CHAPTER XIV. VERSES 18-20.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

Instead of en toutois, 'in these things,' all the chief MSS. read en toutō, ‘in this.' He who in this manner serves Christ-by making questions of food subordinate to spiritual things-is acceptable (euarestos)—well-pleasing to God, and 'approved' of men' (dokimos tois anthrōpois),—approves himself to men as being what he professes, i. e. spiritually and not carnally minded. Let us then follow (diōkōmen)—pursue the things of peace,' the things that promote brotherly peace, 'and the things of edification for one another '-things by which Christians build one another up in the strength and completeness of the Christian life. The idea of a 'building' suggests the reiterated appeal,-do not on any account destroy (kataluō, dissolve, or cast down) the work of God-the living workmanship of God's Spirit-in the person of a Christian brother. The apostle then returns to the thought expressed in verse 14, asserting the undeniable truth, that, though a thing is pure (katharon) in itself, it becomes evil (kakon) to the conscience of the man who regards it as such, and yet joins himself to it; so that good food is converted into a stumbling (proskomma)—a cause of sin-to him who eats it while he considers it unclean.

CHAPTER XIV. VERSE 21.

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

The apostle had been alluding to the case of a Christian who considered meat offered to idols as having become polluted; and he had been showing that by inadvertently tempting him to eat such food, his fellow-Christians were eating uncharitably, and imperilling his salvation. He now proceeds to state the general principle underlying this case, and all others of the same class. It is good (kalon) -morally beautiful or excellent, calculated to call forth the admiration of all good beings-not to eat flesh (krea), nor to drink wine (oinon), nor “to do any thing by means of which thy brother stumbles, or offends, or is made weak"; that is, by which his conscience is impaired, as would be the case if its dictates were disobeyed.

No text has been more frequently and successfully quoted than this, on behalf of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors; yet many objections to such an application of it have been taken from opposite quarters.

Opponents have objected (1) that the apostle's reference was to a particular case, and not to the question of abstaining from flesh or wine, as such, under all circumstances. True, but the principle is broad enough to include all circumstances and occasions, where the main point is involved-the stumbling and sin of a brother. The question is not what particular case St Paul had in his eye, but whether the principle he enunciates is applicable to the use of intoxicating liquors ás a beverage. If such use by Christians be a cause of transgression, the evident and essential element of moral comparison is established.

But it is objected (2) that the apostle limits his reference to the case where a person offends his own conscience, and so contracts guilt by doing what he believes to be wrong; whereas those who are led into evil by strong drink are persons generally who use it without moral hesitation or constraint. This plea, if granted, does not cover the numerous cases (a) where abstainers are induced to take strong drink, contrary to their sense of right, by the example (and even persuasion) of others; and (6) where many, who are doubtful whether it is right to use such liquors, are moved to take them in compliance with surrounding usage, sustained by men with a reputation for religion. Customs are almost omnipotent in their influence over innumerable minds, and not least over those whose sensitive systems are most endangered by strong drink, who, in many cases, would gladly abstain, if not discouraged by the opposite conduct of persons to whom they look up. But the plea will not hold at all in the sense of the objector, for the argument of the apostle is not based on the manner of the offence, but on its existence; and his conclusion is not limited to the avoidance of sin in one particular way, but extends to its avoidance altogether. The great end is not realized save by abstinence from every thing that causes another to stumble, to do evil, and to become weak. Reduced to its elementary form, the principle is nothing short of Rais,—Abstain from what will produce or provoke sin in others.

It is objected (3) that the apostle restricts his reference to Christian brethren, and does not affirm the duty of abstaining from what is a cause of sin to men in general. Even with this restriction, the duty of general Christian abstinence, for the sake of fellow-Christians who are in danger of being seduced from their integrity by strong drink, is clearly deducible from this passage; but who can doubt that the spirit of the passage, the essence of the principle, is as applicable to Christian behavior in respect to men in general as it is to believers in particular? The special case before him necessarily restricted the apostle's application of the principle to Christians who had a conscience against eating food offered to idols; but who that knows how he labored 'to become all things to all men, that he might save some,' can doubt that he would have applied the same principle to the preservation of all men from vice and misery, especially from such diffusive and ever-deepening vice and misery as spring from indulgence in alcoholic liquors? Indeed, this more extensive application is made by the apostle himself in 1 Cor. x. 32. See Note.

"St Paul,"

It is proper to notice an objection entertained by some Temperance advocates to the common use of this passage as an argument for abstinence. they say, "is confessedly pleading with the Christians of Rome, that they should resign what was good in itself for the sake of the conscientious, though unfounded, scruples of some of their own body; and to make a corresponding appeal to British Christians for abstinence from intoxicating liquors is to admit, what is contrary to fact, that these drinks are, like those meats, good in themselves, and that abstinence is expedient only on account of the prejudices of abstainers, or because of the weakness of those who cannot use them without going to excess. Neither the advocacy nor practice of abstinence that rests on such a shifting basis of expediency can itself be firm; while positive error is encouraged by allowing men to imagine that they are sacrificing a valuable article of diet when they are induced, often reluctantly, to abstain out of regard to the welfare of others." There is sufficient plausibility in this statement to make it desirable that the Pauline argument from Christian benevolence should never be employed, except with a distinct intimation that it is advanced without prejudice to the solid argument for absti nence, grounded on science and experience. Still, within its own limits, the

Pauline plea seems quite legitimate, and very forcible. It is so in relation to the Christian objector to total abstinence, who denies the validity of other arguments in its favor, since it meets him on grounds from which he cannot retreat. It virtually says to him, “Well, if you decline to examine the evidence of physiology, if you refuse to admit all the other arguments on behalf of abstinence, you must admit that the temporal and spiritual benefit of others is good and sufficient reason why articles of even real utility should be cheerfully resigned; for otherwise the example of the Saviour is a visionary ideal, and all talk of self-denial nothing better than hypocritical 'profession,' or self-deception." In dealing with Christian oppo nents, then, the Pauline principle is a valuable argumentum ad hominem; and where the heart appealed to is imbued with a genuine Christian benevolence, such an appeal, if intelligently apprehended, can hardly fail to be successful.

CHAPTER XIV. VERSES 22, 23.

22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

The apostle is here addressing himself to one who asserts that he has 'faith' in the lawfulness of eating what has been or may have been associated with idolatrous rites; and he advises, 'Have this faith to thyself before God,' for he is happy who does not condemn himself-i. e. is not condemned by his conscience-in the thing that he allows; but, on the contrary, he who 'doubts '—he who exercises casuistry (ho diakrinomenos), fearing evil in what he eats-is 'damned '-i. e. is condemned" (katakekritai)—in eating, because he has no 'faith'-or conviction-that what he is doing is right; 'for whatsoever is not of faith is sin,'-sin to the doer, because it is not done with a good conscience. The apostle does not say that whatever conscience approves is right (for conscience may be perverted or misinformed), but that what conscience does not approve cannot be right to the doer. False notions of 'Christian liberty' have induced a wide-spread, growing, and most pernicious fallacy on this subject.

In all ages the question What is truth? seems to have received an unhappy treatment. The claims of Truth are subordinated to the claims of the individual conscience, with all its whims, defects, and narrowness! People refer constantly to their opinions,' as if they did not rest under the ultimate obligation of referring their opinions to the facts and principles which are the only possible evidence of their being true. Even philosophers like Grote go so far as to make Truth into the varying perception of the percipient persons who 'trow' it, as if there were one truth for me and another for my neighbor! The Universe, however, with its stern laws, vindicates the objective truth by punishing every individual transgressor. It never accommodates itself to the opinions' of mankind. Certainly, as St Paul argues, a man must follow his own sense of right, but no man has more enforced the solemn obligation of seeking the true Light, lest the fancy of the Individual should be the ignis fatuus of self-deception and of willing defect. The bearing of this principle upon the use of intoxicating liquors is

This word will show the plain reader how very different, because wider, is the ancient use of it compared with the modern. It is like the word 'drunken' in this respect.

manifest; for the light now shed on the nature and effects of such beverages must increase the number of persons who cannot, use them without misgiving; and all such persons should be impressed with the declaration that they cannot be other than brought into judgment' if, while in this state of moral indecision, they partake of inebriating drinks.*

CHAPTER XV. VERSES 1-3.

. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. 3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

Most beautiful and Christ-like is the exhortation of ver. I. Those who cannot partake of any particular kind of food with a good conscience are to abstain, and those who might conscientiously partake are not to do so if their example will be a snare to others, for the strong (dunatoi, ‘the able') ought to bear the infirmities (ta astheneemata, 'the weaknesses') of the weak (tōn adunatōn, ‘of the unable'), and not to please themselves. How emphatically does this principle condemn those who boast that they take intoxicating drink ‘because they like it ' !—' because they have a right to do what they please'! The true Christian's highest pleasure consists in what is most acceptable to Christ and most useful to man; so 'let every one of us please his neighbor for his good (eis to agathon, for the neighbor's benefit) to edification '—to the building up of the Christian character and of the Christian brotherhood as a Living Temple, all glorious with the beauty of holiness and lovingkindness. For even Christ pleased not Himself.' As a man He had appetencies which might have been innocently gratified, considered in themselves, but they were not indulged-they were inflexibly and cheerfully restrained,-in order that the work of human redemption might be triumphantly carried out. How singular and suspicious, that while every day professed Christians are earnestly pleading the example of our Lord for drinking what they like, we never hear of their insisting upon His example of perfect self-denial! Yet the Lord Jesus is the sublimest and most perfect example of self-denial the world has seen; He pleased not Himself sensuously, because He pleased His Father and Himself spiritually; and in exact proportion as His professed followers are like Him, they will not consult with flesh or fashion, with palate or custom, as to what should be done or left undone. If this standard were honestly applied to the question of using intoxicating liquors, and if no more strong drink were to be henceforward consumed merely to please the lower-self, who can doubt that the habitual use of it would rapidly disappear from the Christian world?

'What is a person to do, if he is in as much doubt whether it is lawful to abstain as he is whether it is lawful to drink?' Two answers may be given,—(1) that a question as to the lawfulness of abstinence can hardly arise, except on the score of health, and then the best information must be sought; and (2) that in a case of balanced doubts, the deciding motive may always be found by estimating the kind of influence most likely to be exerted, by either course, upon domestic, social, and religious life.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF

ST PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS.

CHAPTER V. VERSES 6—8.

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness: but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

V. 6. A LITTLE LEAVEN] Mikra zumee. Zumee, 'ferment,' answers to the Hebrew seor. Wiclif has witen ye not that a littl sourdouy apeirith al the goblet?' (corrupteth all the lump).

V. 7. AS YE ARE UNLEAVENED] Kathōs este azumoi, 'as ye are unfermented '= uncorrupted. Tyndale's version gives 'swete breed'; so Cranmer's and the Geneva versions.

FOR EVEN CHRIST OUR PASSOVER IS SACRIFICED FOR US] The words huper heemon, 'for us,' are absent from all the ancient MSS.

V. 8. BUT WITH THE UNLEAVENED bread of SINCERITY AND TRUTH] All' en azumois eilikrineias kai aleetheias, but with the unfermented (things) of sincerity and truth.'

This passage may be appropriately compared with Luke xiii. 21, where the penetrative and diffusive influence of leaven is used as an emblem of heavenly truth in its rapidity of operation;-here, ver. 6, the same qualities are ascribed to spiritual error. But ver. 7,- Purge out therefore the old leaven,' etc.-answers to the Saviour's warnings, and is founded on the well-known nature of ferment as the product and producer of corruption. [See Notes on Matt. xvi. 6, 12, and Luke xii. 1.] Contact with evil is to be avoided, 'for a little leaven leavens the whole lump,' if allowed to work unchecked ;-probably a proverbial saying, like to the other, Evil communications corrupt good manners.' But as this evil had begun to work in the Corinthian Christians, they were to 'purge it out,' that they might resemble an unleavened lump. Christ our passover (pascha = paschal-lamb) is sacrificed; and as the ancient sacrifice was to be eaten with unfermented cakes and bitter herbs, so must the great spiritual feast, in which the Lamb of God is set forth as the food of the soul, be observed, not with malice and wickedness-the leaven of the heart,—but with simplicity and truthfulness, the unperverted elements of a genuine Christian disposition.