Jews did that by which it appeared to them that they would contract defilement and guilt-they spared the lives of the enemies which they had taken in battle. Brethren, the eternal law is, that charity is right: and that law is eternally right which says, "Thou shalt love thine enemy." And had the Jews acted upon this principle they would have done well to spare their enemies: but they did it, thinking it to be wrong, transgressing that law which commanded them to slay their idolatrous enemies-not from generosity, but in cupidity-not from charity, but from lax zeal. And so doing, the act was altogether wrong.

II. Such is the apostle's exposition of the law of Christian conscience. Let us now, in the second place, consider the applications, both of a personal and of a public nature, which arise out of it.

1. The first application is a personal one. It is this:-Do what seems to you to be right: it is only so that you will at last learn by the grace of God to see clearly what is right. A man thinks within himself that it is God's law and God's will that he should act thus and thus. There is nothing possible for us to say, there is no advice for us to give, but this "You must so act." He is responsible for the opinions he holds, and still more for the way in which he arrived at them-whether in a slothful and selfish, or in an honest and truth-seeking manner; but being now his soul's convictions, you can give no other law than this-" You must obey your conscience." For no man's conscience gets so seared by doing what is wrong unknowingly, as by doing that which appears to be wrong to his conscience. The Jews' consciences did not get seared by their slaying the Canaanites, but they did become seared by their failing to do what appeared to them to be right. Therefore, woe to you if you do what others think right, instead of obeying the dictates of your own conscience; woe to you if you allow authority, or prescription, or fashion, or influence, or any other human thing, to interfere with that awful and sacred thing-responsibili ty. "Every man," said the apostle, " must give an account of himself to God."

2. The second application of this principle has reference to others. No doubt, to the large, free, enlightened mind of the Apostle Paul all these scruples and superstitions must have seemed mean, trivial, and small indeed. It was a matter to him of far less importance that truth should be estab lished than that it should be arrived at truly a matter of far less importance, even, that right should be done, than

that right should be done rightly. Conscience was far more sacred to him than even liberty-it was to him a prerogative far more precious to assert the rights of Christian conscience, than to magnify the privileges of Christian liberty. The scruple may be small and foolish, but it may be impossible to uproot the scruple without tearing up the feeling of the sanctity of conscience, and of reverence to the law of God, associated with this scruple. And therefore the Apostle Paul counsels these men to abridge their Christian liberty, and not to eat of those things which had been sacrificed to idols, but to have compassion upon the scruples of their weaker brethren.

And this, for two reasons. The first of these is a mere reason of Christian feeling. It might cause exquisite pain to sensitive minds to see those things which appeared to them to be wrong, done by Christian brethren. Now you may take a parallel case. It may be, if you will, mere superstition to bow at the name of Jesus. It may be, and no doubt is, founded upon a mistaken interpretation of that passage in the Epistle to the Philippians (ii. 10), which says that "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow." But there are many congregations in which this has been the long-established rule, and there are many Christians who would feel pained to see such a practice discontinued-as if it implied a declension from the reverence due to "that name which is above every name." Now what in this case is the Christian duty? Is it this-to stand upon our Christian liberty? Or is it not rather this-to comply with a prejudice which is manifestly a harmless one, rather than give pain to a Christian brother?

Take another case. It may be a mistaken scruple; but there is no doubt that it causes much pain to many Christians to see a carriage used on the Lord's day. But you, with higher views of the spirit of Christianity, who know that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath"-who can enter more deeply into the truth taught by our blessed Lord, that every day is to be dedicated tc Him and consecrated to His service-upon the high principle of Christian liberty you can use your carriage—you can exercise your liberty. But if there are Christian brethren to whom this would give pain-then I humbly ask you, but most earnestly-What is the duty here? Is it not this-to abridge your Christian liberty-and to go through rain, and mud, and snow, rather than give pain to one Christian con science?

To give one more instance. The words, and garb, and

customs of that sect of Christians called Quakers may be formal enough; founded, no doubt, as in the former case, upon a mistaken interpretation of a passage in the Bible. But they are at least harmless; and have long been associated with the simplicity, and benevolence, and Christian humbleness of this body of Christians—the followers of one who, three hundred years ago, set out upon the glorious enterprise of making all men friends. Now would it be Christian, or would it not rather be something more than unchristian-would it not be gross rudeness and coarse unfeelingness to treat such words, and habits, and customs, with any thing but respect and reverence?

Further the apostle enjoined this duty upon the Corinthian converts, of abridging their Christian liberty, not merely because it might give pain to indulge it, but also because it might even lead their brethren into sin. For, if any man should eat of the flesh offered to an idol, feeling himself justified by his conscience, it were well: but if any man, overborne by authority or interest, were to do this, not according to conscience, but against it, there would be a distinct and direct act of disobedience-a conflict between his sense of right and the gratification of his appetites, or the power of influence; and then his compliance would as much damage his conscience and moral sense as if the act had been wrong in itself.

In the personal application of these remarks, there are three things which we have to say. The first is this:-Distinguish, I pray you, between this tenderness for a brother's conscience and mere time-serving. This same apostle whom we here see so gracefully giving way upon the ground of expediency when Christian principles were left entire, was the same who stood firm and strong as a rock when any thing was demanded which trenched upon Christian principle. When some required, as a matter of necessity for salvation, that these converts should be circumcised, the apostle says "To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour!" It was not indifference-it was not cowardice-it was not the mere love of peace, purchased by the sacrifice of principle, that prompted this counsel-but it was Christian love that delicate and Christian love which dreads to tamper with the sanctities of a brother's conscience.

2. The second thing we have to say is this-that this abridgment of their liberty is a duty more especially incumbent upon all who are possessed of influence. There are some men, happily for themselves we may say, who are so insignificant that they can take their course quietly in the val

leys of life, and who can exercise the fullest Christian liberty without giving pain to others. But it is the price which all who are possessed of influence must pay-that their acts must be measured, not in themselves, but according to their influence on others. So, my Christian brethren, to bring this matter home to every-day experience and common life, if the landlord uses his authority and influence to induce his tenant to vote against his conscience, it may be he has secured one voice to the principle which is right, or at all events, to that which seemed to him to be right but he has gained that single voice at the sacrifice and expense of a brother's soul. Or again-if for the sake of insuring personal politeness and attention, the rich man puts a gratuity into the hand of a servant of some company which has forbidden him to receive it, he gains the attention, he insures the politeness, but he gains it at the sacrifice and expense of a man and a Christian brother.

3. The last remark which we have to make is this:How possible it is to mix together the vigor of a masculine and manly intellect with the tenderness and charity which is taught by the Gospel of Christ. No man ever breathed so freely when on earth the air and atmosphere of heaven as the Apostle Paul-no man ever soared so high above all prejudices, narrowness, littlenesses, scruples, as he and yet no man ever bound himself as Paul bound himself to the ignorance, the scruples, the prejudices of his brethren. So that what in other cases was infirmity, imbecility, and superstition, gathered round it in his case the pure high spirit of Christian charity and Christian delicacy.

66

And now, out of the writings, and sayings, and deeds of those who loudly proclaim "the rights of man " and the rights of liberty," match us, if you can, with one sentence so sublime, so noble, one that will so stand at the bar of God hereafter, as this single, glorious sentence of his, in which he asserts the rights of Christian conscience above the claims of Christian liberty-" Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standath, lest I make my brother to offend."

XVII.

VICTORY OVER DEATH.

"The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."-1 Cor. xv. 56, 57.

ON Sunday last I endeavored to bring before you the subject of that which Scripture calls the glorious liberty of the sons of God. The two points on which we were trying to get clear notions were these: what is meant by being under the law, and what is meant by being free from the law ? When the Bible says that a man led by the Spirit is not under the law, it does not mean that he is free because he may sin without being punished for it, but it means that he is free because, being taught by God's Spirit to love what His law commands, he is no longer conscious of acting from restraint. The law does not drive him, because the Spirit leads him.

There is a state, brethren, when we recognize God, but do not love God in Christ. It is that state when we admire

what is excellent, but are not able to perform it. It is a state when the love of good comes to nothing, dying away in a mere desire. That is the state of nature, when we are under the law, and not converted to the love of Christ. And then there is another state, when God writes His law upon our hearts by love instead of fear. The one state is this, "I can not do the things that I would "-the other state is this, "I will walk at liberty; for I seek Thy commandments."

Just so far, therefore, as a Christian is led by the Spirit, he is a conqueror. A Christian in full possession of his privileges is a man whose very step ought to have in it all the elasticity of triumph, and whose very look ought to have in it all the brightness of victory. And just so far as a Christian suffers sin to struggle in him and overcome his resolutions, just sc far he is under the law. And that is the key to the whole doctrine of the New Testament. From first to last the great truth put forward is-The law can neither save you nor sanctify you. The Gospel can do both; for it is rightly and emphatically called the perfect law of liberty.

We proceed to-day to a further illustration of this subject