quarrels are to be decided, except by law; how the oppressed are to be freed from gross' oppressors, except by an appeal to legal justice; how flagrant crimes-such as that condemned in the fifth chapter-are to be prevented in Christians? I answer, the Church of Christ does not include such persons in the Idea of its existence at all. It only contemplates the normal state; and this is the Idea of the Church of Christ : men 'washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." But drunkards, revilers, extortioners, covetous men, gross sensualists, I cannot tell you how to legislate for such, for such ought not to be in your society at all. Regenerate thieves! regenerate libertines! regenerate extortioners! There is a horrible contradiction in the very thought; there is something radically wrong, when such men, remaining in their vices, are imagined as belonging to the true Kingdom of God. This is what you were as heathens; this is not what you are to be as Christians.

And here you observe, as usual, that the Apostle returns again to the great Idea of the Church of God, the invisible Church, Humanity as it exists in the Divine mind; this is the standard he ever puts before them. He says, This you are. If you fall from this you contradict your nature. And now consider how opposite this, St. Paul's way, is to the common way of insisting on man's depravity. He insists on man's dignity he does not say to a man, You are fallen, you cannot think a good thought, you are half beast, half devil, sin is alone to be expected of you, it is your nature to sin. But he says rather, It is your nature not to sin; you are not the child of the devil, but the child of God.

:

Brother men-between these two systems you must choose. One is the system of St. Paul and of the Church of England, whose baptismal service tells the child that he is a child of God-not that by faith or anything else he can make himself such. The other is a system common enough amongst

us, and well known to us, which begins by telling the child he is a child of the devil, to become perhaps, the child of God. You must choose: you cannot take both; will you begin from the foundation Adam or the foundation Christ? The one has in it nothing but what is debasing, discouraging, and resting satisfied with low attainments; the other holds within it all that is invigorating, elevating, and full of hope.

LECTURE XIV.

I CORINTHIANS, vi. 12-20.

-December 21, 1851.

WE

E have divided this chapter into two branches, the first relating to the right method of deciding Christian quarrels. Our subject last Sunday was the sin of a litigious spirit, and this I endeavoured to show in a twofold way :—1st. As opposed to the power lodged in the Christian Church to settle quarrels by arbitration on the principles of equity and charity, which are principles quite distinct from law; one being the anxiety to get, the other the desire to do right. And in assurance of this power being present with the Church then, St. Paul reminds the Corinthian Christians of the Advent Day when it shall be complete-when "the saints shall judge the world." For the advent of Jesus Christ,-the Kingdom of God,-is but the complete development of powers and principles which are even now at work, changing and moulding the principles of the world. If hereafter the saints shall judge the world, "are ye unworthy now to judge the smallest matters ?"

2nd. The second point of view from which St. Paul regarded the sinfulness of this litigious spirit was the consideration of the Idea of the Church of Christ. Christian quarrels ! Disputes between Christian extortioners! The idea of the Church of God admits of no such thought-" Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the spirit of our God."

I urged this as the apostolic mode of appeal to men as redeemed, rather than to men as debased, fallen, reprobate.

And I said further, that we must make our choice between these systems—the one, that of modern sectarianism; the other, that of St. Paul, and, as I believe, of the Church of England. We must start from the foundation of Adam's fallen nature, or else from the foundation of Jesus Christ: we are either children of the devil or we are children of God. St. Paul says to all," Ye are redeemed."

To-day we are to consider another question, What are the limits of Christian rights? We can scarcely conceive that the Religion of Jesus Christ could ever be thought to sanction sin and self-indulgence. But so it was. Men in the Corinthian Church, having heard the Apostle teach the Law of Liberty, pushed that doctrine so far as to make it mean a right to do whatsoever a man wills to do. Accordingly he found himself called on to oppose a system of self-indulgence and sensuality, a gratification of the appetites and the passions taught systematically as the highest Christianity. By these teachers self-gratification was maintained on the ground of two rights:

First. The rights of Christian liberty. "All things are lawful for me."

Secondly. The rights of Nature. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats," and "God shall destroy both it and them."

First. The rights of Christian liberty. They stiffly stood on these. Their very watchword was, "All things are lawful." It is easy to understand how this exaggeration came about. Men suddenly finding themselves freed from Jewish law with its thousand restrictions, naturally went very far in their new principles. For the first crude application of a theory either in politics or religion is always wild. They said, We may eat what we will. We are free from the observance of days. things are lawful. That which is done by a child of God ceases to be sin. St. Paul met this exaggeration by declaring that Christian liberty is limited, first by Christian expediency—

All

"All things are lawful "—yes, "but all things are not expedient;" " and secondly by its own nature-" All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

We will consider first the meaning of Christian expediency. It is that which is relatively best-the best attainable. There are two kinds of "best:" the "best" absolutely, and the "best" under present circumstances. It is absolutely best that war should cease throughout the world. Relatively, it is best under present circumstances, that a country should be ready to defend itself if attacked. A defensive fleet is expedient, and relatively best, but not the absolutely Christian best.

Now that which limits this liberty is, the profit of others. For example, in the northern part of these islands the observance of the Sabbath is much more rigorous than it is here. The best conceivable would be that all over Christendom the free high views of the Apostle Paul should be spread, the doctrine of the sanctification of all time. But so it is not yet. In the North on Sunday, men will not sound an instrument of music, nor take a walk except to a place of worship. Now, suppose that an English Christian were to find himself in some Highland village, what would be his duty? "All things are lawful for" him. By the law of Christian liberty he is freed from bondage to meats or drinks, to holidays or Sabbath days; but if his use of this Christian liberty should shock his brother Christians, or should become an excuse for the less conscientious among them to follow his example, against the dictates of their own conscience, then it would be his Christian duty to abridge his own liberty, because the use of it would be inexpedient.

The second limitation to this liberty arises out of its own nature. In that short sentence, "I will not be brought under the power of any," is contained one of the profoundest views of Christian liberty; I will try to elucidate it.