morality as such are not within the legitimate sphere of the civil authority. To justify the interference of the civil government, therefore, in any given case with these important subjects, an exception must be made out. It must be shown that an opinion or a religion is not only false, but that its prevalence is incompatible with the rights of those members of the community who are not embraced within its communion, before the civil authority can be authorized to interfere for its suppression. It is then to be suppressed not as a religion but as a public nuisance. God has ordained civil government for the promotion of the welfare of men as members of the same civil society; and parental government and the instruction and discipline of the church, for their moral and religious improvement. And the less interference their is between these two great institutions in the promotion of their respective objects the better. We do not find in the New Testament any commands addressed to magistrates with regard to the suppression of heresies or the support of the truth; nor, on the other hand, do we meet with any directions to the church to interfere with matters pertaining to the civil government, vs. 3-6.

6. The discharge of all the social and civil duties of life is to the Christian a matter of religious obligation, vs. 5—7.

Remarks.

1. The Christian religion is adapted to all states of society and all forms of civil government. As the Spirit of God, when it enters any human heart, leaves unmolested what is peculiar to its individual character, as far as it is innocent, and effects the reformation of what is evil, not by violence, but by a sweetly constraining influence; so the religion of Christ, when it enters any community of men, does not assail their form of government, whether despotic or free; and if there is any thing in their institutions inconsistent with its spirit, it is changed by its silent operation on the heart and conscience, rather than by direct denunciation. It has thus, without rebellion or violent convulsions, curbed the exercise of despotic power, and wrought the abolition of slavery throughout the greater part of Christendom, vs. 1—14.

2. The gospel is equally hostile to tyranny and anarchy. It

teaches rulers that they are ministers of God for the public good; and it teaches subjects to be obedient to magistrates not only for fear but also for conscience sake, v. 5.

3. God is to be recognised as ordering the affairs of civil society. "He removeth kings, and he setteth up kings;" by him "kings reign, and princes decree justice." It is enough, therefore, to secure the obedience of the Christian, that in the providence of God, he finds the power of government lodged in certain hands. The early Christians would have been in constant perplexity, had it been incumbent on them, amidst the frequent poisonings and assassinations of the imperial palace, the tumults of the pretorian guards, and the proclamation by contending armies of rival candidates, to decide on the individual who had de jure the power of the sword, before they could conscientiously obey, vs. 1—5.

4. When rulers become a terror to the good, and a praise to them that do evil, they may still be tolerated and obeyed, not however, of right, but because the remedy may be worse than the disease, vs. 3, 4.

5. Did genuine Christian love prevail, it would secure the right discharge, not only of the duties of rulers towards their subjects and of subjects towards their rulers, but of all the relative social duties of life; for he that loveth another fulfilleth the law, vs. 7, 8.

6. The nearness of eternity should operate on all Christians. as a motive to purity and devotedness to God. The night is far spent, the day is at hand, now is our salvation nearer than when we believed, vs. 13, 14.

7. All Christian duty is included in putting on the Lord Jesus; in being like him, having that similarity of temper and conduct which results from being intimately united to him by the Holy Spirit, v. 14.

CHAPTER XIV.

Contents.

As in chapter 12, Paul had insisted principally upon moral and religious duties, and in chapter 13, on those of a political character, he here treats particularly of the duties of church mem

bers towards each other, in relation to matters not binding on the conscience. There are two points specially presented; the first is the manner in which scrupulous Christians, who make conscience of matters of indifference, are to be treated, vs. 1-12; and the second, the manner in which those who are strong in faith should use their Christian liberty, vs. 13-23.

CHAP. 14: 1-23.

Analysis.

SCRUPULOUS Christians, whose consciences are weak, are to be kindly received, and not harshly condemned, v. 1. This direction the apostle enforces in reference to those who were scrupulous as to eating particular kinds of meat, and the propriety of neglecting the sacred days appointed in the law of Moses. Such persons are not to be condemned, 1. Because this weakness is not inconsistent with piety; notwithstanding their doubts on these points, God has received them, v. 3. 2. Because one Christian has no right to judge another (except where Christ has expressly authorized it and given him the rule of judgment); to his own master he stands or falls, v. 4. 3. Because such harsh treatment is unnecessary; God can and will preserve such persons, notwithstanding their feebleness, v. 4. 4. Because they act religiously, or out of regard to God in this matter; and, therefore, live according to the great Christian principle, that no man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself, but whether he lives or dies belongs to God, vs. 6-9. On these grounds we should abstain from condemning or treating contemptuously our weaker brethren, remembering that we are all to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, vs. 10—12.

As to the use of Christian liberty, the apostle teaches that it is not to be given up or denied; that is, we are not to make things sinful which are in themselves indifferent, v. 14. But it does not follow that because a thing is not wrong in itself, it is right for us to indulge in it. Our liberty is to be asserted, but it is to be exercised in such a way as not to injure others. We must not put a stumbling block in our brother's way, v. 12. This consideration of others in the use of our liberty is enforced, 1. From the great law of love; it is inconsistent with Christian

charity, for our own gratification, to injure a brother for whom Christ died, v. 15. 2. From a regard to the honour of religion. We must not cause that which is good to be evil spoken of, v. 16. 3. From the consideration that religion does not consist in such things, vs. 17, 18. 4. Because we are bound to promote the peace and edification of the church, v. 19. 5. Though the things in question may be in themselves indifferent, it is morally wrong to indulge in them to the injury of others, vs. 20, 21. 6. The course enjoined by the apostle requires no concession of principle, or adoption of error; we can retain our full belief of the indifference of things which God has not pronounced sinful; but those who have not our faith cannot act upon it, and therefore, should not be encouraged so to do, vs. 22, 23.

Commentary.

(1) Him that is weak in faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations. This verse contains the general direction that weak and scrupulous brethren are to be kindly received, and not harshly condemned. Weak in faith, i. e. weak as to faith (riors). Faith here means persuasion of the truth; a man may have a strong persuasion as to certain truths, and a very weak one as to others. Some of the early Christians were, no doubt, fully convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and yet felt great doubts whether the distinction between clean and unclean meats was entirely done away. This was certainly a great defect of Christian character, and arose from the want of an intelligent and firm conviction of the gratuitous nature of justification, and of the spirituality of the gospel. Since, however, this weakness was not inconsistent with religion, such persons were to be received. The word (gooλaußávouai) rendered receive, has the general signification to take to one-self; and this is its meaning here. 'Him that is weak in faith take to yourselves as a Christian brother, treat him kindly;' see Acts 28: 2. Rom. 15: 7. Philemon vs. 15, 17.

There is much more doubt as to the meaning of the words (un sis diangiosis diaλoyiμv) translated not to doubtful disputations. The former of the two important words of this clause means the faculty of discrimination, 1 Cor. 13: 10; the act of discerning, Heb. 5: 14, and then dijudication, judgment. It may also signify doubt or inward conflict; see the use of

the verb in ch. 4: 20. It is taken in this sense in our version, not to the doubtfulness of disputes, i. e. not for the purpose of doubtful disputation. The word rendered disputations means also thoughts, opinions. The clause may therefore mean not to the judging of (his) opinions, i. e. not for the purpose of judging his opinions; do not act the part of a judge over him. This sense seems to be decidedly preferable on account of the context, as Paul enforces this direction by showing them that they had no right to sit in judgment on their brethren in such matters.

(2) For one believeth he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. This is an illustration of the weakness of faith to which the apostle refers in v. 1. It was a scrupulousness about the use of things considered as unclean, and with regard to sacred days, v. 5. There were two sources whence the early Christian church was disturbed by the question about meats. The first, and by far the most important, was the natural prejudices of the Jewish converts. It is not a matter of surprise that, educated as they had been in a strict regard for the Mosaic law, they found it difficult to enter at once into the full liberty of the gospel, and disencumber their consciences of all their early opinions. Even the apostles were slow in shaking them off; and the church in Jerusalem seems to have long continued in the observance of a great part of the ceremonial law. These scruples were not confined to the use of meats pronounced unclean in the Old Testament, but, as appears from the Epistles to the Corinthians, extended to partaking of any thing which had been offered to an idol; and, in these latter scruples, some even of the Gentile converts may have joined. The second source of trouble on this subject was less prevalent and less excusable. It was the influence of the mystic ascetic philosophy of the east, which had devoloped itself among the Jews in the peculiar opinions of the Essenes, and which, among the Christian churches, particularly those of Asia Minor, produced the evils which Paul describes in his Epistles to the Colossians (ch. 2: 10-23), and to Timothy (1 Tim. 4: 1-8), and which subsequently gave rise to all the errors of Gnosticism. There is no satisfactory evidence that the persons to whom Paul refers in this passage were under the influence of this philosophy. The fact that they abstained from all meat,