Temperance : a sermon preached in Christ Church, Albany Street

^.

'-.v«^.

'v.

L I B RA RY

OF THL
U N 1 V ER.S ITY
or ILLl NOIS

L!^

, v^j^ .«A>^^>^..^*^.^«_^V...it»...J^

EMPERANCE:

A

SERMON

PREACHED IN

CHRIST CHURCH, ALBANY STREET,

P.V

Rev. J. W. FESTING. M.A., Vicar,

SUNDAY EVENING, 4th November, 1883.

Printed by Request.

A. MACK.W \ Co.. 185, Ai iiANV .Sriu;r.T, N.W",

1883.
Price Fourpevce.

TEMPERANCE:

A

SERMON

PREACHED IN

CHRIST CHURCH, ALBANY STREET,

BY

Rev. J. W. FESTING, M.A., Vicar,

ON

SUNDAY EVENING, 4th November, 1883.

Printed by Reqnest.

E0niron :

A. MACKAY & Co., 185, Albany Street, N.W.

1883.
Price Fourpence.

PREFACE,

I have been requested to allow this Sermon to be published. I
know that it contains nothing new, and that it is but a partial
consideration of a great subject. But some who heard it wish to
have it in their hands, and so it is printed as it was delivered. It
was preached in a Church where for some years there has been an
Annual Sermon in connection with ' the Parochial Branch of the
Church of England Temperance Society. The subject was therefore
no new one to the congregation. Had it been I should have said
more about the Society and the advantage of co-operation in such a
work. But co-operation in any wide sense is only possible on the
broad lines of the Church of England Temperance Society, which
rest, I think, on such principles as I have endeavoured to insist on
in this Sermon.

J. W. F.

Rom. xiv. 6. — "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ;
and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

Some of the Christians of St. Paul's time were troubled in their
conscience about the matter of food. " One believeth that he may
eat all things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs," so he says in the
early part of this 14th chapter, which deals with this matter of
eating meat.

If you turn to the I. Corinthians, and look at the 8th and loth
chapters, you will find that there too St. Paul considers the question of
eating certain meat. The questions among the Romans and Corin-
thians were not exactly the same, but in considering both of them
St. Paul appealed to the same great principles. If we look at what
St. Paul says in both these cases we shall see that the same great
reasons weigh with him, we shall find too in him the same earnestness,
and the same fullness of dealing with the question, the same wish and
power to estimate fairly all the different points in a controversy, to
deal rightly with both sides, the same zeal and the same moderation.
By considering what he says in these two cases, somewhat alike yet
in some ways dissimilar, we get to the great principles which underlie
the right treatment of other cases somewhat like these, and yet
differing in many points from them.

First let us turn to the Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul is
dealing there with this case. There were some Christians who had
scruples about eating meat. They thought that the distinctions
made by the law of Moses between clean and unclean meats were
still binding on Christians, and some of them apparently were so
afraid of eating unclean meat in ignorance that they would eat no
meat at all. There were other Christians who had no such scruples
and doubts, and who believed that they might eat all things.

The whole question here was whether certain meats were unclean,
that is, whether God had set them on one side and said men were

not to eat them. There was no dispute about the fact that he had
said so to the Jew of old, and that therefore the Jew who ate unclean
meat broke God's law. The question was, was this old law still
binding. In St. Paul's days the Jewish law still had a certain hold
upon the Jewish Christians. St. Paul vindicated the Gentiles'
freedom from it. He resisted their being circumcised, but w^e know
that he himself worshipped in the Temple and fulfilled certain
requirements of the law. So in the transition state of that time the
Jewish law had a certain claim on the consciences of Jewish
Christians. St. Paul for himself had no doubt about the lawfulness
of eating all meats. " I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus
that there is nothing unclean of itself." " But," he continues, " to
him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean,"
i.e., the unclean meat does not of itself mechanically alter a man's
spiritual state., but if a man is persuaded that God has declared
certain meats to be unclean, then if he eats of those meats he is
deliberately setting on one side what he considers God's will, and so
he sins against God. The matter then is not one of meat, but of
obedience to God, of respect for Him ; and so St. Paul in effect says,
" Let any man consider the matter in this way, let him take pains to
satisfy himself either that God gives him the meat and allows him
to eat it, and so he is right in eating it, or that God forbids the meat
and so he is wrong in taking it. If men consider the matter thus,
then whatever decision they come to they honour God, and this
should be the aim and object of all Christians in all that they do."
And this result, St. Paul tells them, they must take care to recognize
in those who have formed conscientiously an opinion different from
their own. The man who was strong in faith and could see that
there is nothing unclean in itself, was likely to despise the man full
of scruples, who by his scruples caused himself inconvenience and
pain, and to think him a weak, poor sort of creature, and to take a
delight in setting at naught his prejudices; while the man who had
scruples and who thought certain things wrong, would be likely to
condemn people who did not do as he did as being careless and
indifferent, if not worse. " Let not him that eateth despise him that
eateth not, and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth."
" He that eateth, eateth to the Lord," i.e., he eateth in the full beUef
that God has given him this liberty in Christ, and has given him all
those meats, and so in what he does he honestly and heartily thanks

God for what he takes. While " he that eateth not, to the Lord he
eateth not," he too acts as the servant of Christ, he deems some things
forbidden, he holds back from what he considers evil, and thanks
God for the knowledge and power which enables him to hold back,
thanks God for what he thinks it right to take. Both are alike in
this, that both honour God.

St, Paul then first of all vindicates the law of Christian liberty.
He says a Christian has the liberty of taking all those things which
God gives him, he takes them because he is persuaded God has
given them, he takes them as God's gifts, he uses them therefore as
God's gifts, he gives thanks to God for them. And there is a
religious use implied in this giving of thanks, giving of thanks is not
a mere matter of words. St. Paul would not think that that man
gave thanks to God who professed to thank God with his lips, and
then used these things for an evil purpose. The thankful use of
God's gifts implies the use of them within certain limits.

But then St. Paul passes on from the law of Christian liberty to
the law of Christian charity. He tells men, the men strong in faith,
that they are to think of others. If the weak men and the
scrupulous are to abstain from passing judgment on others, the
strong are to beware of putting temptation in the way of others, and
temptation such as these others count temptation. A man is not to
think only of what is a temptation to himself, he is to think of what
tempts others. " Let us not therefore judge one another any more :
but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an
occasion to fall in his brother's way."

It is this that he presses very strongly upon the Romans. Do
not do anything which shall lead another to sin against his
conscience. Don't put your enjoyment of food above another's
soul's health. " Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ
died." " For meat destroy not the work of God." In the assertion
of thy liberty to eat all meats, because they are God's creation,
destroy not the greatest, noblest creation of God — man.*

"All things indeed are pure, but it is evil," or as we may render
it, there is evil even in these pure things, " for that man who eateth
with offence "; for that man who in eating either gives scandal to

* Note. — For this idea as well as many others in the Sermon, I am indebted
to the Bishop of Lincoln's Commentary.

8

another, i.e., makes another fall, or takes scandal, i.e., does something
which his own conscience condemns. '*It is good neither to eat
flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth,
or is offended, or is made weak." That is if the use of our Christian
liberty puts temptation in another's way, we are then to restrain
ourselves and think of our brother's good.

Now turn to I. Corinthians. There the question was a different one.
It was caused not by Jewish law but by heathen customs. Animals
were offered in sacrifice to the false gods. He who offered the
sacrifice, of course, worshipped these gods, but part of the act of
worship was sometimes to eat some of the meat of the sacrifice.
He who ate of the meat of a sacrifice ate that which belonged to the
god, he was fed by the god to whom he had sacrificed, and derived
life and power from him. This was the idea. But the whole of
the meat was not consumed at the time of sacrifice. Parts of the
animals which had been sacrificed were sold in the shambles, were
sold at the butchers' shops to anyone who would pay the price asked.
Christians might buy this meat, this meat which came from some
animal that had been offered as a sacrifice. What was to be done
about such meat? Was it right to eat it? That was a question
which agitated the Church at Corinth. There were two extreme
parties here. There were some who were inclined to boast of their
strong faith and their clear sight of truth. An idol is nothing they
said. It is a bit of wood or stone. What if an animal, or part of it
is laid on the altar of an idol, how can the flesh of that animal be
altered by the fact of part of it having been burnt before a piece of
wood or stone? And so clear were they that an idol was nothing,
and idol worship was really nothing to one who had this Christian
knowledge, that they saw no harm in sitting down to a feast in an
idol temple. (I. Cor. viii. lo.)

The more extreme party not only shrank from this, but looked
with suspicion on the meat that had been offered to the idol.
They were unable to rid themselves of the associations which
in their mind belonged to that meat. It was the idol's — to eat
it was to acknowledge the false god, to look to him for support
and life.

The strong in faith ridiculed and condemned this idea. They
said it was wrong, it was a treason to God for it acknowledged other
gods. So that it was good and right to eat this meat in order to

show that the idol was nothing and God everything. So that eating
such meat "commended" a man to God. (I. Cor. viii. 8.)

St. Paul, in dealing with this question, showed that here as in the
case of the Romans he agreed in principle with those strong in faith,
though he did not approve of their conduct. He brought out
strongly and clearly what the principle was on which action should
rest, and then showed what varied duties were involved in acting on
the principle.

" We know," he said, " that an idol is nothing in the world, and
that there is none other God but one." "The earth is the Lord's,
and the fullness thereof." The offering anything to an idol does not
alter its character. It is still the Lord's, as it was before. He has
given His creatures for the use of man. Nothing — no idol — can take
any of these creatures out of that gift, for that would be to withdraw
them from His power.

There is the same great principle then that we had before, viz.,
that meat is God's gift, and is to be taken as such. If it be valued
as God's gift, then it must be taken according to God's will. In our
use of the gift we are to restrain ourselves by what we know is the
will of the Giver.

But, St. Paul says, all have not this clear certainty about this
meat. Just as some Jews at Rome could not rid themselves of the
ideas they had held from childhood in connection with God's law, so
some here at Corinth, whether heathen or Jew originally, could not
rid themselves of the ideas they had connected with the meat of the
sacrifice. " Some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it
as a thing offered unto an idol." They see an acknowledgment of,
and an act of reverence to a false god in taking this meat. They
can not take it without sinning against God in their minds.
Therefore they ought not to take it. For them it is wrong.

And he rebukes very strongly those who. would lead such into
doing that which involved in them a sin against God. "Through
thy knowledge," he says, "shall the weak brother perish for whom
Christ died ? "

But though he thus protects the weak brother, he is careful to assert
the principle of Christian liberty. " If any man say unto you, this is
offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it and
for conscience sake . . . Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of
the other : for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience ? "

That is to say, another person thinking it wrong does not necessarily
make it wrong for me. My liberty is settled by my own conscience,
not by that of another. If this other person cannot eat this meat
without reverencing the idol and so being false to God, it is ^vrong for
him to eat it — but it is not therefore wrong for me. " The earth is
the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" I can take it as God's gift and
give God thanks and honour and reverence Him, and the idol is
nothing with me. But then I have to think of the effect of my
action upon this brother at my side. I have to think of Jiis
conscience, of his difficulties and dangers. His presence makes
that inexpedient for me for the time which is yet lawful for me.
*' All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient : all
things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." "Let no man
seek his own, but every man another's wealth."

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all
to the glory of God." This is the great fundamental principle, use
all that God gives you in a way which is befitting, so that the glory
of the Giver may be set forth. But also do not give offence to, do
not put a stumbling block in the way of anyone, be he Jew, or
Gentile, or Christian. (L Cor. x. 32.)

And so here in this Epistle to the Corinthians we have precisely
the same great points that we have in the Epistle to the Romans.

There is the great principle of taking God's gifts as God's gifts,
of honouring God in all things that we do; there is the great
principle of Christian liberty ; there is the great principle of not
enforcing our rights, but of caring first for the spiritual welfare of
others.

The connection of all that I have been saying with the subject
which is specially before us this evening, the subject of Temperance,
is, I think, evident. I do not mean to say that the subject might
not be treated more directly ; but I think that our consideration of
St. Paul's words bring before us many points which ought not to be
lost sight of in considering the subject.

Of the sin of drunkenness no one ought to speak or think
lightly ; I wish I could say no one can speak or think lightly. It is
a sin which in a very marked way carries its curse with it, and brings
many evils with it. And when we hear, or when perhaps we see
what its effects have been in some family and home, how not only the
individual has been degraded to such a miserable condition, but how

terribly others have suffered, then with all this misery and degrada-
tion before us, and the thought "What should I feel if my fortunes
in life, my fair name, my happiness were thus shipwrecked by
another through this sin ? " we can sympathize with the very
bitter cry of anguish we sometimes hear, we can understand the
fierce hatred of drunkenness becoming in some a fanaticism.

It is easy to talk of moderation when we have not suffered ; yet
while we feel for the sufferer, and excuse his bitterness, while we see
the need of speaking in no doubtful language about such an evil, let
us also remember the wisdom, the moderation which St. Paul's words
show to be a duty. There is a sobriety of speech which is not to be
sacrificed in the excitement of moved feelings. Sin is to be spoken
of — to be thought of as sin against God, and not merely as a
sin against society, the family, the individual. We are to see sin as
sin and dread it, even when its evil results are very small. " Be not
drunk with wine, wherein is excess" ; it is the excess, the want of self-
control, the not ruling our life by God's laws, the misuse of God's
gifts, which constitutes the sin. Intemperance is not the only sin, is
not the most deadly sin of the flesh. There are other sins, secret
sins, doing a worse work than even drunkenness. But remember why
intemperance is a sin : not because of its bad effects, but because it is
an abuse of God's gifts, because it is the taking a gift of God and
using it against God's wish, using it to destroy God's v/ork, using it
against God. Wine is a gift of God. It is spoken of thus in the
Bible. It is merely playing with truth to say that because it is not
produced by nature as we have it therefore it is not God's gift.
Bread is not produced just as w^e use it. Bread is as much the result
of man's ingenuity, as much the result of chemical change in natural
substances, as wine ; yet no one denies that bread is God's gift. The
fact is, whatever the earth gives up to us through man's ingenuity
and toil is still God's gift. Do not let us damage a good cause by
bad arguments. And equally is it playing with reason to say that
the wine that we now have is different from the wine that we read of
in the Bible, or that the wine then had no alcohol in it. No
substance is wicked in itself; alcohol is not wickedness; the
wickedness of drunkenness is the being drunk ; the wine of the Bible
could and did m.ake men drunk ; it is that which is the sbi, not the
taking alcohol. These things are God's gifts ; but remember
St. Paul's teaching, God's gifts are to be taken as His gifts, taken

with thanksgiving, taken within the limits which He allows, taken all
of them with sobriety and moderation. And remember St. Paul's
teaching about our responsibility, remember how indignantly he
puts the value of another's righteousness above that of our bodily
pleasures. " Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died."
" Through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother /^m// for whom Christ
died ? " " Destroy " — " perish " — what can be stronger words ? They
describe the dangers which accompanied the temptations which came
to the Romans and Corinthians in connection with eating meat. He
bade those who were strong in faith remember the tremendous
character of the issues of those temptations from which they were free,
but from which others were not free. He bade them think of the
weak — yet he did not deny their liberty. He did not say such
dangers as these — (and can anything stronger be said now-a-days of
drunkenness ?) — such dangers as these are the dangers which are
about the path of your weaker brethren. Therefore lest you should
bring such dangers on them you must eat no meat at all. He did
not forbid them to eat meat at all times, but he did forbid them to
eat when their eating would bring temptation upon another. So I
believe he would say now, he would tell us that whether it be eating
or drinking or anything else, while our liberty to take God's gifts is
undoubted, it is our duty to abstain from putting temptation in
another's way in our use of our liberty. It may be my duty to
abstain from meat or drink at certain times, and in certain places,
and in the company of certain people, for the sake of others. I
plead — it seems strange, but it is necessary to do so with some — I
plead for Christian liberty : " Let not him that eateth not judge him
that eateth "; " he that eateth to the Lord he eateth and giveth God
thanks." The same principle holds true of drink as of meat. But
then I bid you all observe what this liberty is ; it is not a liberty to
exceed; it is not a liberty to gratify natural tastes and passions to
the full, because they are natural. It is liberty to take the good
things the earth provides, but to take them with thanks to God, to
take them so as to promote the glory of God.

Take care how you use your liberty. Take care how you use it
when by yourself, when no one else can be influenced by your
example. Whether you are alone or with others, that which is the
great question for you is always at stake. Are you serving God or not ?
Are you temperate because you are living to God and not to yourself?

13

'J'ake care too how your use of your liberty affects others. There
is evil for you in those things which are pure if scandal is caused to
others. If you are with one who may be sorely tempted by seeing
you take that which has no danger for you, walk charitably, put no.
temptation in his way, sacrifice your liberty to that other's welfare, go
without what you might otherwise take, or do.

And very, very strongly do I plead with you all to take care how
you speak of drunkenness. Many a one who lives soberly speaks at
times too lightly of drunkenness, speaks very lightly and scofifingly of
the attempts of others to combat this sin. There are many books in
which the ludicrous side of drunkenness is so brought out that the
sinfulness of it disappears. Some of our great novelists at times have
erred in this. To speak slightingly of a sin, or to diminish its
sinfulness must be a snare to the consciences of the young and the
weak. Take care how you speak of sin. Remember always how
God speaks of it. The ludicrous side of drunkenness does not shield
the drunkard from the wrath of God.

And so take care lest you put a stumbling block in the way of
others by speaking slightingly of the efforts which are made to
promote the cause of temperance. I have heard some speak slight-
ingly and scoffingly of temperance societies and so forth in the
presence of those who needed to be encouraged to be abstinent and
to practice self-restraint, who needed not to be driven by fear of
ridicule into the slavery of drunkenness.

The evil of drunkenness is a great one, the temptation to it
in many cases a terrible one ; there are tremendous issues at
stake, the salvation of souls, the honour and glory of God.
Can we wonder if men differ among themselves as to the means
which are to be used? Even if we think some men carried
away by an excess of zeal, cannot we honour their zeal and
their self-denial ? Cannot we sympathize with their ultimate
object, even if we think it necessary to assert our Christian
liberty ? I cannot see the matter as some advocates of tem-
perance do; I think them extravagantly wild in their assertions.
But while I say this I must also say that I am sure that total
abstinence from strong drinks is a necessity in some cases, and that
it is a great safety for some men under the peculiar circumstances of
their work, such a safety indeed as to be a duty. I believe too that
abstinence niay be a wise and prudent thing for many who can

14

practice it, especially for children. Some restraint, some rule of life
in using these things, is a necessity for all.

I honour (it is impossible surely to do otherwise) the zeal and self-
denial of those who abstain because they think they can thus help
their weak brethren, though I am not always convinced by their
arguments.

Let us remember St. Paul's words. Let not those who think
themselves strong "despise" the weak; let not those who abstain
"judge" those who do not abstain. He taught men to honour
convictions which they could not always share.

But, in conclusion, let us all remember that this question of
temperance in drink is only part of a great question. There are
other deadly sins — there are other sins of the body. Temperance in
the use of anything lawful should be one of the Christian's laws.
Abstinence from all evil should be another. The Christian should
in word and in deed always be found on God's side. He should
always abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good. He
should always think of others and study their spiritual welfare, and
take heed lest he put a stumbling block in the way of any.

It is the light of God's law that enables him so to judge ; it is the
grace of God that enables him so to act. This light and this grace
make men saints. God offers them to us. Let us accept and
use them. Without them we cannot be found in that great multitude
of which All Saints Day has so lately told us, and in telling us
has so persuasively bidden us " follow that blessed company in all
virtuous and godly living."

Harrison 6^ Sons, Printers in Ordi/iary to Ho Majesty, St. Martin's Lane.

'.Ji^ffk\

^i