Romans 14:23: "He that doubteth is damned. ..for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Whether it is lawful itself, is not the question. If he doubts its lawfulness, it is wrong to him. There is one exception which ought to be noticed here, And that is, where a man as honestly And fully doubts the lawfulness of omitting to do it as he does the lawfulness of doing it. Then all that can be said is, that he must act according to the best light he can get. But where he doubts the --lawfulness of the act, but has no cause to doubt the lawfulness of the omission, And yet does it, he sins And is condemned before God, And must repent or be damned.

Some reasons for the correctness of the principle laid down in the text -that if a man does that of which he doubts the lawfulness, he is condemned follows: If God so far enlightens his mind as to make him doubt the lawfulness of an act, he is bound to stop there And examine the question And settle it to his satisfaction. Suppose your child is desirous of doing a certain thing, but he doubts whether you would be willing, is it not his duty to ask you? IF he doubts your approval of it And still does it, is not this palpably wrong?

Suppose an atheist opens his eyes on the blessed light of heaven, And breathes this air, sending health And vigor through his body. Here is evidence enough of the being of God to set him on the inquiry after that Great Being who provides all these means of life And happiness. And if he does not inquire for further light, if he does not care, if he sets his heart against God, he shows that he is an atheist in heart as well as an atheist in intellect. He has at least, the evidence that there may be a God. What then is his business ? Plainly, it is to set himself honestly, And with the most childlike And reverent spirit, to inquire after Him And pay Him reverence. If when he has so much light as to doubt whether there may be God, he still goes around as if there were none, And does not inquire after truth And obey it, he shows that his heart is wrong, And that he says, "let there be no God."

Here we have a Book claiming to be a revelation from God. Many good men have believed it to be so. The evidences are such as to have perfectly satisfied the most acute And upright minds of its truth. The evidences, both external And internal, are of great weight. To say there are NO evidences is itself enough to bring any man's soundness of mind into question, or his honesty. There is, to say the least that can be said, sufficient evidence to create a doubt whether it is a fable And an imposture. This is in fact but a small part, but we will take it on this ground. Now is it his duty to reject it? No Deist pretends that he can be so fully persuaded in his own mind, as to be free from all doubt. All he dares to attempt is to raise cavils And create doubts on the other side. Here then, it is his duty to stop, And not oppose the Bible, until he can prove without a doubt, that it is not from God.

So with the Unitarian. Granting (what is by no means true) that the evidence in the Bible is not sufficient to remove all doubts that Jesus Christ is God; yet it affords evidence enough to raise doubts on the other side, And he has no right to reject the doctrine as untrue, but is bound humbly to search the Scriptures And satisfy himself. Now, no intelligent And honest man can say that the Scriptures afford no evidence of the divinity of Christ. They do afford evidence which has fully satisfied thousands of the acutest minds who have before been opposed to the doctrine. No man can reject the doctrine without a doubt, because here is evidence that it may be true. And if it may be true, then he rejects it at his peril. Take the Universalist. ..where 1s one who can say he has not so much as a doubt whether there is a hell, where sinners go after death into endless torment? He is bound to stop and inquire and search the Scriptures. It is not enough for him to say he does not believe in a hell. If it may be there is, and if he goes on reckless of the truth whether there is or not, that itself makes him a rebel against God. He doubts whether there is a hell or not, and yet he acts as tho' he were certain and had no doubt. He is condemned.

I once knew a physician who was a Universalist., And who has gone to eternity to try the reality of his speculations. He once told me that he had strong doubts of the truth of Universalism, And had mentioned his doubts to a minister, who confessed that he too, doubted its truth, And did not believe there was a Universalist in the world who " did not doubt. ," For a man to do a thing when he doubts whether it is lawful shows that he is selfish, And has other objects besides doing the will of God. It shows that he wants to do it to gratify himself. He doubts whether God approves it, And yet he does it. Is he not a rebel ? If he honestly wished to serve God, when he doubted, he would stop And inquire And examine until he was satisfied. But to go forward when he is in doubt, shows he is selfish And wicked And willing to do it, whether God is pleased or not. He wants to do it whether it is right or wrong. He does it because he wants to do it And not because it is right.

To act thus is an impeachment of the divine goodness. He assumes it as uncertain whether God has given a sufficient revelation of His will, so that he might know his duty. He virtually says that the path of duty is so uncertain And doubtful that he must decide at a venture. It indicates slothfulness And stupidity of mind. It shows that he would rather act wrong than use the necessary diligence to learn And know the path of duty. It shows that he is either negligent or dishonest in his inquiries. It manifests a reckless spirit. It shows a want of conscience, an indifference to right, a setting aside of the authority of God, a disposition not to do God's will, And not to care whether He is pleased or displeased, a desperate recklessness And headlong temper, that is the height of wickedness.