or influence, or any other human thing, to interfere with that awful and sacred thing—­responsibility.  “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 established 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 to 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?