
know that an idol is nothing, and cannot make any
change in the meat
itself, yet if they should be seen eating meat that was
known to have
been offered to an idol, those who were weak might be
emboldened
by it to eat the sacrifices as such, or as an act of
worship to the idol,
supposing all the while that they were but following
the example of
their more enlightened brethren.
But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound
their weak
conscience, ye sin against Christ. "Wherefore, if
meat make my
brother to offend, I will eat no more flesh while the
world stands, lest
I make my brother to offend."
This is his benevolent conclusion, that he would rather
forego the use
of flesh altogether than be the occasion of drawing a
weak brother
away into idolatry. For, in fact, to sin so against a
weak brother is to
sin against Christ.
In writing to the Romans he takes up the same subject
the same
dispute had existed there. After laying down some
general maxims
and principles, he gives this rule:
"Him that is weak in faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputation.
For one believeth that he may eat all things; another
who is weak, eats herbs."
There were some among them who chose to live entirely
on
vegetables, rather than run the risk of buying in the
shambles flesh
which had been offered in sacrifice to idols. Others
ate their flesh as
usual, buying what was offered in market, asking no
questions for
conscience' sake.
Those who lived on vegetables charged
the other
with idolatry. And those that ate flesh accused the
others of
superstition and weakness. This was wrong.
"Let not him that eats, despise him that eats
not; and let not him
which eats not, judge him that eats; for God hath
received him.
Who are you that judges another man's servant? to his
own master
he stands or falls; yea, he shall be held up; for
God is able to
make him stand."
There was also a controversy about observing the Jewish
festival days
and holy days. A part supposed that God required this,
and therefore
they observed them. The others neglected them because
they
supposed God did not require the observance.
"One man esteems one day above another; another
esteems
every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in
his own mind. He
that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and
he that regards not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard
it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he
that eats not,
to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks. For
none of us lives
to himself, and no man dies to himself. For whether we
live, we live
unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the
Lord: whether we
live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this
end Christ both
died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both
of the dead
and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why
dost thou set
at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before
the judgment-seat
of Christ. For as it is written, As I live, says the
Lord, every knee shall
bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So
then every one
of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not
therefore, judge
one another any more: but judge this rather, that no
man put a
stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall in his
brother's way."
Now mark what he says.
"But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now
walk thou not
charitably: destroy not him with thy meat, for whom
Christ died."
That is, I know that the distinction of meats into
clean and unclean, is
not binding under Christ, but to him that believes in
the distinction, it
is a crime to eat indiscriminately, because he does
what he believes
to be contrary to the commands of God. "All things
indeed are pure,
but it is evil to him that eats with offense."
Every man should be
persuaded in his own mind, that what he is doing is
right. If a man eat
of meats called unclean, not being clear in his mind
that it is right, he
offends God.
"It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink
wine, nor any thing whereby
thy brother stumbls, or is offended, or is made
weak."
This is a very useful hint to those wine-bibbers and
beer guzzlers, who
think the cause of temperance is going to be ruined by
giving up wine
and beer, when it is notorious, to every person of the
least
observation, that these things are the greatest
hindrance to the cause
all over the country.
"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.
Happy is he that condemns not himself in THAT thing which he
allows.
And he that doubts is damned if he eat, because he eats not of
faith; for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
The word rendered damned means condemned, or adjudged
guilty of
breaking the law of God. If a man doubts whether it is
lawful to do a
thing, and while in that state of doubt, he does it, he
displeases God,
he breaks the law and is condemned whether the thing be
in itself right
or wrong. I have been thus particular in explaining the
text in its
connection with the context, because I wished fully to
satisfy your
minds of the correctness of the principle laid down
that if a man
does that of which he doubts the lawfulness, he sins,
and is
condemned for it in the sight of God.
Whether it is lawful itself, is not the question. If he
doubts its
lawfulness, it is wrong in him.
There is one exception which ought to be noticed here,
and that is,
where a man as honestly and fully doubts the lawfulness
of omitting
to do it as he does the lawfulness of doing it.
President Edwards
meets this exactly in his 39th resolution:
"Resolved, never to do any thing that I so much
question the
lawfulness of, as that I intend, at the same time, to
consider and
examine afterwards, whether it be lawful or not: except
I as much
question the lawfulness of the omission."
A man may have equal doubts whether he is bound to do a
thing or
not to do it. Then all that can be said is, that he
must act according to
the best light he can get. But where he doubts the
lawfulness of the
act, but has no cause to doubt the lawfulness of the
omission, and yet
does it, he sins and is condemned before God, and must
repent or be
damned. In further examination of the subject, I
propose,
I. To show some reasons why a man is criminals for
doing that of
which he doubts the lawfulness. II. To show its
application to a number
of specific cases. III. Offer a few inferences and
remarks, as time may
allow.
I. I am to show some reasons for the correctness of the
principle laid
down in the text that if a man does that of which he
doubts the
lawfulness, he is condemned.
1. One reason why an individual is condemned if he does
that of which
he doubts the lawfulness, is that if God so far
enlightens his mind
as to make him doubt the lawfulness of an act, he is
bound to stop
there and examine the question and settle it to his
satisfaction.
To illustrate this: suppose your child is desirous of
doing a certain
thing, or suppose he is invited by his companions to go
somewhere,
and he doubts whether you would be willing, do you not
see that it is
his duty to ask you? If one of his schoolmates invites
him home, and
he doubts whether you would like it, and yet goes, is
not this palpably
wrong?
Or suppose a man cast away on a desolate island, where
he finds no
human being, and he takes up his abode in a solitary
cave,
considering himself as all alone and destitute of
friends, or relief, or
hope; but every morning he finds a supply of nutritious
and wholesome
food prepared for him, and set by the mouth of his
cave, sufficient for
his wants that day. What is his duty? Do you say, he
does not know
that there is a being on the island, and therefore he
is not under
obligations to any one? Does not gratitude, on the
other hand, require
him to search and find out his unseen friend, and thank
him for his
kindness? He cannot say, "I doubt whether there is
any being here,
and therefore will do nothing but eat my allowance and
take my ease,
and care for nothing." His not searching for his
benefactor would of
itself convict him of as desperate wickedness of heart,
as if he knew
who it was, and refused to return thanks for the favors
received.
Or suppose an Atheist opens his eyes on this blessed
light of heaven,
and breathes this air, sending health and vigor through
his frame.
Here is evidence enough of the being of God to set him
on the inquiry
after that Great Being who provides all these means of
life and
happiness. And if he does not inquire for farther
light, if he does not
care, if he sets his heart against God, he shows that
he has the heart
as well as the intellect of an Atheist. He has, to say
the least, evidence
that there MAY BE a God. What then is his business?
Plainly, it is to
set himself honestly, and with a most child-like and
reverent spirit, to
inquire after him and pay him reverence. If, when he
has so much light
as to doubt whether there may not be a God, he still
goes around as
if there were none, and does not inquire for truth and
obey it, he
shows that his heart is wrong, and that it says let
there be no God.
There is a Deist, and here a book claiming to be a
revelation from
God. Many good men have believed it to be so. The
evidences are
such as to have perfectly satisfied the most acute and
upright minds
of its truth. The evidences, both external and internal
are of great
weight.
To say there are no evidences is itself enough
to bring any
man's soundness of mind into question, or his honesty.
There is, to lay
the least that can be said, sufficient evidence to
create a doubt
whether it is a fable and an imposture. This is in fact
but a small part,
but we will take it on this ground. Now is it his duty
to reject it? No
Deist pretends that he can be so fully persuaded in his
own mind, as
to be free from all doubt. All he dares to attempt is
to raise cavils and
create doubts on the other side. Here, then, it is his
duty to stop, and
not oppose the Bible, until he can prove without a
doubt, that it is not
from God.
So with the Unitarian. Granting (what is by no means
true) that the
evidence in the Bible is not sufficient to remove all
doubts that Jesus
Christ is God; yet it afford evidence enough to raise a
doubt on the
other side, and he has no right to reject the doctrine
as untrue, but is
bound humbly to search the scriptures and satisfy
himself.
Now no
intelligent and honest man can say that the scripture
afford "no
evidence" of the divinity of Christ. They do
afford evidence which has
convinced and fully satisfied thousands of the acutest
minds, and who
have before been opposed to the doctrine. No man can
reject the
doctrine without a doubt, because here is evidence that
it may be true.
And if it may be true, and there is reason to doubt if
it is not true, then
he rejects it at his peril.
Then the Universalist. Where is one who can say he has
not so much
as a doubt whether there is not a hell, where sinners
go after death
into endless torment. He is bound to stop and inquire,
and search the
scriptures. It is not enough for him to say he does not
believe in a hell.
It may be there is, and if he rejects it, and goes on
reckless of the truth
whether there is or not, that itself makes him a rebel
against God. He
doubts whether there is not a hell which he ought to
avoid, and yet he
acts as if he was certain and had no doubts. He is
condemned. I once
knew a physician who was a Universalist, and who has
gone to
eternity to try the reality of his speculations.
He once told me that he had strong doubts of the truth
of
Universalism, and had mentioned his doubts to a
minister, who
confessed that he, too, doubted its truth, and he did
not believe there
was a Universalist in the world who did not.
2. For a man to do a thing when he doubts whether it is
lawful shows
that he is selfish, and has other objects besides doing
the will of God.
It shows that he wants to do it to gratify himself. He
doubts whether
God will approve of it, and yet he does it. Is he not a
rebel? If he
honestly wished to serve God, when he doubted he would
stop and
inquire and examine until he was satisfied. But to go
forward while he
is in; doubt, shows that he is selfish and wicked, and
is willing to do it
whether God is pleased or not, and that he wants to do
it, whether it
is right or wrong. He does it because he wants to do
it, and not
because it is right.
3. To act thus is an impeachment of the divine
goodness.
He assumes it as uncertain whether God has given a
sufficient
revelation of his will, so that he might know his duty
if he would. He
virtually says that the path of duty is left so
doubtful that he must
decide at a venture.
4. It indicates slothfulness and stupidity of mind.
It shows that he had rather act wrong than use the
necessary diligence
to learn and know the path of duty. It shows that he is
either negligent
or dishonest in his inquiries.
5. It manifests a reckless spirit.
It shows a want of conscience, an indifference to
right, a setting aside
of the authority of God, a disposition not to do God's
will, and not to
care whether He is pleased or displeased, a desperate
recklessness
and headlong temper, that is the height of wickedness.
The principle then, which is so clearly laid down, in
the text and
contest, and also in the chapter which I read from
Corinthians, is fully
sustained by examination that for a man to do a thing,
when he
doubts the lawfulness of it, is sin, for which he is
condemned before
God, and must repent or be damned.
II. I am now to show the application of this principle
to a variety of
particular cases in human life.
But, first I will mention some cases where a person may be
equally in
doubt with respect to the lawfulness of a thing,
whether he is bound to
do it or not to do it.
Take the subject of Wine at the Communion Table.
Since the temperance reformation has brought up the
question about
the use of wine, and various wines have been analyzed
and the
quantity of alcohol they contain has been disclosed,
and the difficulty
shown of getting wines in this country that are not
highly alcoholic, it
has been seriously doubted by some whether it is right
to use such
wines as we can get here in celebrating the Lord's
supper.
Some are
strong in the belief that wine is an essential part of
the ordinance, and
that we ought to use the best wine we can get, and
there leave the
matter. Others say that we ought not to use alcoholic
or intoxicating
wine at all; and that as wine is not, in their view,
essential to the
ordinance, it is better to use some other drink.
Both these classes are undoubtedly equally
conscientious, and
desirous to do what they have most reason to believe is
agreeable to
the will of God. And others, again, are in doubt on the
matter. I can
easily conceive that some conscientious persons may be
very
seriously in doubt which way to act. They are doubtful
whether it is
right to use alcoholic wine, and are doubtful whether
it is right to use
any other drink in the sacrament. Here is a case that
comes under
President Edwards' rule, "where it is doubtful in
my mind, whether I
ought to do it or not to do it," and which men
must decide according to
the best light they can get, honestly, and with a
single desire to know
and do what is most pleasing to God.
I do not intend to discuss this question, of the use of
wine at the
communion, nor is this the proper place for a full
examination of the
subject. I introduced it now merely for the purpose of
illustration. But
since it is before us, I will make two or three
remarks.
(1.) I have never apprehended so much evil as some do,
from the use
of common wine at the communion. I have not felt
alarmed at the
danger or evil of taking a sip of wine, a teaspoonful
or so, once a
month, or once in two months, or three months. I do not
believe that
the disease of intemperance (and intemperance, you
know, is in reality
a disease of the body) will be either created or
continued by so slight
a cause. Nor do I believe it is going to injure the
temperance cause so
much as some have supposed. And therefore, where a
person uses
wine as we have been accustomed to do, and is fully
persuaded in his
own mind, he does not sin.
(2.) On the other hand, I do not think that the use of
wine is any way
essential to the ordinance. Very much has been said and
written and
printed on the subject, which has darkened counsel by
words without
knowledge. To my mind there are stronger reasons than I
have
anywhere seen exhibited, for supposing that wine is not
essential to
this ordinance. Great pains have been taken to prove
that our Savior
used wine that was unfermented, when he instituted the
supper, and
which therefore contained no alcohol. Indeed, this has
been the point
chiefly in debate, But in fact it seems just as
irrelevant as it would to
discuss the question, whether he used wheat or oaten
bread, or
whether it was leavened or unleavened.
Why do we not
hear this
question vehemently discussed? Because all regard it as
unessential.
In order to settle this question about the wine, we
should ask what is
the meaning of the ordinance of the supper. What did
our Savior
design to do? It was to take the two staple articles
for the support of
life, food and drink, and use them to represent the
necessity and virtue
of the atonement.
It is plain that Christ had that view of it, for it
corresponds with what he
says, "My flesh is meat indeed, and thy blood is
drink indeed." So he
poured out water in the temple, and said, "If any
man thirst, let him
come unto me and drink." He is called the
"Bread of life." Thus it was
customary to show the value of Christ's sufferings by
food and drink.
Why did he take bread instead of some other article of
food? Those
who know the history and usages of that country will
see that he chose
that article of food which was in most common use among
the people.
When I was in Malta, it seemed as if a great part of
the people lived on
bread alone. They would go in crowds to the market
place, and buy
each a piece of coarse bread, and stand and eat it.
Thus the most
common and the most universally wholesome article of
diet is chosen
by Christ to represent his flesh. Then why did he take
wine to drink?
For the same reason; wine is the common drink of the
people,
especially at their meals, in all those countries. It
is sold there for
about a cent a bottle, wine being cheaper than small
beer is here.
In Sicily I was informed that wine was sold for five
cents a gallon, and
I do not know but it was about as cheap as water. And
you will observe
that the Lord's supper was first observed at the close
of the feast of
the passover, at which the Jews always used wine.
The
meaning of
the Savior in this ordinance, then, is this: As food
and drink are
essential to the life of the body, so his body and
blood, or his
atonement, are essential to the life of the soul.
For myself, I am fully convinced that wine is not
essential to the
communion, and I should not hesitate to give water to
any individual
who conscientiously preferred it. Let it be the common
food and drink
of the country, the support of life to the body, and it
answers the end
of the institution. If I was a missionary among the
Esquimaux Indians,
where they live on dried seal's flesh and snow-water, I
would
administrate the supper in those substances. It would
convey to their
minds the idea that they cannot live without Christ. I
say, then, that if
an individual is fully persuaded in his own mind, he
does not sin in
giving up the use of wine. Let this church be fully
persuaded in their
own minds, and I shall have no scruple to do either
way, if they will
substitute any other wholesome drink, that is in common
use, instead
of the wine. And at the same time, I have no objection
myself against
going on in the old way.
Now, do not lose sight of the great principle that is
under discussion.
It is this: where a man doubts honestly, whether it is
lawful to do a
thing, and doubts equally, on the other hand whether it
is lawful to omit
doing it, he must pray over the matter, and search the
scriptures, and
get the best light he can on the subject, and then act.
And when he
does this, he is by no means to be judged or censured
by others for
the course he takes. "Who art thou that judgest
another man's
servant?" And no man is authorized to make his own
conscience the
rule of his neighbor's conduct.
A similar case is where a minister is so situated that
it is necessary for
him to go a distance on the Sabbath to preach, as where
he preaches
to two congregations, and the like. Here he may
honestly doubt what
is his duty, on both hands. If he goes he appears to
strangers to
disregard the Sabbath. If he does not go, the people
will have no
preaching. The direction is, let him search the
scriptures, and get the
best light he can, make it a subject of prayer, weigh
it thoroughly, and
act according to his best judgment.
So in the case of a Sabbath-school teacher. He may live
at a distance
from the school, and be obliged to travel to it on the
Sabbath, or they
will have no school. And he may honestly doubt which is
his duty, to
remain in his own church on the Sabbath, or to travel
there, five, eight,
or ten miles, to a destitute neighborhood, to keep up
the Sabbath
school. Here he must decide for himself, according to
the best light he
can get.
And let no man set himself up to judge over a
humble and
conscientious disciple of the Lord Jesus.
You see that in all these cases it is understood and is
plain that the
design is to honor God, and the sole ground of doubt
is, which course
will really honor him. Paul says, in reference to all
laws of this kind,
"He that regards the day, regards it unto the
Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard
it." The design
is to do right, and the doubt is as to the means of
doing it in the best
manner.
Secondly I will mention some cases, where the DESIGN is
wrong,
where the object is to gratify self, and the individual
has doubts
whether he may do it lawfully. I shall refer to cases
concerning which
there is a difference of opinion to acts of which the
least that can be
said is that a man must have doubts of their being
lawful.
1. Take, for instance, the making and vending of
alcoholic drinks.
After all that has been said on this subject, and all
the light that has
been thrown upon the question, is there a man living in
this land who
can say he sees no reason to doubt the lawfulness of
this business.
To say the least that can be said, there can be no
honest mind but
must be brought to doubt it. We suppose, indeed, that
there is no
honest mind but must know it is unlawful and criminal.
But take the
most charitable supposition possible for the distiller
or the vender, and
suppose he is not fully convinced of its unlawfulness.
We say he must, at least, DOUBT its lawfulness. What is
he to do
then? Is he to shut his eyes to the light, and go on,
regardless of truth,
so long as he can keep from seeing it? No. He may cavil
and raise
objections as much as he pleases, but he knows that he
has doubts
about the lawfulness of his business; and if he doubts,
and still
persists in doing it, without taking the trouble to
examine and see what
is right, he is just as sure to be damned as if he went
on in the face of
knowledge. You hear these men say, "Why, I am not
fully persuaded
in my own mind that the Bible forbids making or vending
ardent
spirits." Well, suppose you are not fully
convinced, suppose all your
possible and conceivable objections and cavils are not
removed, what
then? You know you have doubts about its lawfulness.
And it is not
necessary to take such ground to convict you of doing
wrong. If you
doubt its lawfulness, and yet persist in doing it, you
are in the way to
hell.
2. So where an individual is engaged in an employment
that requires
him to break the Sabbath.
As for instance, attending on a post-office that is
opened on the
Sabbath, or a turnpike gate, or in a steam-boat, or any
other
employment that is not work of necessity. There are
always some
things that must be done on the Sabbath, they are works
of absolute
necessity or of mercy.
But suppose a case in which the labor is not necessary,
as in the
transportation of the mail on the Sabbath, or the like.
The least that
can be said, the lowest ground that can be taken by
charity itself,
without turning fool, is, that the lawfulness of such
employment is
doubtful. And if they persist in doing it, they sin,
and are on the way to
hell. God has sent out the penalty of his law against
them, and if they
do not repent they must be damned.
3. Owning stocks in steamboat and railroad companies,
in stages,
canal boats, etc., that break the Sabbath.
Can any such owner truly say he does not doubt the
lawfulness of
such an investment of capital? Can charity stoop lower
than to say,
that man must strongly doubt whether such labor is a
work of
necessity or mercy? It is not necessary in the case to
demonstrate that
it is unlawful though that can be done fully, but only
to show so
much light as to create a doubt of its lawfulness. Then
if he persist in
doing it, with that doubt unsatisfied, he is condemned
and lost.
4. The same remarks will apply to all sorts of lottery
gambling. He
doubts.
5. Take the case of those indulgences of appetite which
are subject of
controversy, and which, to say the least, are of
doubtful right.
(A.) The drinking of wine, and beer, and other
fermented intoxicating
liquors. In the present aspect of the temperance cause,
is it not
questionable at least, whether making use of these
drinks is not
transgressing the rule laid down by the apostle,
"It is good neither to
eat flesh nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth,
or is offended, or made weak." No man can make me
believe he has
no doubts of the lawfulness of doing it. There is no
certain proof; of its
lawfulness, and there is strong proof of its
unlawfulness, and every
man who does it while he doubts the lawfulness, is
condemned, and
if he persists, is damned.
If there is any sophistry in all this, I should like to
know it, for I do not
wish to deceive others nor to be deceived myself. But I
am entirely
deceived if this is not a simple, direct, and necessary
inference, from
the sentiment of the text.
(B.) Tobacco. Can any man pretend that he has no doubt
that it is
agreeable to the will of God for him to use tobacco? No
man can
pretend that he doubts the lawfulness of his omission of these
things. Does any man living think that he is bound in
duty to make use
of wine, or strong beer, or tobacco, as a luxury? No.
The doubt is all
on one side. What shall we say then, of that man who
doubts the
lawfulness of it, and still fills his face with the
poisonous weed? He is
condemned.
(C.) I might refer to tea and coffee. It is known
generally, that these
substances are not nutritious at all, and that nearly
eight millions of
dollars are spent annually for them in this country.
Now, will any man
pretend that he does not doubt the lawfulness of
spending all this
money for that which is of no use, and which are well
known to all who
have examined the subject, to be positively injurious,
intolerable to
weak stomachs, and as much as the strongest can dispose
of? And
all this while the various benevolent societies of the
age are loudly
calling for help to send the gospel abroad and save a
world from hell?
To think of the church alone spending millions upon
their tea tables
is there no doubt here?
6. Apply this principle to various amusements.
(A.) The theater. There are vast multitudes of
professors of religion
who attend the theater. And they contend that the Bible
no where
forbids it. Now mark. What Christian professor ever
went to a
theater and did not doubt whether he was doing what was
lawful. I by
no means admit that it is a point which is only
doubtful. I suppose it is
a very plain case, and can be shown to be, that it is
unlawful. But I am
now only meeting those of you, if there are any here,
who go to the
theater, and are trying to cover up yourselves in the
refuge that the
Bible nowhere expressly forbids it.
(B.) Parties of pleasure, where they go and eat and
drink to surfeiting.
Is there no reason to doubt whether that is such a use
of time and
money as God requires? Look at the starving poor, and
consider the
effect of this gaiety and extravagance, and see if you
will ever go to
another such party or make one, without doubting its
lawfulness.
Where can you find a man, or a woman, that will go so
far as to say
they have no doubt? Probably there is not one honest
mind who will
say this. And if you doubt, and still do it, you are
condemned.
You see that this principle touches a whole class of
things, about
which there is a controversy, and where people attempt
to parry off by
saying it is not worse than to do so and so, and thus
get away from the
condemning sentence of God's law. But in fact, if there
is a doubt, it is
their duty to abstain.
(C.) Take the case of balls, of novel reading, and
other methods of
wasting time. Is this God's way to spend your lives?
Can you say you
have no doubt of it?
7. Making calls on the Sabbath. People will make a
call, and then
make an apology about it. "I did not know that it
was quite right, but I
thought I would venture it." He is a
Sabbath-breaker in heart, at all
events, because he doubts.
8. Compliance with worldly customs at new-year's day.
Then the ladies
are all at home, and the gentlemen are running all
about town to call
on them, and the ladies make their great preparations,
and treat them
with their cake, and their wine, and punch, enough to
poison them
almost to death, and all together are bowing down to
the goddess of
fashion. Is there a lady here that does not doubt the
lawfulness of all
this? I say it can be demonstrated to be wicked, but I
only ask the
ladies of this city, Is it not doubtful whether this is
all lawful?
I should call in question the sanity of the man or
woman that had no
doubt of the lawfulness of such a custom, in the midst
of such
prevailing intemperance as exists in this day. Who
among you will
practice it again? Practice it if you dare at the peril
of your soul! If
you do that which is merely doubtful, God frowns and
condemns; and
HIS voice must be regarded.
I know people try to excuse the matter, and say it is
well to have a day
appropriated to such calls, when every lady is at home
and every
gentleman freed from business, and all that. And all
that is very well.
But when it is seen to be so abused and to produce so
much evil, I ask
every Christian here, if you can help doubting its
lawfulness? And if it
be doubtful, it comes under the rule: "If meat
make my brother to
offend." If keeping new-years leads to so much
gluttony, and
drunkenness, and wickedness, does it not bring the
lawfulness of it
into doubt? Yes, that is the least that can be said,
and they who doubt
and yet do it, sin against God.
9. Compliance with the extravagant fashions of the day.
Christian lady! have you never doubted, do you not now
doubt,
whether it be lawful for you to copy these fashions,
brought from
foreign countries, and from places which it were a
shame even to
name in this assembly? Have you no doubt about it? And
if you doubt
and do it, you are condemned, and must repent of your
sin, or you will
be lost forever!
10. Intermarriages of Christians with impenitent
sinners.
This answer always comes up. "But after all you
say, it is not certain
that these marriages are not lawful." Supposing it
be so, yet does not
the Bible and the nature of the case make it at least
doubtful whether
they are right? It can be demonstrated, indeed, to be
unlawful But
suppose it could not be reduced to demonstration; what
Christian ever
did it and did not doubt whether it was lawful? And he
that doubts is
condemned. See that Christian man or woman that is
about forming
such a connection doubting all the way whether it is
right: trying to
pray down conscience under pretext of praying for
light: praying all
around your duty, and yet pressing on. Take Care! You
know you
doubt the lawfulness of what you propose, and remember
that "he that doubts is damned."
Thus you see, my hearers, that here is a principle that
will stand by
you when you attempt to rebuke sin, if the power of
society be
employed to face you down, or put you on the defensive,
and demand
absolute proof of the sinfulness of a cherished
practice. Remember
the burden of proof does not lie on you, to show beyond
a doubt the
absolute unlawfulness of the thing. If you can show
sufficient reason
to question its lawfulness, and to create a valid doubt
whether it is
according to the will of God, you shift the burden of
proof to the other
side. And unless they can remove the doubt, and show
that there is no
room for doubt, they have no right to continue in the
doubtful practice,
and if they do, they sin against God.
REMARKS
1. The knowledge of duty is not indispensable to moral
obligation, but
the possession of the means of knowledge is sufficient
to make a
person responsible.
If a man has the means of knowing whether it is right
or wrong he is
bound to use the means, and is bound to inquire and
ascertain at his
peril.
2. If those are condemned, and adjudged worthy of
damnation, who
do that of which they doubt the lawfulness, what shall
we say of the
multitudes who are doing continually that which they
know and
confess to be wrong?
Woe to that man who practices that which he condemns.
And "happy
is he that condemns not himself in that thing which
he allows."
3. Hypocrites often attempt to shelter themselves
behind their doubts
to get clear of their duty.
The hypocrite is unwilling to be enlightened, he does
not wish to know
the truth, because he does not wish to obey the Lord,
and so he hides
behind his doubts, and turns away his eye from the
light, and will not
look or examine to see what his duty is, and in this
way he tries to
shield himself from responsibility. But God will drag
them out from
behind this refuge of lies, by the principle laid down
m the test, that
their very doubts condemn them.
Many will not be enlightened on the subject of
temperance, and still
persist in drinking or selling rum, because they are
not fully convinced
it is wrong. And they will not read a tract or a paper,
nor attend a
temperance meeting, for fear they shall be convinced.
Many are
resolved to indulge in the use of wine and strong beer,
and they will
not listen to anything calculated to convince them of
the wrong. It
shows that they are determined to indulge in sin, and
they hope to
hide behind their doubts. What better evidence could
they give that
they are hypocrites?
Who, in all these United States, can say, that he has
no doubt of the
lawfulness of slavery? Yet the great body of the people
will not hear
anything on the subject, and they go into a passion if
you name it, and
it is even seriously proposed, both at the north and at
the south, to
pass laws forbidding inquiry and discussion on the
subject. Now
suppose these laws should be passed, for the purpose of
enabling the
nation to shelter itself behind its doubts whether
slavery is a sin, that
ought to be abolished immediately will that help the
matter? Not at
all. If they continue to hold their fellow men as
property, in slavery,
while they doubt its lawfulness, they are condemned
before God, and
we may be sure their sin will send them out, and God
will let them
know how He regards it.
It is amazing to see the foolishness of people on this
subject; as if by
refusing to get clear of their doubts, they could get
clear of their sin.
Think of the people of the south: Christians, and even
ministers,
refusing to read a paper on the subject of slavery, and
perhaps
sending it back with abusive or threatening words.
Threatening! for
what? For reasoning with them about their duty? It can
be
demonstrated absolutely, that slavery is unlawful, and
ought to be
repented of, and given up, like any other sin. But
suppose they only
doubt the lawfulness of slavery, and do not mean to be
enlightened,
they are condemned of God. Let them know that they
cannot put this
thing down, they cannot clear themselves of it. So long
as they doubt
its lawfulness, they cannot hold men in slavery without
sin; and that
they do doubt its lawfulness is demonstrated by this
opposition to
discussion.
We may suppose a case, and perhaps there may be some
such in the
southern country, where a man doubts the lawfulness of
holding
slaves, and equally doubts the lawfulness of
emancipating them in
their present state of ignorance and dependence. In
that case he
comes under Pres. Edward's rule, and it is his duty not
to fly in a
passion with those who would call his attention to it,
not to send back
newspapers and refuse to read, but to inquire on all
hands for light,
and examine the question honestly in the light of the
word of God, till
his doubts are cleared up. The least he can do is to
set himself with all
his power to educate them and train them to take care
of themselves
as fast and as thoroughly as possible, and to put them
in a state where
they can be set at liberty.
4. It is manifest there is but very little conscience
in the church.
See what multitudes are persisting to do what they
strongly doubt the
lawfulness of.
5. There is still less love to God than there is
conscience.
It cannot be pretended that love to God is the cause of
all this
following of fashions, this practicing indulgences, and
other things of
which people doubt the lawfulness. They do not persist
in these things
because they love God so well. No, no, but they persist
in it because
they wish to do it, to gratify themselves, and they had
rather run the
risk of doing wrong than to have their doubts cleared
up. It is because
they have so little love for God, so little care for
the honor of God.
6. Do not say, in your prayers, "O Lord, if I have
sinned in this thing,
O Lord, forgive me the sin."
If you have done that of which you doubted the
lawfulness, you have
sinned, whether the thing itself be right or wrong. And
you must
repent, and ask forgiveness.
And now, let me ask you all who are here present, are
you convinced
that to do what you doubt the lawfulness of, is sin? If
you are, I have
one more question to ask you. Will you from this time
relinquish every
thing of which you doubt the lawfulness? Every
amusement, every
indulgence, every practice, every pursuit? Will you do
it, or will you
stand before the solemn judgment seat of Jesus Christ,
condemned?
If you will not relinquish these things, you show that
you are an
impenitent sinner, and do not intend to obey God, and
if you do not
repent you bring down upon your head God's condemnation
and
wrath, for ever.
|