If God has made no law in these matters, we can do as we please. If he is silent, man's word is of no force.

That God has set his people free from the commandments of men in matters of faith is very evident. Jesus Christ alike forbade his servants to be called Master, or to call others Master. He expressly said that even the apostles should not be lords over his heritage. The apostles disclaimed all dominion over the faith of Christians. Churches have no power to alter, amend, enlarge, or diminish the creed given us in Scripture.

Nor can any church give Scriptural authority for claiming the right of ordaining ceremonies, and imposing forms upon the consciences of people; so that nonconformity shall be esteemed schism. If some such things were commended as decent or expedient, they might be comparatively harmless; but when they are exacted, they are worse than tolerable fooleries; they are engines of wickedness and cruelty.

The same is true of morals. That, which is not made sin by God's word, can never become so by the legislation of men. That, which is not in Scripture prescribed as a part of duty, can never become such by the canons of church authorities. Sin is a violation of the law of God, or a want of conformity to a divine precept. Nothing else is sin. Men have often forbidden what the decalogue required, and as often required what it forbade.

The rules to be observed respecting all attempts to bind us in faith, worship or morals, by the commandments of men are such as these:

1. Never yield your liberty wherewith Christ hath

66

made you free. Whether the laws of men shall be permitted to set aside divine statutes ought never to be a question among men. To oblige another, Paul would yield up all but his honour and his conscience; but when there is an attempt to invade his rights under form of law, he exclaims, "I am a Roman citizen;" and when they put his life in jeopardy, he exclaims, "I appeal to Cæsar." Rather than offend prejudices or hinder the gospel, he circumcised Timothy because of the Jews, which were in those quarters. Acts xvi. 3. This he did uncommanded. But when an attempt was made to enforce circumcision, he 'gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with" the churches. Gal. ii. 5. Wherever there is a clear attempt at domination, the rule of reason, of public spirit, and of Christian duty is one-Obsta principis. Never yield an inch. Paul did not. Modern times afford no brighter example of magnanimity and resistance to lawless power than that of John Hampden. Of him Richard Baxter said, he “ was one that friends and enemies acknowledged to be most eminent for prudence, piety, and peaceable counsels, having the most universal praise of any gentleman that I remember of that age." Contrary to the constitution of England, Charles I. demanded an illegal tax of his subjects. The share of the general assessment demanded of Hampden on account of some of his estates in Buckinghamshire was but twenty shillings. But "the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made Hampden a slave," said Burke. So felt that immortal man, and from the first he resisted. For so doing he has ever

since had the gratitude and admiration of all Christian freemen. None but God knows how much the civil and religious liberties of mankind owe to that one assertion of right. For although a majority of the judges was against him, yet the moral effect was on the right side. Life is not desirable, when civil and religious despotism have the sway. To yield a point enforced by no command of God is to admit that there is more than one lawgiver. And to yield to civil wrongs, when the laws protect us, is to admit that the will of one man is above a free constitution.

2. We must never hypocritically plead our consciences, when in fact we are governed only by prejudice or passion. It is a great weakness, and a wickedness to raise doubts where duty is clear, or to wish a purpose defeated by a false plea. Let men never plead conscience where conscience is not involved.

3. Let no man use his liberty for a cloak of maliciousness. 1 Pet. ii. 16. Even if we are in fact right, and our brethren through weakness are in error, we may not be reckless of their spiritual interests. We must love them tenderly and seek their good.

4. Beware of lightly esteeming one, who through weakness does not use his liberty as he might. Paul gives the whole law on this subject in Rom. xiv. 1-4.

5. When a thing is lawful, or when it is not forbidden, and the only question relates to the expediency of a given course, the whole decision must be made by every man for himself. This is clearly taught by Paul in Rom. xiv. 10, 12. "Why dost

thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. . . . So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." The spiritual despotism of modern times shows itself in nothing more than in judging others, where God has left them free.

This whole subject came up repeatedly in the early history of Christianity, and Paul then clearly marked the distinction between the lawful and the expedient. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 1 Cor. vi. 12, x. 23. This distinction should be preserved. Considerable difficulty arose respecting things offered to idols. Beasts were slain, and their blood and fat used in idolatrous worship; but the meat was sold in the market. Libations of wine were also offered in heathen temples, and the priests sent to the wine-merchant what they did not wish for their own

use.

Some contended that it was in itself lawful to buy and eat any meat sold in the shambles, and to buy and drink any wine offered for sale. Of this class were Paul and other strong established Christians. But there were weak brethren who doubted the lawfulness of so doing. These were tempted to judge their stronger brethren, and their stronger brethren were tempted to despise them. Paul would not. have the strong believe that to be wicked which was innocent. He would not have the strong to become weak. But he would not have the weak defile their

consciences by doing anything, the lawfulness of which they doubted. This would be wicked. To him that esteemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean." "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." On the other hand, he would not encourage any to do that which would harden others in sin. 66 'All things indeed are pure: but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Rom. xiv. 20, 21. A similar difficulty arose respecting days. One man esteemed one day above another; another esteemed every day alike. Rom. xiv. 5. Some wholly rejected the Jewish holy-days, while others as yet held on to them. It was not wicked to observe them, if it was done to the Lord. The question whether it was expedient to observe them was left to each man to decide for himself.

It is here noticeable that Paul directs us never to violate our consciences. If a man thinks an act wrong, nothing is more clear than that it is sinful for him to do it. To do what we are doubtful about is always sinful. But it is not always right to do what we think is right. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, but it doth not follow that whatsoever is of faith is holy. For Saul of Tarsus verily thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

While, therefore, a weak brother has no right to require us to adopt his notions, our love to him and to Christ should make us tender of his feelings, careful not to tempt him to violate his conscience, and anxious to edify him. Thus an effectual stop is put