Phila delphia > Sermons from the Penny Pulpit by Charles G. Finney (page 2 of 5) Web WStS  powered by Google™

In behalf of the Christian Instruction Society

Delivered on Wednesday Evening, June 12, 1850

BY THE REV. PROFESSOR FINNEY

OF OBERLIN COLLEGE, UNITED STATES

AT THE TABERNACLE, MOORFIELDS, LONDON.

This lecture was typed in by Bob Wynn.
Reformatted by Katie Stewart

I don't know that it is necessary to take a new text; I have been requested, on this occasion, to dwell upon "the obstacles presented by great cities to the spread of the Gospel." In so doing, I shall consider--

I. THE GREAT OBSTACLE, WHICH IS COMMON TO ALL PLACES AND ALL TIMES.

II. I SHALL CALL ATTENTION TO SOME OBSTACLES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO GREAT CITIES.

III. I SHALL STATE THE CONDITIONS OF OVERCOMING THESE OBSTACLES.

If we were going about any particular business, the first thing is, of course, to understand what it is we are going about. What, therefore, is the evil we aim at correcting? What is moral depravity? This is necessary to be understood, for it is everywhere to be found; it is common to all humanity, to all times, and to all places. Human nature is substantially the same in every age and nation, in this respect. Although existing, in its outward development, in a great variety of forms, nevertheless, in all cases, it resolves itself into a simple unit. Unless people understand this, they will go about matters in such a way as to fail. I should like to enlarge on this single thought, but we must now proceed to inquire, " What is the difficulty to be overcome?"

Let me say, then, that all sin may be said to resolve itself into this--a spirit of devotion to self. It is generally believed, I suppose, that our first parents, when they sinned, fell into a state of total alienation from God. What was the particular thing they did? They withdrew their devotion from God, in order to gratify themselves, in spite of His authority. He told them they might eat of every tree in the garden, save one. He designed to throw a restraint upon them, for the sake of subduing their wills--developing and strengthening their virtue; but then they withdrew their allegiance from God, and set up to be gods themselves! The tempter said, "Ah! though God said, Of every tree of the garden mayest thou eat, except of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; thou mayest eat even of that, and in the day in which thou dost eat thereof thou shalt NOT surely die, but ye shall be as gods, knowing good from evil!" Of this, when Eve saw it, she partook. What constituted the great evil of this? It was not only disobedience to God's expressed commands, but it was sinning simply for the sake of their own personal gratification. Instead of seeking the honor, and obeying the commands of the Almighty, they withdrew themselves from God, and devoted themselves to the promotion of their own interests, in despite of God. Now, this is the sin of all mankind, for they withhold their allegiance from God, and devote themselves to themselves. "Selfishness" is a word which may express the will of sin, if properly understood. It matters not at all which of the propensities overrules the rest, and leads the mind into bondage. Sin consists in man's giving himself up to himself--to his own gratification, and seeking his own pleasure and profit. This develops itself in a great variety of ways. In one man, one propensity entices the will to seek its particular gratification; in another, another. This gratification of the various propensities--this devotion of the will and of the being to pleasing self in some way or other-is the great evil of the world. Now, whatever makes strong and powerful appeals to these propensities, are obstacles to be overcome. The thing to be done, is to withdraw man from himself, and to bring him to God. Our first parents set up to be gods for themselves. Now, if they had come back, and consecrated themselves to God, yielding up their whole being to obey Him, and seeking His interest and His glory--to have done this, would have been to have returned to God. There must be begun in us that devotion to God which constitutes piety. We must forsake ourselves; for virtue, or holiness, resolves itself into a unit as much as sin does, and the mind devoted to self, is a mind totally depraved; while the mind devoted to God--seeking his glory, and yielding itself up to be influenced by Him--this is a pious mind. Now, to induce men to cease altogether to live to and for themselves, and to live to God, is to restore them to a position in which they can be happy. A great many persons seem to talk, as if in this, and in all great cities, the people were very peculiar. Now, the peculiarity is not with the people, but it is with the circumstances which make the selfishness, which takes one development in one place, and another in another. The fact is, great cities are the very hot--beds of those influences which make such strong appeals to these propensities, yielding the mind up to which, constitute sin. The appetite for food or drink, when inordinate, is not a constitutional appetite, but the will seeking gratification; whereas the Almighty forbids us to give ourselves up to obey and seek the gratification of these propensities, instead of subordinating every one of them to the will and glory of God.

I pass on, then, in the next place, to inquire into some of the difficulties in the way of securing the end I have just named, namely, the subjugation of selfishness. Scarcely any of these difficulties are peculiar to great cities, in the sense that they do not exist at all in other places--for almost all of them exist in most places;--but the peculiarity is, that they exist in a multiplied form in great cities. Things in the way in great cities, may be expressed thus:--Great cities expose men to most aggravated forms of temptation. Don't let me be supposed to assert, that these things don't exist in other places: but that they do really exist in a most intense degree in great cities.

This subject might be divided, for the sake of being condensed into a single sermon--for a month would scarcely suffice to go right into the detail, and to make it take hold of the mind of the people--I shall, therefore, just name the things, and show what the difficulties are, and who are guilty of these things. I said, for the sake of classification and condensation, I may regard these aggravated forms of temptation under different heads.

1. The temptations which are peculiar to the Church.

2. Those which are peculiar to the world, as distinct from the Church.

3. Those which are common to both. I don't mean to say, that this classification is so distinct as not to run these divisions into one another; but I have taken them simply for the sake of condensation.

• (1.) The obstacles which are peculiar to the Church of Christ. Here, after all, is to be found the great evil, and I must begin where I am pained to have to begin, but where I must begin, or I should fail to touch the very core of the difficulty. What I have to say on this subject may fall far short of hitting the right nail on the head, because I am so much of a stranger in London and England; I shall speak, therefore, of things as I have observed them in the great cities of America. Now, I have resided in all the great cities of America, and I presume that these things are to be found in all the great cities of Christendom, to a greater or less degree. First, then, I have said I shall notice the temptations peculiar to the Church of Christ; and first of all, to the ministers of the Church. For, after all, if the difficulties did not act on the pulpits, on the ministers who occupy them--that is, if the ministers were left unshackled, unbiased--they would, after all, lead the sacramental hosts of God's elect to overcome these difficulties, and that in every great town throughout all Christendom. I don't mean the temptations of ministers are the only things in the way, but as all the root of the matter lies in them--for Satan knows right well, that if he can pervert and corrupt that source--if he can do anything to beget an unfaithful ministry, he can do the rest well enough; therefore it is his policy, in some way or other, to render the pulpit powerless; and just so far as he succeeds in doing this, he gains his end. Here are temptations too numerous to mention, except just to be glanced at.

And, first, ministers in great cities are more intensely tempted than in other places, to seek popularity with worldly men. Such men exist more in great cities than anywhere else. This is one of the great temptations which often takes effect--seeking popularity with worldly men. Everyone can see, when a man yields to these, he has bound a fetter upon his own spirit--he has tied his own heart, if he allows himself to do this; the fact is, that the pulpit is muzzled, and the minister, as far as his influence is concerned, is about ruined. In order to obtain popularity with the worldly great, the ministers of great cities are tempted to aim at excellence in scholarship and oratory, and to let these, and a multitude of other things, get dominion over the mind. They are tempted to aim at getting connected with their Churches and congregations, the worldly great.

Now, what is the influence of this upon him? Why, of course, he is come into such relations to these men, that he will, without being aware of the extent to which he does it, he will temporize--he will denounce sin in the abstract from the pulpit, but no one's sin in particular. In great cities, ministers are tempted to be vehement in denouncing sin, but no particular sin. They do not say what sin of character they are reproving. It is nobody, and no sin in particular. They take care, however, to imply that they don't mean their own congregation--they don't mean that. I know that ofttimes there are influences of this kind so powerfully exerted upon them, that it should lead Christians to pray for their ministers a thousand times more than they do. If they knew the policy of the devil, who wishes to bribe to silence the minister, and make him afraid to do his duty--afraid to rebuke the wickedness in high places--the Church would lie on her face, if she has any piety.

Ministers in great cities are tempted to avoid giving offence to worldly men, even to worldly professors of religion. In fact, some ministers lose caste with their brethren, because they do not keep "good" congregations. Worldly professors of religion are generally found to be rich, luxurious, great, intelligent; they not only endanger his loss of character, but of usefulness. Such temptations are very great. Again, ministers in great cities are tempted to aim at pleasing, rather than disturbing their worldly hearers. The thing they ought to do, is to aim at disturbing all classes of their hearers who are living in sin, and at rendering them as unhappy as possible in their sin, and thus hunting it out of them. Instead of aiming to please them, they should endeavor to make them anything but pleased with themselves. They shape things to please, when they ought to aim at creating agony in their minds, too great to be endured without submission to God. Another great evil is, the want of union among ministers in these respects. One feels he must not stir in this matter, because others do not. He says, If I offend so and so, he will go to yon other Church, where he will be received immediately.

Now, if all would unite to hunt such men, it would be different. Many say, If I could only have the co-operation of my brethren--if all would agree to spare no pains to arouse to a sense of their danger every class of mankind, especially the worldly great and luxurious, then I could stand; but I cannot do it alone. Another temptation of ministers in great cities is, that even professors of religion are often extremely fastidious. They want peculiar ministers. They have itching ears--even professors of religion want such teachers as will not probe them too deeply, or hunt them out of their sins. They want ministers to please them, and the ungodly who belong to their rank in society. I have often known professors regretting that their ministers said anything to offend such and such a wealthy individual. They might possibly expostulate with him for this, but more probably they will go and speak against him behind his back, and thus cripple his influence; thus his own Church will not say, God speed to him--will not say, We will stand by you. No! They throw out hints about being "so personal," and all this, which cripples his hands, and completely discourages his heart. There are multitudes of such things as these in great cities.

But let me say again, ministers in great cities are tempted to neglect the wants of the masses of the people, both in and out of the pulpit. I have observed in our country, that there is a great deficiency in this respect. The sermons are framed, not so much to meet the wants of the masses, as those of certain individuals in the higher walks of society, and of advanced education. They aim at pleasing such persons, instead of coming down to the masses of the people, and suiting their pulpit instructions to them. It is, no doubt, true, that sermons directed to the masses, are, for efficiency, even more acceptable to the educated and higher classes of society then any other. The fact is, that the senators, and other great men, would be more affected by sermons addressed to the commonest people in the congregation, or even to children, than by some efforts to amuse and please themselves. Yet in great cities ministers are tempted, and to a great extent yield to the temptation, to neglect, both in and out of the pulpit, to sympathize with, adapt themselves to, and aim at the salvation of the masses. They rather aim at a few individuals, and aim, moreover, in such a manner as rarely to hit even them. Flattery causes them very often to temporize; they are often flattered by their hearers, and then they don't like to deal faithfully with them. Ministers are often drawn in by dining with such persons, and in various other ways come into such relations with persons in high places--they suffer themselves to be drawn into such relations with them--that they neither can, nor dare, after that, be faithful with them. It is easy to see that these things have a direct influence on the minister, and are a serious evil--a worm at the root--at the very vitals--which must be overcome.

One word more on this head. A great difficulty, every one knows, who has thoroughly investigated the subject, is, that ministers are tempted to indefiniteness in their statements. They temporize in this way--they don't fail to denounce sin, but they do fail to denounce the particular sin of their particular hearers. There is a great temptation to neglect to make people feel that they mean them. The temptation is to temporize so as to denounce sin in the aggregate; but while they do this, they may preach about other people's sins, and the congregation may go with them. They may thunder from the pulpit against such and such people's sins, and the congregation may join with them. The wickedest man on earth will denounce lying, and every kind of injustice and wickedness, and everybody's practice and sin, except his own. But if a minister denounces sin in the abstract, and does not make you feel that "I mean you," he fails. What is done, after all? Why, you might fill this city and the world with such ministers, and do but little, almost no good. I must not enlarge upon this. There are materials enough, painful as they are, to fill a volume, instead of occupying the few moments I am able to devote to them in this sermon.

• (2.) The difficulties presented by the membership of the Churches. These, too, are far too numerous to be detailed in one sermon. First, they are strongly tempted to secure to their churches the attendance of ungodly, but wealthy men. I have often noticed, that if our people were preparing to build a church--or chapel, as you call it here--they were tempted to have an undue regard for wealthy and influential men. They build the chapel in a locality which will be agreeable to them. They employ a minister of such a character as will suit them. They must have a popular man, but, unfortunately, he is popular in the bad sense of the term. There are many men popular, but in very different ways. Some are popular for usefulness to the poor; others for getting the support of the rich, to which they are tempted at every step. Now, all this grieves the Spirit of God, and renders their efforts ineffectual. Such men never attain their end; they sacrifice all for the sake of getting in worldly men, and getting fitted up an appropriate place of worship--getting some mighty scholar, some mighty orator, or some mighty anything else, except a mighty good man. They arrange everything in such a way as not to displease or offend, but to please and consult rich men, whether good or bad. I have often known the question to come up, whether a revival effort should be made in the great cities of our country, when neither minister nor Church dare consent, because, were they to do so, many of their rich men would take offence. Neither minister nor Church dare introduce any searching measures to secure the salvation of the world around them. Things must be done with caution, lest they disturb such men in their congregations, who, by exercising their worldly influence, are the greatest curses the Church can have.

But let me say again, another great difficulty, and one of the greatest difficulties, in the way of promoting religion in great cities, is the effect of competitions in business--the Church undertaking to compete with worldly men in business. Worldly men have worldly motives, worldly rules, worldly business maxims. They transact business in a certain way. Now, professors of religion think they cannot compete with them, without similar dealings, and therefore fall, one after another, into a state of mind in which they are not useful--a state of perfect bondage to the world, by endeavoring to compete with worldly men in the business of their city. How many have I known rendered weak and inefficient, and stumbling-blocks, by falling under this temptation! These individuals are shorn of their strength and influence, as Christians. But I cannot go into details as to the operations of this, which would carry me too far out of my way. But who does not know that the business operations of our cities are hot-beds of temptations in this respect? I have heard Christians say, in great cities, "We must give up our attempts at competing with these men in business, or we must ruin our souls." One of the first merchants in New York said to me, "I must abandon my business, or ruin my soul." Now, every one can see that this is the case. They are sure to lose their efficient piety. It may be easily shown that this is a mistake, even in a commercial point of view, if they carried out Gospel principles in their business transactions, they would command the confidence of all classes; so much so, that the people would say, "Go to that man, for then we shan't be cheated. He always has one price for his articles, a fair and honorable price, and nothing more. He never covers matters up, but deals straight out." This is a place of policy, after all, even in a commercial and business point of view. But the difficulty is, to make Christians believe this. Now, let any one try this, till his neighbors know, and it becomes to be known throughout the city, that he will not take advantage of anyone--that he may be trusted--that he tells the exact truth--let this be known throughout the city, and let me ask how many clerks will that man want, in less than five years, to do his business? Who would go to a man who was likely to cheat him, when there was one he could go to, who would be certain not to cheat? Persons are tempted to suppose, that if this is done, they cannot compete with worldly men. It is a mistake--a mistake fatal to piety, and constitutes one of the principal difficulties in the way of promoting religion in great cities. In business transactions, members of Christian Churches become ensnared; and these, by their example, often place a fearful stumbling-block in the way of the world. They suffer themselves to be carried along contrary to their convictions of duty, and contrary to the spontaneous declarations of their consciences, contrary to the express injunctions of the Bible; and hence, they frequent places, and allow themselves to do things, merely because public sentiment, and the customs of society, seem to demand it.

Now, whatever causes a cloud to get between the Christian's heart and God--whatever shuts out from his soul the direct light of God's countenance--is fatal to the interests of the Church and of religion; and these influences, which thus becloud the soul, and get between God and it, are so manifested in great cities, that the Church is crippled, the salt loses its savour, the light of the world becomes darkness--and how gross that darkness is!

I would enlarge upon this point--the things that grieve the Spirit of God--were it not that, on Friday evening, I shall preach on quenching and grieving the Spirit. But let me say again, another difficulty in the way is, that Christians are tempted to unbelief in the possibility of the conversion of great cities. I have scarcely entered a great city since I have been in the ministry, where it was not thought, by both ministers and Christians, that great cities, and especially their great city, could not be converted. I have been told, that I did not understand the peculiar difficulties of great cities. I do not say, that there is no such thing. They are great; but they can be overcome. They should not discourage the Church, but lead it to perceive what great efforts must be made, and how much they are dependent upon God. Is anything too hard for God? Why, yes; they say so; they say, "If God should make the windows of heaven to open, it could not be." This is the language of their hearts. This has been said in London again and again, by one and another. But one of the great difficulties is, your unbelief, which limits God, that he cannot do His many mighty works, because of your unbelief. All other matters are but difficulties, in so far as they produce this result--in so far as they crush faith in God--they don't believe God's arm will be made bare, or that Christ is able to take captive the masses around them, and subject them to His dominion. The extent of this unbelief is frightful. The ministry say it cannot be done. They don't say it right out in preaching, but multitudes talk just as if such things were impossibilities. Now, is this always to be so? Is the Church always to believe that great cities, on account of the aggravated and intense forms in which temptations exist there, will not be converted? Cannot we remove this unbelief of the Church, and beget a confidence in the Church that it can be done? If we can do this, then the great difficulty is overcome. But there are a multitude of other things, almost numberless, which serve constantly to grieve the Spirit, and, consequently, to suppress and to kill the faith of the people of God.

Let me say again, when this spirit has once taken possession of, and comes to be indulged, it aggravates itself by a natural law. For example, suppose ministers and Churches have an impression that great cities cannot be expected to be moved, they will not work in such a manner as can be expected to make them move. On the contrary, year after year will tend to establish and strengthen them in their unbelief; for, beginning to say, "It cannot be done," their energies are crippled--it is not done; and its not being done, makes them say still further, "It cannot be done;" and thus the evil, instead of correcting, but aggravates and perpetuates itself. This is true to such an alarming extent in many of our great cities, that I can see clearly that great masses of professing Christians despair of the conversion of these great cities, and, therefore, they must naturally despair of the conversion of the world. The worldly influences which have been brought to bear upon them have produced these disastrous results.

The next thing I have to say, is, what are the stumbling-blocks in the way of conversion of the ungodly? 1. The business habits of the Church--( it is a curious retributive law of God's kingdom)--the business habits of the ungodly draw the Church astray to a great extent. They fall into these ungodly habits. Their selfishness has taken effect to some extent, and what is the result? The Church is now a snare to them. They snared the Church, and now the worldly business habits of the Church snare them. So far as experience has gone, there is no such great stumbling-block so powerful as this. Many persons are engaged in kinds of business which the ungodly know are purely selfish. If professors act in this way, what will their clerks say? Who does not know that the ungodly in the employment of such men are stumbled by their conduct? Again, the self-indulgent habits of the Church, into which they are drawn by the worldly influences to which they are subjected, have a reactionary tendency on the people generally. Again, the manifested unbelief and cowardice of the Church, are great evils in the great cities. Professors of religion are shorn of their strength in great cities, they are afraid to be faithful, they cower down before the ungodly, and their influence. This is the great stumbling block; it is thus, then, as I said before, that, by a natural retributive law of the government of God, that if the world lays a snare for the Church, just so far as they succeed in ensnaring the Church, will they ensnare themselves. They bring down their violent dealings on their own head; it is easy to see that this is the natural action of things. But I must notice only a few things which are common to all classes.

First, for example, the temptations to intemperance and licentiousness. The appeals which are made, on every hand, to the weaknesses of human nature, all the ingenuity of science--earth and hell would seem to have been ransacked in order to develop to the utmost these propensities, to draw them out, and to compel the will to yield itself up thereto. As you walk the streets everywhere these things meet the eye, and strike the ear. The whole thing seems to have been molded, as it were, by some infernal agency. Temptations are presented alike to old and young, both sexes, and all classes of society. As you go round the city you perceive there are bands with trumpets before the tippling houses, getting the people to stop and hear the music--getting them to do this, and then, of course, they want something to drink. All sorts of things are contrived to entice people to these tippling houses--to get people to this place, and that place, to this lecture and that lecture, to this banquet of music and that banquet of wine. In short, who does not know that in our great cities it seems as if these things were set together as close as type. They thrust something into every nook. To arrest attention, the streets are placarded with all sorts of huge notices. But this is not enough; they send men to carry on their shoulders notices of the same baneful description. And, again, men drive about the city with these notices posted on great vans. Now, only think! the whole place is swarmed with them. Wherever you go you see them, and feel their influences. These are all so many stimuli tending to develop the love of sin--selfishness, to tempt the will to indulge the appetite. These things are seen on every hand, and as the Christian walks the streets, he must either hold constant communication with God, or yield himself up to temptation.

III. I must notice some of the conditions of overcoming these great evils.

• (1.) The great want is, then, a heart supremely and single set on overcoming these obstacles. It is a very trite and commonplace saying, but is very true, that, "Where there's a will, there's a way." Wherever there's a will there's a way, to the actual accomplishment of all that God requires. If He requires that the Church should convert the world, and He does,--if there's a will there's a way. The thing is, then, for the Church to make up her mind to do it.
• (2.) The next thing to be done is to lay aside this ungodly unbelief, and have confidence that God's Almighty arm can do it. What is this great mountain before Zerubbabel? What are such difficulties as these to the Almighty? Oh! do God the honor to believe He is able, for if anything can be done to overcome the unbelief of the Church, the world may be saved. What can be done, my dear brethren, to get out of your mind the difficulties which you think of so much, till your hearts are discouraged? You cannot do, or expect to do, anything, while you suffer your heads to hang down, and are ready to faint with discouragement.
• (3.) Union is an indispensable condition. The devil will tell you the thing cannot be done, but you must not believe it. Ministers must lay aside all party differences, and unite against the common enemy. Christians must lay aside their sectional views and prejudices, and assail the common enemy of God and man. Let us forget that we belong to this or that Church, let us lost sight of this, and go up in an unbroken mass to the work.
• (4.) We must study the movements of the enemy. We must act as wisely as they act; the children of this world are wiser in their generation than "the children of light." Yet, they did not choose a better end, but better means--more appropriate means; God will require the use of means in proportion to the existence of means. We are not to expect a miracle to be performed, where we have sufficient evidence to establish the Gospel without it. For example, if there was no trace of evidence to establish the truth of the Gospel, we might expect the performance of miracles--we might expect that God would accommodate himself to such a state of things; but, where there are means, God expects them to be used, and we must, therefore, adapt them wisely to the end. We must not expect that God will overrule and act aside his own laws; we must study those laws, study how to counteract the efforts which the devil is making, to bring men into bondage within the Church, and to ruin those who are without the Church.

But let me say again, the efforts of the Church must be set over against the efforts of the world. You see how men advertise the worldly amusements; they move the whole city with their advertisements, they make everybody understand clearly who and what they are, and what they are going to do. Now, were the Church but as zealous in getting people to hear the Gospel as the world is in getting them to its amusements, why, every Church in the city would be filled with worshippers and hearers. Christians should oppose their efforts to those of their enemies, and God's means would surely prevail over the means of the devil.

Truth is mightier than error, God is stronger then Satan, but Satan is allowed to take the field almost alone. He wields the press, and makes it groan in exciting and drawing men in the wrong direction. Now, if God's children were really awake, they would come forth and devote their money, their talents, and all their influence, to searching out ways and means of putting them on the right track, and opposing the ways and means of wicked men; they would lift up their hearts in prayer, and soon would they see the mighty truths of Jehovah prevailing over the masses round about them.

But, let me say again, there must be a great deal more done to interest the masses. The masses must be sympathized with, there must be references to them in sermons and everything that is done. The world is carrying the masses away, we must reclaim them. While the world is running away with the masses, the Church is satisfying herself with securing the support and attendance of the great, while the masses fail to be converted, or even interested. There must be much more prayer and self-denial. Now, who does not know, from the nature of the case, and from the history of the Church, and from the world, that intemperance is going on to ruin our great cities; till Christians deny themselves, touch not, taste not, handle not, there can be no hope of saving the masses from going down to destruction. As you walk along the streets and see the men and women, and even the little children, sitting before the tippling houses, you should say, and resolve that, as God lives, and you live, anything you can do in this respect--any self-denial you can make, you are willing to submit to, in order that you may lead the way. I have been pained to see the slowness of British Christians in this respect. I have heard them say, that teetotallers make it their religion. Now, I think there is some danger of making "drinking a little" a religion, too. I know some who, when they have drunk "just a little," can pray, or sing, or do anything else well. When I was a young man I taught a school and boarded in a family, where the man came home three times a-week half intoxicated. Now, I noticed that on these occasions he used to pray very earnestly, and at no other time did he pray at all. I have thought of this many times, when I have seen ministers take "just a little to assist them." The Lord deliver me from such a snare as this!

But I cannot enlarge. Do you not believe that if the entire membership of the Churches were to lift up their voices against the drinking customs of this country, and if the ministers were to head them, that they would not exert a mighty influence in counteracting them? You must believe it! shall it be that any branch of reform which is indispensable, shall not be embraced by Christians? It is indispensable that you must be reformers throughout, you must reform yourselves; and if you cannot reform men without total abstinence, you must be ready to imitate the apostolic example--neither to eat meat, or do anything whereby thy brother is stumbled, offended, or made weak. Now, this man well nigh shook the world. Well might he say, that he would do it; the secret of his success was, that he would deny himself anything under heaven which he considered would stand in the way of his saving souls of men; he went so far as to say, that he could wish himself accursed for his kinsmen after the flesh. By this, he meant to say, that he would almost be separated from his own salvation. He did not mean to say he would be damned, but that he could submit to anything to save his dear brethren.

I can only say, that every reform must be carried out in this way. You persuade men to desist from drinking, but do not do it yourselves. How inconsistent! Why do you not say, I abstain for your sake, I give up these things which I can lawfully use; but as you abuse them, I take off my hand. Christ did many things for the sake of his disciples which would not otherwise have been incumbent upon him. One great thing he did--he died for their sakes. Are you ready to act in this spirit? Are you ready to take the lead in every branch of reform, and to go up having washed your hands of every unclean thing? Set your business transactions right! If you are engaged in a wicked business, put it away! If you have cheated any man, make restitution and come forth; wash your hands, and strengthen your hearts in God; go up to the work, and IT SHALL BE DONE!

.
.
.
Back to Top


CHRIST THE MEDIATOR


.
.
.
A Sermon

Delivered on Sunday Evening, May 19, 1850

BY THE REV. C. G.FINNEY,

OF OBERLIN COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE, AMERICA,

At the Tabernacle, Moorfields, London.

This lecture was typed in by Tony Alan Mangum.
Reformatted by Katie Stewart

"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." --I Tim. 2:5

In speaking from these words I propose to show:--

I. What a mediator is.

II. What is implied in the office of a mediator.

III. What are some of the indispensable qualifications for a mediator.

IV. The conditions of success in the execution of the office of mediator.

V. Apply these things to Christ as the mediator between God and man.

I. What is a Mediator?

A Mediator is one who undertakes to effect a reconciliation between parties who have some matter of difference.

II. What is implied in the office of a Mediator?

• (1.) The existence of the office of a Mediator, always implies that there are two or more parties, and that some controversy exists between them.
• (2.) It implies that there is some obstacle in the way of their coming together and reconciling their own matters in difference. If there be no obstacle in the way of doing this, there is no necessity for the interposition of a Mediator. The existence of the office, therefore, implies that there are parties between whom there is some matter in controversy, and that some difficulty is in the way of their adjusting their own differences.
• (3.) The relation of the parties to each other may be the cause of the difficulty. God is a Sovereign, and if his subjects should take up arms against him, there would be immense impropriety in treating with them, while they continued in this rebellious and hostile position. There is a necessity for some third person to interpose if any reconciliation is ever to be effected. The Sovereign cannot treat with his subjects while they have weapons in their hands;--they must first return to their duty and lay down their arms, or he cannot have any intercourse with them.
• (4.) The state of mind in which one or both parties may be, may prevent their coming together. There may be prejudice, misapprehension, or enmity in the minds of one or both parties. And when this is the case they cannot come together and adjust their matters of difference. This may lay the foundation for the necessity of an interposition of a Mediator.
• (5.) Again: There may be some condition upon which the offended party must insist, from his relations and the circumstances of the case; which condition it may be impossible for the offender to fulfill. On this account it may be necessary for a third person to interpose, and fulfill for the offender what he cannot fulfill for himself, as a condition of the reconciliation to be brought about, between the parties. Either of the reasons, or all of them, may exist and require the interposition of a Mediator.

III. What are some of the indispensable qualifications for a Mediator?

• (1.) He must be the common friend of the parties between whom the controversy exists. By this we mean, that he should sustain such a relation to both parties, that they can wholly confide in him.
  
  
• (2.) He must be able to fulfill, or secure the fulfilling, of any such conditions as are necessary to be fulfilled, in order to bring about the reconciliation, or he will not meet with success. He must have both willingness and ability to make any personal sacrifice, to which the nature of the undertaking calls him. If the nature of the undertaking be such that he cannot bring about an adjustment of the difficulty without making some personal sacrifice, he must be able and willing to make the necessary sacrifice, whatever it may be. We now come to consider--

IV. Some of the conditions of success in the execution of the office of Mediator. I observe, that of course the above qualifications are necessary; and, further, I observe, that success must depend upon the consent of the parties.

• (1.) First, the Mediator himself must consent to sustain the relation, and to take upon himself the office.
• (2.) And then, the parties must consent, for the Mediator can do nothing to bind the parties without their own consent and sanction to it; for there may be two or more parties between whom there is some controversy, and this controversy cannot be adjusted, unless the parties between whom there is some controversy, and this controversy cannot be adjusted, unless the parties between whom there exists the difference consent to any arrangement that may be proposed. The Mediator himself may propose some terms to effect an agreement; but only so far as the parties consent to the Mediator's terms, can he succeed in his object. Just in so far, and no further, as they give the matter up into his hands, can he bring about the reconciliation. This matter in difference cannot be set right by any authority, by any man, or by any means whatever, that shall seek to supersede the necessity of the consent of the parties themselves. I am now prepared to proceed, and

V. Apply these things to Christ as the Mediator between God and man. It is said in the Bible that Jesus Christ is a Mediator between God and man; this is plainly expressed, and we understand what it must mean. God addresses men in human language, he always uses that language which we can understand. I once heard a remark of this kind gravely made by a man who had been hearing a sermon on the atonement, in which the governmental view of it had been exhibited and enforced,--"Ah," said he, "you cannot explain spiritual things by natural things; you cannot explain the government of God by any human government or human transactions." Now, when I heard this remark, I could not forbear saying, "What a pity that God did not know that when he wrote the Bible." Cannot explain spiritual things by natural things! What a pity God did not take that into account when he wrote the Bible, where such illustrations are so abundantly introduced. But surely if God has seen fit to use such means to illustrate and explain his meaning to us, it is also permitted to us to do the same.

In the remarks that I have made this evening, I have shown you what a Mediator is, what is implied in the office of a Mediator, what are some of the indispensable qualifications for a Mediator, and what are the conditions of his success; and now we are farther to apply these remarks to the case before us.

• (1.) I said that a Mediator is one who undertakes to reconcile parties to each other between whom there is some matter in controversy. In the text, these parties are shown to be God and men--God on one side, and all the race of mankind on the other. That there is a matter in controversy between God and man, is one of the most palpable facts which lies on the surface of history: everybody knows it to be true; it is a fact as plain as that man exists upon the earth; every man feels it in his own consciousness; and if he is in a right state of mind, he would as soon think of questioning it as he would his own existence. Everybody must be aware of the fact that they do not live in a way that pleases God. What idea should we have of God if we supposed that he was satisfied and pleased with the conduct of the great mass of mankind? If God be a good being, he must be displeased with their conduct? Who can doubt this?
• (2.) Again: God manifests this displeasure which he feels, in thousands of ways. To be sure, he tempers his anger with great kindness, and suffers long with the perversities, follies, and sins of mankind, yet how often has this world's history shown that God is angry with its inhabitants. How often has he swept over the world with his besom of destruction! At one time, all the inhabitants of the earth were swept away by a flood of waters, with the exception of only one family; and, on the other hand, we see that men are everywhere doing what they can to repudiate God's authority and claims to love and obedience, and are making war on his throne and government. In all this we can plainly see that there is a controversy between God and man; man opposes God, and God is continually, by many ways, showing his displeasure with them.
  
  
• (3.) But I said also that the existence of the office implied that there was some obstacle in the way of their coming together and reconciling their differences, and that this might arise, first, from the relation which the parties sustained to each other. Now, anyone who has ever considered what government is, or has had anything to do with administering the law, can understand the sacredness of government, and the difficulty there is in the way of exercising mercy to the rebellious. Can rebels approach offended majesty in their own name? What have rebels to say in their own name? They cannot come nigh to treat with him in their own name, for he says, "I am of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." It is of no use for them to attempt to approach to him in their own name, for he will not look at them. Secondly, the difficulty may arise out of the state of mind of the parties. To be sure, God is disposed to do men good, notwithstanding their rebellion, and there is no state of mind which that would not allow him to exercise compassion and mercy where sinners will repent, but his government relations are such as to prevent his having any intercourse with those who continue in a state of hostility; the state of mind in which they are renders it indispensable for some third person to interpose, in order to reconcile them to God. Hence it is that Christ is represented as reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. But I said further, that the existence of the office implied that there might be some conditions, the fulfillment of which it might be necessary for the offended party to insist upon, but which it was impossible for the offending party to fulfill, or cause to be fulfilled.

Now, here, I suppose, was the great difficulty which stood in the way of God's showing mercy to sinners, even if his own disposition disposed him to be merciful. The law had been violated and dishonored, and God must insist upon its being honored, and public justice being satisfied. Here I must notice a distinction between public and retributive justice. Retributive justice respects the intrinsic deserts of an individual; for example, a moral agent may deserve punishment, who is not governmentally liable to it; or the government may be placed in such circumstances as to think it inexpedient to award that punishment which he deserves, and which the law sanctioned. Now, public justice respects public interests; the laws of a country are public property, and when they are violated, all the subjects of the government are interested in having the law executed, that its authority might not in any way be weakened; for when the laws are violated with impunity, they are of no weight, and the government which cannot enforce them is despised. Let me observe, also, that in establishing a government of law, the lawgiver, either expressly or impliedly, pledges himself to punish the guilty, and protect and reward the innocent; and the public interests of the whole community demand this; the criminal must be made a public example, or the authority and intention of law cannot be maintained. No lawgiver, in heaven or on earth, has any right to compromise the claims of public justice. Now, observe, God has expressly, or impliedly, pledged himself to sustain his government, and maintain the authority of his law; man has dishonored and violated it, and public rights will be compromised unless something be done to assert and sustain the authority of the law. Here is the difficulty; what shall be done? Shall the execution of the law be dispensed with, and thus be rendered void? Now, what public justice required was, that this law should be vindicated by its penalties being executed upon the offending parties, or something be done to secure reverence for the law and the lawgiver. Now, observe, God himself says that Christ is sent to be a propitiation for our sins, that he may be just, and yet the justifier of them who believe in Jesus. God cannot set aside the execution of the penalty. Here, I say, is the great difficulty. God's relations and character are such, and such the relations and character of man, that something must be done that men could not do as the condition of their being forgiven--the requirement is, that they make satisfaction to public justice. Why, to be sure, public justice required every offender to be punished. What, then, shall be done to meet the demands of public justice, and yet the offender be spared the infliction of the penalty! God's government is perfect; no compromise must be made which shall set aside the true spirit of the law. This leads me to say again, God could not dispense with the spirit of the law. All that the spirit of the law required, was simply this--not that the letter of the law should in every instance be fulfilled, that every individual who violated the law should be punished without any reserve; but that means should be adopted which would effectually secure obedience to the law. The offender must receive the punishment unless something else should be done that would as truly and effectually honour the insulted law, and make a deep public impression of God's regard for it, and his determination to sustain it, and as thoroughly serve to promote holiness and rebuke sin. This would be the fulfilling of the spirit of the law: here would be no compromise of its claims, neither a literal execution of its penalty; but it would be a full satisfaction made to the spirit of its claims. What would be the object of God in executing the law upon sinners, but to make a public impression of his abhorrence of sin, and his determination to maintain the law inviolate, and to honour it at all hazards. The execution of it would teach the universe certain great lessons in respect to God's character and government. Now, suppose that the lawgiver himself should teach these lessons in some other way that shall be as effectual, as impressive, and as influential as would be the execution of the penalty of the law upon sinners, why, then, the spirit of the law would be as effectually honored and sustained. But suppose, to show his great regard for it, he should yield implicit obedience to it himself, and become the representative of man, as it is said he did,--"He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Now, in order to do this, in order to make an offer of pardon to the poor guilty sinner, there must be a public demonstration made to the whole universe--the law must be honored as widely as it had been broken.

How was this demonstration to be made? How was the law to be honored? Who was to do it? See, God's own Son, closely associated with him, one with him in the formation and government of the universe, takes upon himself human nature, and represents the race; he undertakes to be the impersonation and representative of sin. God is about to show how he regards sin, by inflicting the penalty due to man, upon one who has come forth to be a Mediator between the sinner and the insulted majesty of the law. God is about to make a terrible demonstration, and show to the whole universe his deep and eternal abhorrence of iniquity. Now, this will fulfill the law even more thoroughly than if the consequences of sin had been visited upon the heads of the guilty themselves. "He laid upon him the iniquity of us all!" What a wonderful demonstration was this! Again: It is plain that this condition was indispensably necessary. God, as the governor of the universe, must insist upon something being done to meet the claims of public justice; the dishonored law must be restored, public justice must be appeased; the spirit of the law must be maintained in all its integrity. Now, there was only one being in the universe qualified to sustain the office. The Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man; he sustained such a relation to both the parties as to be in a position to "magnify the law," and make it even more honourable than it would have been made by its execution upon mankind. Christ satisfied the claims of public justice, and hence it is said, "he gave himself a ransom for all." Christ, by his atonement, testified to the manner in which God regarded the sins of man. Again: Our Lord Jesus Christ knew well what it would cost him. I said just now, that one of the conditions of a Mediator's success must be this: that if the office should call for any sacrifice on his part, he must be fully willing to make it--he must be willing to make any sacrifice, or undergo any degree of self-denial, which may be requisite in the nature of the case. Now, the Lord Jesus Christ knew well what it would cost him. It was no part of his business to compromise the claims of public justice; no part of his business to justify iniquity, or let down the authority of the law. He new better what he had to do, than to act thus; and he was willing to do what the office required of him. Again: the circumstances of Christ's death were such as could never be accounted for except upon the supposition, that he suffered not as a mere mortal, but as the representative of a race of sinners. The circumstances of his death were of a very peculiar nature. He died not as martyrs generally die; when they have been tied to the stake the words of gladness and triumph have burst from their lips, and they have passed from earth shouting and singing glory to God. Christ did not die so. How was this? Is it true that Christ was more afraid to die than martyrs are? What was it extorted from him that cry--"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" How was that? Is God wont to forsake even the meanest of his saints in their hour of trial? Let me ask those who have been in the habit of visiting the deathbeds of the saints, how many, when the last enemy was approaching, and when the clammy sweat was upon their brow, have you heard speak in the language and with the accents of despair? Did they cry out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" No, indeed! Their language is that of peace, serenity, triumph, and when their voice has been gone, they would give you a quivering grasp of the hand, to indicate that the light of God's countenance was upon them. The fact, then, is plain; he died not as a martyr but as the representative of a sinful race. Although God loved him infinitely, still, as the representatives of a sinful race, in his displeasure he poured down upon him the vials of his indignation. The death of Christ was intended to make an impression upon the universe, and all the circumstances attending it show what a wonderful effect it had. When he was nailed to the cross the sun refused to look on, and the heavens were clothed with sackcloth; the whole universe seemed to be shaking to its foundations. Heathen philosophers observed it, and said, Either nature is being dissolved, or the god of nature is dying. The dead could not sleep in their graves, the earth trembled, and the tombs opened, and those who had been dead issued forth, and walked into the city. The veil of the temple was rent in twain. God made a mighty impression upon the entire universe, when, in order that sinners might be pardoned, he thus made a fearful demonstration of his hatred against sin.

I shall conclude with a few remarks.

• (1.) You recollect that the success of the Mediator must depend upon the consent of the parties. Now, it is for us, on our part, as one of the parties, to consent to receive him as a Mediator in the relation in which he is proposed to us. The Divine government has given to Christ the adjustment of this difficulty, so that as parties in this controversy we must give ourselves up to the will of the Mediator. The sacrifice which he has made has satisfied the claims of justice; but this will affect us, and prevail in our favour, no further than we ourselves approach him as the Mediator between God and man.
• (2.) Again: Man can be reconciled to God only in one way, and that is by faith in Christ; when men believe in him the matter is at once adjusted between them and the Divine government. They are reconciled to God through Christ. Now, we have only to leave this matter in the hands of Christ, and he will set us free from the penalty due to sin.
• (3.) Again: With respect to those who decline to accept of this Mediator, the matter is not only not adjusted, but greatly aggravated. If they will "not have this man to reign over them," they will never be reconciled to God, and their guilt and consequent punishment is greatly magnified, aggravated; and remember that all those resist this arrangement who do not most cordially embrace it by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
• (4.) This leads me to say again, that you are not to understand by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ merely an intellectual assent to the truths which he taught--and to the fact that he sustains the office of Mediator. The devil knows this, and believes it, but he has not saving faith. You may have no more doubt of the historical fact that Christ died for the sins of mankind, than you have of any other historical facts, but this is not faith in him as a Saviour. You must embrace the method of salvation with all your heart. This is the way in which God purposes to save you, and when you have done this you can enter the door of mercy which Christ has opened for your reception.

Let it be understood then, what it is to be a Christian. It is not mere intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel, or that you outwardly appear to be religious; but it is with the heart that you must believe unto righteousness. You must yield up your whole being to Christ, and rely not upon your own goodness as a ground of acceptance, but upon Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and man, who has "magnified the law, and made it honourable." God requires us to approach him in Christ's name, or he cannot treat with us or make us any offer of pardon. Suppose that the inhabitants of London, or any other city, should rise up in rebellion against the Government. It might be quite impossible to make a general offer of pardon without endangering the safety of that Government. It would be very impolitic and unwise to do so. It would be the way to encourage other cities to rebel--taking refuge under the precedent which the Government had established. The way to make a Government strong is by asserting a principle and adhering to it, giving the people to understand the inviolability of the law, and that it is not to be broken with impunity, and that rebellion could not be connived at. Now, it may be safe sometimes for a Government to exercise pardon, but not unless the exercise of mercy will tend more than the infliction of the penalty to claim reverence for the law and Government. Rebels against the law and government of God could never have been forgiven without an atonement had been made; because God's law is inviolable, and therefore cannot be transgressed without the penalty being inflicted somewhere; and God, by accepting the sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin, at once showed his love for man and testified to the goodness of his law. Christ magnified the broken law, and rendered to it a governmental equivalent. But before a rebel can treat with God for mercy, he must lay down his weapons of rebellion; he cannot make terms with God with arms in his hands; he must repent before he can hope for mercy. Every human Government demands this, and so does the government of God; no Government can stand on any other principle. Those entirely misunderstand this subject who think and say that it is an easy thing for God to show mercy. It cost him more than the creation of the world. But the work is done--Christ has thrown the doors of mercy wide open: "Behold," he says, "I have set before you an open door." It was love to mankind which caused him to make such sacrifices for their salvation. The atonement was not demanded in a malignant spirit, but as a necessary condition of salvation. It was God himself who proposed the plan. He saw no eye to pity and no arm to save; and his own eye pitied, and his own arm brought salvation. His heart yearned over them. Over them, did I say? Over you and over me. "He loved me," says the apostle, "and gave himself for me." Can you, my dear hearers, apply this language to yourselves? Have you committed yourselves to him? Is Christ your Mediator in this great controversy?

Now, I come to-night as the servant of Christ, to ask you whether you will receive this Mediator-whether you will repent and renounce your sin, and commit yourself to the hands of Christ as the great Mediator between God and man? Do you reply that you do not want a Mediator? The minds of many men are so dark that they are foolish and absurd enough to think that they can approach God and get salvation from him without a Mediator. The following fact was communicated to me some time ago: the sister of a minister's wife who had imbibed Unitarian principles always used to resist the idea of a necessity of a Mediator. She would say, If God is disposed to be merciful, he can exercise mercy without reference to the death of his Son. I want no Mediator; I am not conscious of wanting one. Is not God my Father--my heavenly Father; cannot I pray to him except through a Mediator? What do I want of a Mediator between me and my Father? I love my Father, and I love to pray to my Father; I love communion with my Father. I know no necessity for a Mediator." In this way she used to talk, with that kind of sentimentalism that is common to Unitarians. A great revival took place in the congregation, and one evening this lady returned home and went direct to her chamber. The family, who were below, presently heard her shriek out in great agony, and at the top of her voice: they rushed to her room and saw her standing there in a great fright, with her arms extended, and her eyes startling from their sockets: with much alarm they cried out, "What is the matter? what is the matter?" "Oh!" said she, "God is looking right at me, and there is no Mediator--there, can't you see, right opposite there?" and she shrieked out again in fearful agony, "God is looking right at me, and there is no Mediator." In this state of mind she continued for some time, but eventually Christ was revealed to her, and she was led to embrace the truth. She never realized before what it was to stand before the Judge of all the earth without a Mediator; but when she felt the eye of God blazing upon her, and searching into her heart, she felt then the necessity of "a Mediator between God and man." O sinner, let me tell you, that without a Mediator you are undone; but there is one provided, and he is now offered for you to embrace; it will not take you long, if you are disposed to do it; you can do it now-even now. If you accept him not into your hearts, his blood for you has been shed in vain. There is no middle course; you must be either the friends of Christ, or his enemies. God offers mercy now, but he has not promised that he will ever offer it again! Remember that! There is no angel in heaven, or minister upon earth, who is authorized to say that salvation will ever be offered to you again. Suppose that Christ himself should now come and take his stand in this pulpit with the book of life in his hand, and should say to you all, "Whose name shall I write in this book? Whoso will accept of me as a Mediator? Who will give me his heart?" Should we have voices responding on all sides, "I will! I will! I will! O Lord Jesus, take my unworthy name, take my heart; I renounce my sin, and gladly give all my being to thee." Would you reply thus to the personal invitation of the Saviour? Why not do it now? God invites you! Jesus invites you! the Bible invites you! the Spirit invites you! The Preacher invites you! Will to come to Jesus, and come now? Why not? Are you not prepared? What preparation do you want? Cannot you get your own consent? This is the difficulty--the great and the only difficulty! If you can get your own consent, there is no being in the universe that can stand in the way of your salvation. But may you not obtain your own consent if you so will it? What say you? Will you consent? Will you allow Christ to have your name? Will you give him your heart? This is a momentous question, will you decide to-night? We are going to pray. Now, let those who are willing to accept Christ as their Mediator, bend their hearts at a throne of grace; and, Christians, let us seek to get the arms of our prayer round every impenitent sinner in this house, and bring them to Jesus. Let us pray.

.
.
.
Back to Top


PROVING GOD


.
.
.
A Sermon

In behalf of the Christian Instruction Society,

Delivered on Wednesday Evening, June 19, 1850,

BY THE REV. PROFESSOR FINNEY,

OF OBERLIN COLLEGE, UNITED STATES,

At the Tabernacle, Moorfields, London.

This lecture was typed in by Tony Alan Mangum.
Reformatted by Katie Stewart

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." --Malachi iii. 10.

In speaking from these words, I propose, first, to notice the fact that it is our duty to prove God; secondly, how we may do this; thirdly, what is implied in the injunction, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house;" fourthly what is implied in obeying the spirit of this injunction; fifth, the meaning of the language, see "if I will not open the windows of heaven."

I. It is our duty to prove God.

God establishes and manifests his own truth, to make man know and see that he is the God of truth, by coming out and demonstrating it by his conduct. He has limited his operations; they are controlled by certain laws both of nature and of grace. He has wisely limited himself to a certain order and way of doing things. Now, let me say, in the next place, that he likes to rebuke infidelity. His heart is greatly set upon the results which he has promised--those things which must result from his coming forth and demonstrating his truth. He holds us responsible for placing ourselves in such a position as to come within the conditions, the fulfillment of which are indispensable to his coming forth, in the established and revealed order of things, to establish his truth before the world.

II. How are we to prove God?

That is, how are we to put God's truthfulness to the test, so as to show to ourselves, and to demonstrate to everybody else, that his promises are true?

• (1.) If we would prove his truthfulness, we must fulfil certain conditions upon which these promises are to be fulfilled. These conditions are expressly revealed, or implied, in his universal rules in the Bible. It would not manifest his truthfulness to fulfil these promises when the stipulated conditions are not complied with. It would then rather prove him untrue. For example, if he has proposed certain conditions, and informed us that unless these conditions have been complied with, he will not fulfil the promises, why, if he should, under such circumstances, dispensing with the conditions, fulfil the promise without them, instead of proving his truthfulness, he would prove that he was a liar. For example, he has said that he will be inquired of by the house of Israel to do it for them. He will be inquired of in faith, and nothing shall be received without faith. There are multitudes of such declarations in the Bible, which affirm that he will do certain things under certain conditions, and that he will not do without these conditions. If, therefore, he would prove himself to be true, he must not fulfil these things until we have fulfilled the conditions, otherwise he would prove his own Word to be false.
  
  
• (2.) This leads me to say again, that in the world, to prove himself true, he is obliged to deny us unless we ask in faith. Again: he has told us, that certain conditions, such as the use of certain means, are conditions upon which he will do certain things. For example, suppose he has commanded us to repent, and promises to forgive us if we do repent, suppose he should for once forgive us without repentance? He who prays for forgiveness without repentance is tempting God--asking him to do that which he has expressly declared he will not do. When, therefore, people ask God to break through any revealed condition upon which he has promised to do or not to do certain things--observe, in order to prove his truthfulness, he must refuse to do these things, because the conditions are not fulfilled. Before I was converted, I had this thought in mind, I wondered God did not answer prayer (for I was in the habit of going to prayer meetings as often as I could, even before I was converted--I have no doubt God led me to do so). I heard so much prayer, that I wondered why it remained unanswered--I wondered whether God's promises were untrue, or whether the people were not Christians. It did not occur to me for some time, that by the very truth of these promises, God was pledged not to answer them, unless they were offered upon certain conditions, and that the very fact of their not being answered, proved that they were not offered upon the prescribed conditions; and that God was not therefore untrue, because the Bible taught that it would be so under such circumstances. How remarkable it is that the very things which stumble impenitent men, and often, in fact, professors themselves--when seen from a right point of view, these things carry a demonstration on the very face of them. For instance, under certain circumstances God has promised to withdraw his blessing: under certain other circumstances, he promises to give it. Now, suppose we see him withhold it, when we have not complied with the prescribed conditions. Suppose, again, that we fulfil the conditions and then see that he fulfil the promise. For I do not mean that it is our duty to prove God by disobeying him, so that we may see him fulfil his promise by withholding, for that reason; but the contrary, by fulfilling the conditions upon which he will surely give us the blessing. But when, as a matter of fact, we fail in our obedience-- in the fulfillment of what he requires--when we fail to do this, he withholds the blessings; comply with the conditions, and then see whether he will not fulfil his promise.

But let me say again, we are to prove him in this sense; we are to use the appointed and revealed means. We should do this even in obtaining our daily bread. Who believes that if he depends on God, in the use of the appointed means, for procuring his daily bread, that he will not get it? If we use the appointed means, in an appropriate manner, then we prove God, and see whether he will really fulfil his promises. "Trust in the Lord, and do good, so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed." Now, suppose a person neither "trusted in the Lord," nor "did good," in the sense here meant, who can wonder that he does not "dwell in the land?" Especially does this apply to spiritual things--the greatest and most important blessings. But let me say again, by the appointed means I mean things to be done which God requires. Men must preach the truth, but they must preach it in a proper manner, in season and out of season, and adapt it to the understanding of the hearers. They must live it, as well as preach it--not contradict it with their lives, while with their lips they declare it. This applies not only to preachers, but to all classes of persons. Means are to be used, in faith, and perseveringly, they must do the thing that God told them to do; but mark the way--see that you do things according so the spirit and meaning of his Word. Now, certainly, unless people do this--unless they really comply with the spirit as well as the letter of his injunction--how can they except to obtain the blessing?

But let me says again, we must depend upon God. For example; the Bible plainly presents the subject in this way:--everything is to be done with the same heartiness, and perseverance, and with the same spirit that we would do it if we were expecting to accomplish it ourselves, without God having anything to do with it. The same language is used in precept and requirement throughout the Bible, as is used in this text. God comes out just as human lawgivers, commanding men to do certain things, in a certain manner, and with a certain spirit. Now, observe; he everywhere insists upon their doing them; they must, therefore, go about the work as if they were expecting to accomplish it, by the efforts they were making, by their own strength; yet, unless we do it in faith--throwing ourselves upon God--we shall not succeed. These two truths stand out together all through the Bible. Just as the farmer goes and sows the seed, as if God had nothing to do with it, and understands that, without the blessing of God, he cannot raise anything. We must be in this state of mind--willing to throw it upon his own blessing--knowing assuredly that unless he succeeds our efforts, no good will result. In this respect the Bible abundantly places things temporal and things spiritual precisely upon the same footing. "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman but in vain." Now, the watchman goes about the city, as if God had nothing to do with it. The watchman would tempt God, if he laid down to sleep, and left it literally to God; he, therefore, is to keep the city as thoroughly, honestly, and earnestly, as if God paid no attention to it; and yet to know that unless God watched too, all that he does is in vain. Everything in respect to life, health, and property--everything worldly and spiritual--is placed by God on the same footing, declaring that without his blessing we can do nothing; yet telling us to do the thing precisely as if we could do it ourselves. Now, persons generally do not understand this; they tempt God in these things, for they apply this interposition only to temporal things, and instead of complying with the conditions upon which God offers to bless them, they are laying a stumbling block before their own feet.

But let me say again (I wish I had time here to take up the parallel, to show what the Bible really does teach--to show that the obstacle with regard to God's sovereignty is a stumbling block which men create for themselves; and that they might just as well lay the same stumbling block, and pursue the same course, with reference to things of the world,) in order to prove God, we must abstain from whatever tends to hinder and prevent success. Everybody knows this is true in respect to temporal things--they know that if they take poison they may expect sickness; with regard to temporal matters, they understand very well, that if they throw obstacles in their own way they may blame themselves for want of success: yet, in spiritual things, it is strange, multitudes throw obstacles in their own way; and yet how do they account for the want of success? They are bound to account for it just as the slothful man in business--they ought to blame themselves just as the man who makes careless calculations in temporal matters; the fact is, that when persons do not abstain from those things which tend to hinder their success, the blame is their own; and if they do not want to tempt God they must ascribe it to themselves just as much as if they had failed in any earthly scheme by using means to prevent their own efforts. Suppose parents seek for the conversion of their children, and yet place them in such situations in life as almost invariably to ruin them. I knew a gentleman in the city of New York, who had a son going down to destruction. He had prayed much for him himself, and entreated me to pray for him; for he was getting into such bad company and such dissolute habits that he was afraid he would be ruined. I inquired where the young man was engaged, and was told he was in ____ 's store. In _____ 's store! Now, I knew the character of that store well; the young man was employed in selling liquor in small quantities! I accordingly gave the father distinctly to understand, that unless he removed his son from such temptations, I could not think of praying for him under such circumstances. "Get him out of temptation's way, as much as you can," said I, "and then I will pray for him, but while he is in such a hotbed of temptation I will not tempt God by praying for him." Now, how many of you are doing this? How many of you are thus sleeping over the conversion of your children, and will probably go on to do so until they are plunged into the depths of hell? How many of you are complaining that your children are not converted, while you yourselves are placing stumblingblocks in their way? What does this mean?

I have often questioned persons--wives, for instance, who have wanted their husbands converted. They say their husbands ridicule their religion, and so forth. "Well, sister," I said to one of these, "how do you live before your husband--do you manifest a temper calculated to make him see the true character of religion? What are you doing? Do you, in your life, give evidences of the truth and value of religion as you hold it before his eyes? Or, do you contradict it every day? Are you a living epistle--a living illustration of religion before his eyes? Or, are you a living and perpetual denial and contradiction of it?" Now, in multitudes of cases I have found the obstacle to be in the wife; she has been more in the way of the conversion of her husband, perhaps, than the devil himself; for, were she out of the way, or living as she ought, the devil would not find it so easy to persuade the husband that there was no truth in religion. You cannot seeing that these very persons are often themselves the means of preventing the object they seek after. I have often had occasion to tell fathers and mothers that they themselves were the obstacles--the spirit they manifest, their manner of life, their selfish and worldly motives of action--while they continue as they are, they need never expect the conversion of their children. They are living denials of the Gospel before them. No! they take the strongest means to prevent their salvation! I have often thought what wonders we see in society; look where we will, how many persons seem determined to prove that Christ lied when he told them the solemn truth, "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon!" They profess to serve God; yet, on the face of their lives they serve Mammon. Again: Christ has informed us that it is next to impossible that a rich man should enter the kingdom of God; but many seem to read it thus--" How surely shall a rich man enter the kingdom of God," as if salvation depended on their being rich." Christ represents the salvation of rich persons as next to impossible; and were it not for the wonderful power of God, it would be impossible. He compares it to a camel passing through the eye of a needle, which is certainly marvelously difficult. Persons who are thus labouring and toiling for riches for their heirs, seem as if they were labouring to send their children to hell, or to prove the Bible untrue--to prove that there was no difficulty in the way of their being rich and saved too. These are but illustrations; had I time I could go into ample details of individual instances, in which things are done which stand right in the way; but what I have said will abundantly suffice to show that the difficulty is not with God--that he is doing just as he promised, under such circumstances, to do; and the result will be just what he says it will--they will lie down in sorrow.

I once knew a father who wished to influence his four sons to give up the use of tobacco. He told me that he had always warned them, spoken to them seriously, again and again on the subject, but it did not seem to do them any good; his expostulations were all in vain. When speaking to them on one occasion, one of them said, "Father, you have always used it yourself! Example is said to be more forcible than precept." Now, what do you suppose the father said? Why, nothing, of course; he stood terribly rebuked. The same thing, in principle, I have seen a multitude of cases, where the persons were actually inculcating by their example what they blamed in others, and thus placing a formidable obstacle in the way of conversion of their friends and families, and who were nevertheless, still expecting that they would be converted.

But I remark again, We must not stickle at little things. For example, "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." It is not promised that we shall be saved with it on. We cannot say, "God must save us with our right hand." The idea is this, that the most useful thing, --things which are important to you--if, after all, they become to you such a stumblingblock that you cannot stand, put them away. The right hand is certainly most useful; but even if it were "the right eye," we are told "to pluck it out." What, then, is the principle involved here? We are never to expect God to grant us blessings promised on condition of any sacrifice or self-denial, if we neglect the conditions imposed upon us. "If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off and cast them from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life halt and maimed, rather than, having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire." Now, what does this teach? Why, "if even your right hand offend you, cut it off, or I shall let you go to hell; for you need not think that if you refuse to make the self-denial I shall save you notwithstanding." While you hesitate, and will not walk up to the mark, and undertake this self denial, which God makes the sole condition of blessing you--while you will not do this, you labour in vain; he will not bless you, he will not prosper you. Now, this may be applied to a thousand things; the fact is, that if a Christian, or any person, would have God's blessing, he must absolutely stickle at no act of self-denial required as a condition--he must strenuously avoid anything prohibited, or aught that would stand in the way of his obtaining the thing promised; and if we do not regard these conditions, the fault is our own if we do not obtain the blessing. But I remark again, Another condition indispensable to proving God, is, that we really enter into God's motives, and do what we do for the motives from which God acts. We must be benevolent, not selfish. If, for example, we pray for sinners, we must regard sinners as he does; and desire their conversions for the same reason that he desires it. If we seek blessings for ourselves, we must ask them for the same reason for which he would be able to grant them. "Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss," that is, your motive is not right--you do not sympathise with God's motives--you do not ask the blessing, for a reason for which it would be honourable for God to grant it.

But this leads me to pass from this part of the subject and to proceed to inquire.

III. What is implied in the injunction of the text. "Bring ye," &c. The prophet asks in the ninth verse, "Will men rob God?" What is the spirit of all this? The Jews had neglected their duty--they had been selfish--they had refused to bring unto God the offerings as he required them to do, --they had gone astray, turning away from sympathizing with him--they had gone in their own ways, and had not brought the offerings to God's house, and paid their tithes--in short they had turned away from his commandments; this is what they had done. Now, what did he require of them? That they should return to him, and he would return to them. Now, a spiritually minded Jew would have understood these requirements to mean not merely the outward bringing of certain tithes and offerings; but, a returning of their hearts to God in the true spirit of obedience, and then they would prove him, and see if he would not be as good as his word, and give them the blessings they sought.

The true spirit of obedience begins here--make first an offering of yourself to God. Whatever else you offer, keeping back yourself, is an abomination. Yourself is the first great offering; offer yourself a living sacrifice; by a perpetual offering, offer yourself up to God. What is true devotion? I have often thought that many persons entirely mistake the Gospel idea of devotion, seeking to be, and believing themselves to be, devout, without being or pretending to be, pious. They work themselves up into an excited frame of mind, till they have produced certain feelings, and this they deem devotion. To be devoted to a thing--what is it? What is it for a man to be devoted to his business? To be diligent, to have his heart in the undertaking, and to give all his energies to the work--this is devotion to business. What is a man's devotion to his wife, a wife's to her husband, a mother's to her children? Now, what would you think of a mother who sat down and neglected her children--who sat down and worked herself up into a state of devotion to her offspring, and allowed them meanwhile, to go without their dinner? What would you think of a business man who let his business go to ruin while he was engaged in these devotional feelings? What would you think of the farmer who indulges in these devotional frames of mind, and neither sympathizing his ground, sowed his seed, nor took care of his hedges? Now, I have known persons so infinitely mistaken on this whole question, that they have tried to be devotional without possessing a particle of piety. To be devoted, is to give the mind up by a voluntary act, and to expend all your energies on any particular thing. To be devoted to God, is to give ourselves up to him, to be devoted to his glory, to give up body and mind and all our energies to the great work to which he calls us. Remember, the first offering is to be yourself; for this is an offering which many have withheld. They have given tithes and all other offerings, but have withheld the offering themselves.

How many individuals have I known whose characters, for instance, were not on the altar of God! They would not do anything which would damage them in the eyes of the world. They are unwilling to place themselves in the gap, let men say what they will. They do not come nobly forth, and say, "Lord, here is my character; it is no use to me if it can be of no service to thee. If thou tellest me to do anything for which men will despise me, thou knowest, O my God, I will do it, and leave my character to take care of itself, or leave it to thee." This is the spirit! If God should tell them to do anything which would bring the reproach of mankind upon them, they would do it; if this be not so, it shows the character is not given up to God. Suppose a minister would not preach anything which he knew was so unpopular that it would bring reproach upon him. I have seen sins--I have known individuals who would, if they were about to rebuke any sin which they knew was rife in the community, and to which they knew a great many influential men were addicted--they would either bear silent testimony against them, or give notice that they were going to preach about it, and then, such persons as felt condemned, of course would stay away. Now, who does not see, that where individuals, for fear they should lose their character with men refuse to come out and rebuke sin, they can never expect to get rid of it. Suppose a minister for example, is afraid to rebuke the sin of intemperance; suppose in America we should not expose the sin of slavery--should we ever get rid of it? Never. God commands us to come out and rebuke sin. Suppose a minister has seen things which call for remark, but upon which "the public mind is sensitive," and which he is consequently afraid to rebuke, how could a man, who thus withholds his testimony, ever expect to get rid of that iniquity? Such evils are always likely to exist until their opponents lay their character, on the altar, and do what God tells them to do, irrespective of the opinions of men--until they hunt it out, expose, and rebuke it. Do they expect God will get rid of it, without their using the revealed and appointed means? He has commanded them everywhere to expose sin, both public and private. Now, suppose there is any sin of so delicate a nature, that the ministers and the Church bear no public and pointed testimony against it, can they expect ever to get of it? Never. They must march up, and lay their character on the altar, and Say to God, "If thou requirest me, O Lord, to do that for which all men will curse me, I will do it. If thou requirest me, O Lord, to do that for which men will crucify me, I will do it. If thou sayest, 'Speak; reprove iniquity, ' I will do so, if I die for it." Now, unless the Church do this--the individual membership, as well as the pulpit--how can they expect to reform the world? The church is the society which God has appointed to reform the world--to take the lead in every reform, and by precept and example to show unto men what they should be. Now, if the Church is afraid to oppose iniquity, can it be wondered that evils great and manifold, roll their desolation over generation after generation? Is it not true that the want of this testimony, both by precept and example, on the part of the church, accounts for the fact that the world is not converted? The Church tempts God by pretending to find a reason for all this in the sovereignty of God. Why, they might as well neglect every temporal affair, and become paupers, and then trace that to the sovereignty of God. God allows evil to exist, and will do so until generation after generation shall have gone to hell, because the appointed means are neglected. There cannot be too much stress laid upon these truths. It is time the Church should understand that unless they devote themselves to the reformation of the world--first reform--and giving themselves up to every good word and work--things will go on as they have done; but upon whose skirts will the blood be? Jehovah has shaken his skirts, and has said, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me--prove me herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

This leads me to say, in the next place, --but I cannot enlarge here, because my time is so nearly exhausted, and I must, therefore, pass rapidly to glance to the last head of the discourse--viz.,

V. To inquire the meaning of the passage. See "If I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it." This language was designed to convey a revealed principle to us which is worthy of all acceptation. In many of the promises, God has revealed the great and fundamental principles of his government. What is true of God under one state of circumstances, is always, under similar circumstances, true of him. What he will do under one state of circumstances, may always be expected of him under similar circumstances. The principle here revealed, is often revealed, expressly or impliedly. It is this--that where his requirements, and the conditions of which he is pledged, are fulfilled, he invariably comes out and fulfil his promises. "Prove me," &c. Now, this is equivalent to saying, "If you prove me, I will surely pour out," &c.

A few remarks must close what I have to say. I have already intimated that the common talk in reference to God's sovereignty, as applied to the existing evils in the world, and the want of reformation therein--the manner in which this is talked of, if tempting God as manifestly as if the same course were applied to temporal things. God's purposes do not extend more absolutely to spiritual than temporal things; Divine purposes, foreknowledge, agency, and so forth, extend equally to both. Even the grass will not grow without his blessing. On the subject of religion people are for ever applying this talk about Divine sovereignty, election, and such things, as if God had foreordained certain things in respect to religion in such a manner as to interfere with the freedom of man, and set aside his voluntary action in a manner totally different from his conduct in temporal matters. Now, this is quite a mistake; the Bible denies it. God does not ordain anything, in any such sense; there is not one word in the entire Bible which really favours the idea that any election of God's at all interferes with the liberty and free agency of the creature. I have as strong and as high views of God's sovereignty as any man. I know this, as far as the Divine mind is concerned, there is nothing new or old to him; the judgment day is as present to God as it ever will be. If a man should ask me, "Do you believe in the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God?" I would reply, "Yes." "Do you believe God knows the very hour I shall die?" "Yes." "Can I alter God's purpose so as to change his foreknowledge?" "Certainly not." "Then I might just as well not take any food, or swallow two ounces of arsenic, as I cannot die before my time." They never will die before their time comes; nor will they go one moment over it. What, then, has this to do with their own agency? Who does not know that, notwithstanding God has appointed bounds to their habitation, yet all the circumstances must concur to keep them alive, or they would die before their time They will not die before their time, because they will not reason in this way; but they will use the means, and do just as common sense would have them to do--just as God foresaw that they would do. They will not leap off a precipice, or cast themselves from London Bridge; or anything else of the kind, and then say, "I shall not die before my time!" Oh! that men would use their sense in religion, as well as in other matters! Men know the human mind is left free, responsible, active; and that, therefore, men are to go on, taking care of their property, their health, and their lives, labouring for the results they wish to bring about. But on religious subjects men talk as if they were insane. "If God knows how it will be, what's the use of my doing anything?" Do! Why, act just as you are acting in everything else, or you will go to hell, that's what you will do: just as a man will die who does not take care of his health; and no sovereignty of God in the universe will prevent a man from going to hell who does not repent.

Now, let me ask, What are you doing to secure the salvation of your souls? Are you using any of the prescribed means? How are you living before your families? Are you doing those things which ought to be done, and must be done, to promote religion around you? Do you live, act, and talk--using the means, and in the manner you ought? If not, how do you expect the conversion of the people? Are you endeavoring to remove the evils you see around you? Do you mean to do this? Or are you satisfying yourselves with a merely negative testimony? I have known some ministers who would not preach upon slavery except with previous notice, so that those who held erroneous views might remain away; and others who only preach on it once ayear, or only once in their life. Now, suppose all the ministers in the United States should simply once come out and preach against slavery, and think that then they had virtually discharged their duty so far, but to say that as to laying themselves on the altar to put it away, why, they are not going to do any such thing. Iniquity must be rebuked through the press, in the pulpit, in the railway carriages, and wherever it may be supported; and unless men will do this, the evils will not be removed.

I ask you, before God, have the Christian people of London taken hold for the removal of the iniquity of this city? Have they borne steady, energetic, yet benevolent testimony against all these evils in every way? Or have they kept silent, and cowered down before the world? Rely upon it, beloved, that if you seek the conversion of this great city, every minister must lay his character upon the altar--every Christian must put his shoulder to the work, and bid this great iniquity depart in the name of the Lord.

What are you really doing, as individuals? Are there ministers here? Brethren what are you doing? Are you satisfying yourselves with an occasional testimony against such an such an evil without continually pursuing it? If you mean to put them away, you must pursue these evils, or they will pursue you. You must hunt them out, or they will hunt the piety out of you. The natural tendency of things is to get worse, instead of better.

And what are you private members doing in this great work? Are you on the altar? Are you personally talking, labouring, and setting a good example--laying your all upon the altar? If you are doing this, we shall soon hear of it; for Jehovah has pledged himself before the universe, that if you do your duty--lay your character, time, talents, property, your all, upon the altar--he will pour out his blessings in such manner that there shall not be room enough, even in this great city, to contain them. Yes! the righteousness of London shall be like the waves of the sea. Do you believe this? He tells you to prove him; will you do it?

.
.
.
Back to Top


TOTAL ABSTINENCE A CHRISTIAN DUTY.


.
.
.
A Lecture

Delivered on Thursday Evening, June 27, 1850

BY THE REV. PROFESSOR FINNEY,

OF OBERLIN COLLEGE, UNITED STATES,

At the Surry Chapel (Rev. j. Sherman's)

This lecture was typed in by Tony Alan Mangum.
Reformatted by Katie Stewart

"It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." --Romans xiv.21.

This is equivalent to saying it is expedient. To say that a certain course, in this sense, "is good," is the same as saying it is best--it is for the general good--it is expedient, and therefore right, that we should neither "eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby our brethren stumble, are offended, or are made weak."

In the early ages of Christianity, there were several topics much agitated in the Church, some of which had been referred to Paul for decision. One of the questions from the Church of Rome was, whether it was lawful to eat flesh, inasmuch as it was customary, after animals presented for sacrifice to the idols had been before them for a certain time, to expose them for sale in the public shambles. Many, therefore, supposed that in purchasing meat they might thus, indirectly, favor idolatry, by purchasing some of that which had been offered to the idols. Many, for this reason, abstained from the use of meat altogether, lest, as I have said, they should seem to patronize idolatry. In the eighth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, you will find further reference to this subject; the Apostle concludes by saying, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." He told them, in reply to their inquiries, that it was lawful to eat meat under ordinary circumstances; yet, if so doing was an occasion of stumbling to any weak brother, and did more mischief than would counter-balance the good to be derived from it, he would deny himself for that reason. He said, if his eating flesh caused his weak brother to offend, he would "eat no flesh while the world standeth." It was not, in itself, unlawful to eat flesh; yet, he taught, it was necessary to take care lest the eating of it should stumble the brethren.

Having been requested to preach on the subject of Temperance, I will begin:--

I. By defining my position; I shall then,

II. Endeavor to establish that position;

III. Answer objections to it; and

IV. Examine the position of those who make the objections.

The question may be viewed in a great many aspects; it may be argued in a vast variety of ways. It may be discussed, for example, as a scientific question; and, in America, it has been extensively regarded in this light. I do not intend to take up this point to-night; I shall examine simply the religious bearings of the question. I am well aware that the scientific view is extremely important; it is easy enough, however, to proceed to the discussion of it as a religious question, without entering very fully into the scientific department of it. My position, then, is not that the use of intoxicating drinks in any quantity, and under all circumstances, is necessarily sinful; nor do I take the ground that any use of it is wrong, independently of the circumstances under which it is used, and the reasons which have prompted such use. I do not take the ground that any use of it is wrong, irrespective of the circumstances under which, and the reasons for which it is used; for I can conceive of circumstances under which it may be supposed to be the duty of an individual to drink--even in quantities sufficiently copious to produce intoxication--in order to meet some constitutional emergency. Physicians maintain this ground, and patients may think it necessary; under such circumstances, therefore, it is taken innocently; the thing is right or wrong according to the reasons and circumstances which demand its use. Strictly speaking, nothing is right in itself, but that love which the law of God commands; nothing is wrong, in itself, but the opposite state of mind. But it is not my purpose to discuss this question, but only to say that when we would inquire into the lawfulness of any particular act, such as the use of alcohol, we must understand the circumstances under which, and the reasons for which it is used, in order to understand whether it is right or wrong in an individual case. Again, the question is not whether it may or may not be used as a medicine when recommended by a competent physician. I do not deny that it may be used as a medicine under certain circumstances; nor do I say that it is wrong to use wine at the table of the Lord. The Temperance Question has suffered much from the controversy on this point; for if Christ has ordered the use of wine on that occasion, and as matters are left so that it cannot be positively ascertained whether his wine was alcoholic or not, the question need not be discussed; inasmuch as the quantity used at such times is so very small. Again, Paul enjoined Timothy to "Drink no longer water but take a little wine for his stomach's sake, and his often infirmities." It was lawful, therefore, for him to take a little. The Apostle did not require him to take much; nor is it necessary or usual to take much at the Communion Table, so that this part of the question does not strictly belong to the Temperance Reformation. Again, the question is not whether or not it is necessary in any case, or whether it is or is not an indispensable article of diet in any case; I would take the negative view, but, at present, I cannot make this issue, as it would carry me too far from my main design; nor do I mean just now to affirm, even, that it is in no case useful to persons in robust health, as is commonly supposed. Neither, since I cannot now enter into the scientific bearings of the question, do I mean to determine whether its use is or is not necessary or beneficial to persons in feeble health. I must make the question one of self-denial for the sake of others. I should like to discuss the question of their real necessity or utility under any circumstances; but I must content myself on this occasion with the assumption that, under some circumstances the moderate use of these drinks is useful. I will take up the matter, then, in this way, Is it your duty to forego the use of these drinks as an act of self-denial for the sake of others? I love to discuss the question in this light; because, if these drinks are useful, it affords the Church an opportunity of manifesting her love for the Savior by the sacrifice.

I. I shall state my proposition, which is simply this:--the manufacture, sale, and use of intoxicating drinks, as a beverage, or as an article of luxury or of diet--or to provide them, as such, for others--is neither benevolent, nor expedient, and is, therefore, WRONG.

In other words, that "Total abstinence from the manufacture, sale, and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, or as an article of luxury or of diet, and from offering or providing them for others, as such, under the present circumstances of the Church, is expedient, and therefore a duty."

Such being my position, I shall now proceed--

II. To defend this proposition.

In doing this, I shall

• (1.) begin by admitting, that the abuse of a good thing is not always a sufficient reason for totally abstaining from its use. Food, clothing, the doctrine of justification by faith, many of the best things are abused; it is, therefore, not a universal rule, that the abuse of a good thing is a sufficient reason for totally abstaining from its use. But I shall have occasion to advert to this admission again; because while I admit that it is not a universal rule, yet I maintain it is a good rule, and binding on men, under certain circumstances--that it is obligatory upon men, under certain circumstances, to abstain from a thing that may be useful, or that is, in fact, useful--on the ground of its great abuse. Although I admit the rule is not universal, I shall endeavor to show, that the abuse of this article is a good reason that it should be abandoned as an article of luxury or diet.

But this leads me to remark--

• ( 2.) Benevolence is a universal duty. All men, under all circumstances, should love God supremely, and their neighbor as themselves; this is a rule of universal obligation. There is no possible exception. But what is benevolence? Benevolence is good-will. It implies a willing of every good, according to its known relative value. There must be no particular stress laid on a certain good, because it is your own, irrespective of its relative value. When your neighbor's good is of greater value than your own, it must have the preference. If, by denying yourself a small good, you can procure for him a greater good, it is your duty to do it. Christ acted upon this principle; in the atonement, the great principle upon which everything turns is this--that when, by sacrificing to self a less good, or taking upon self a less evil than would befall others, or sacrificing a less good than we can obtain for others, the law which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves plainly points out the path of duty; it is very easy to see that this principle must be the one upon which Christ acted, a