"CHRISTIAN SCRUPLES."

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 268, 14 November 1887, Page 8

"CHRISTIAN SCRUPLES."

At Beresford-street Congregational Church yesterday evening the Rev. Jatnes Chew preached upon " Christian Scruples." His text was taken from Romans, 14th chapter and 15th verse—" Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." In the course of his remarks Mr Chew asked: "Is there any man here who beleives that God is so atrocious as to will that Christ should die that men should rise merely in order that they should bo punished V" Others thought Christ had died for only a portion of the human race, but he blessed God that he did not believe that, although it was taught by some persons of high authority. The universality of the redemption enlarged their conception of the loving - kindness of Chriet. They could not get away from His love, for it stretched throughout the whole world. Through it they oould appeal to the ungodly. The second question was—Could he perish for whom Christ died? What was it to be destroyed? it was not physical death, for that came to all equally; both to the Godly and the ungodly. There were those who said that it wae destruction—annihilation. Others said that it was the infliction of conscience for ever. He could tell them that ho knew not what it was. All he did know was that there was some terrible punishment for the wicked. They were just left to themselves without God, to perish in their own corruption. It was also asked—"lf Christ died for people and they perished after all, did he not die in vain ?" What did that prove? Did not God create man for his glory ? The Saviour's death was not a necessity ior salvation, but to make it possible, for it procured pardon for them. That was what Christ had accomplished. That was important, for it counteracted tho tendency of those who, so to speak, folded their arms and said, " Well, if Christ died for all, it is finished, accomplished ; why should wo trouble ourselves ? The thing is done ; we shall be saved." Thus it was that they were deluding themselves. There was also the third question. Assuming that one might perish, might tho guilt of that man's ruin not lie at tho door of ene who might be a Christian ? li Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." The chief guilt would be with tho finally impctitent man. God would not be to blame, but whilst the man's blood was upon his own head his neighbour's garments might bo sprinkled with his blood, and that neighbour might bo a Christian. Tho Christian might bo tho causo of another's destruction by being scrupulous in an unscrupulous way. The giant in Christ might not pull down tho pillurs of the houso without others coming down as well. The Chiistian might also do it by inconsistency. Ho thanked God that he had not yet met with tho minister, either at Homo or abroad, who denied Christ. There might bo some who would not try to explain the atonement. Once they did so readily, but now that they know more they did not at- ! tempt to do so. But they all believed in the atonement of tho Lord Jesus Christ, although thoy did not bring in that damnable heresy which bringeth swift destruction. He had nob met that yet. Whilst preaching against these terrible things their very scruplee might do harm. Ho meant that they might make too much of their meat. That was what wa3 now termed sacramentarianism. They might attach too much importance to eigns. r iho true idea of Sabbath-keeping was having tho spirit of it in thoir actions. If depending on sacramentarianism was their roligion, it was the weakest religion that could bo offered to grown men if it required to bo supported in that manner. Even in a new country like J this he had been struck with the grosvth of sacramentarianism. The first time he went to the new cemetery in the country he was distressed to find that it had been sectionised for the various sects. "What an awfully bad thing it would be if some of them were buried in the wrong place !" In matters liko this it seemed as if this young country had been sleeping for thirty years, and were therefore behind the Homo country. Were they surprised that there were sceptics who said, " Well if this is their religion it does not want much mental calibre, but a great amount of faith." At tho same time the man might bo unscrupulously scrupulous. That simply meant unscrupulous innotiegardingenough thescruples of others. The true Christian man would have as much regard and respect for man's scruples as possible. To whas extent should they consider another man's scruples was a nice question. He found that St. Paul who desired to be all things to all men,would not give way in some cases. Christ had also given a similar instance, and King Hezekiah broke the serpent of brass when when he found his people beginning to worship it. That showed that it was also possible to regard another man's scruples too much ; yet whilst it was a nice and delicate question how far they could consider others' scruples, still ho felt that the man who would not consider them at all was himself unscrupulous. Where they would compromise a vital error and injure a vital principle they must not concede at all, but where there were only slight differences they must give way, and he who would not do so would not be considered at the last by Him. Mr Chew in concluding his remarks applied the test to the temperance question, and warned his audience of the enormity of those who destroyed their brother man in that manner.