2. What are the signs by which the citizens of the Kingdom of God are recognized ? Not any uniform which can be laid aside when we enter our secret chamber ; not any watchword which we can learn by an easy tradition ; but a cliaracter which clothes itself in deeds, a creed which is translated into a Hfe. Each citizen of the Kingdom is known by the inner life. There is a Kingdom of God within us. " Behold, the kingdom of God is within you " (Luke xvii. 21). We are known and marked as citizens, not by outward observances, but by character ; not by what we profess, but by what we are.
^ It's the flesh and blood folks are made on as makes the difference. Some cheeses are made o' skimmed milk and some 0' new milk, and it's no matter what you call 'em, you may teD which is which by the look and the smell.^
^ The throne of the Kingdom of God is not erected in the land of doing, but in the land of being ; primarily it is a matter not of clean hands, but of clean hearts.^
' T. Munger, Horace Bushnell, 46. ' Mrs. Poyser, in Adam Bede.
• J. H. Jowett.
438 A DEFINITION OF THE KINGDOM
XL
What the Kingdom of God is Not.
" The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking.'^ Who ever thought it was ? It seems a strangely inadequate conception. How did it arise ? In heathen society every meal was in a manner dedicated to the household gods by laying some portion of it on the family altar. When one member of a heathen family had become a Christian, he would at once be confronted with the question, rising in his own conscience, whether by partaking of such food he might not be countenancing idolatry. And even though his own family was entirely Christian, the difficulty was not removed, for much of the meat offered in worship in the Temple found its way into the common market, so that at every meal the Christian ran the risk of eating things sacrificed to idols. Was a Christian at liberty to eat such food ? " Yes," said one. "No," said another. Each reproved and condemned the other. Which was right ? Possibly both. Possibly neither. Said one, "You can eat, and still be of the Kingdom of God." Said another, " If you eat, you are not of the Kingdom of God." And to both of these St. Paul made reply, "The Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking " ; it is determined by something that lies further backward and inward, by a man's personal relationship to the Holy Ghost.
1. The burning question among the Christians in Rome at this time was the question of meats. Some converts — Jews by birth — brought" into the fold of Christ the strict observance of the Mosaic- prohibitions in which they had been brought up. They were careful not to violate the distinction of animals clean and unclean, as laid down by the law. Others — educated we know not under what influences — went beyond this. They would not touch animal food at all. They were strict vegetarians. Perhaps they had conscientious objections to taking life ; perhaps their abstention was a development of asceticism. Others again, Gentiles by birth and education, took the opposite extreme. They ostentatiously vaunted their indifference in these matters. They would eat anything that came in their way. It might be clean or unclean from a Jewish point of view ; it might even
ROMANS XIV. 17 439
have been offered for sacrifice on a heathen altar in an idol's temple. They suffered no scruple to stand in their path.
But they were not content each to follow his own practice, and to leave his neighbours alone. The abstainers denounced the non-abstainers as men of loose principles who brought dishonour on the Church, The non-abstainers despised the abstainers as men of narrow views who were ignorant of the true Gospel of liberty. Thus there was strife and dissension, there was mutual recrimination, there was hatred and division, where there should have been union and peace and brotherly love.
It was a pitiable dispute in the Apostle's eyes. They needed all the strength which union alone can give ; and yet they diminished, they dissipated, they neutralized what force they had by internal quarrels. And quarrels about what ? About meats and drinks — things which perish in the using, things mean and transitory, utterly valueless in themselves. It was a pitiable dispute. So the Apostle told them plainly. He pronounced that every creature of God was good. He declared that all things were pure, and nothing was unclean. And, on the other hand, he said that eating and drinking are in themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, and every form of food willingly given up.
2. St. Paul could do no more than bring his own piety and common sense to bear upon the special questions of his day : and even he cannot free us from the obligation to use ours in the questions of our day.
(1) Even to-day we need to remember that " the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking." As Christians we can never eat or drink without some distinct reference to Christ, and to our position as His servants and soldiers. But, apart from these con- siderations of the moral effect it may have upon ourselves and others, there is not anything religious about eating and drinking. It is absolutely indifferent ; and all the Church regulations or Church censures in the world cannot make it otherwise. In all ages people have had very strong ideas on the subject of eating and drinking, some of them sensible enough, and some very fool- ish ; but from the point of view of the Kingdom they are equally valueless. To put it quite simply (and sometimes it is well to