Note, 1. It is a fundamental error in the administration of justice, and that which cannot but lead men to abundance of transgression, to consider the parties concerned more than the merits of the cause, so as to favour one because he is a gentleman, a scholar, my countryman, my old acquaintance, has formerly done me a kindness, or may do me one, or is of my party and persuasion, and to bear hard on the other party because he is a stranger, a poor man, has done me an ill turn, is or has been my rival, or is not of my mind, or has voted against me. Judgment is perverted when any consideration of this kind is admitted into the scale, any thing but pure right. 2. Those that are partial will be paltry. Those that have once broken through the bonds of equity, though, at first, it must be some great bribe, some noble present, that would bias them, yet, when they have debauched their consciences, they will, at length, be so sordid that for a piece of bread they will give judgment against their consciences; they will rather play at small game than sit out.

To have respect of persons is not good, &c. In courts of judicature, to give a cause or pass sentence in favour of a person, because he is rich, or is a relation, a friend, an acquaintance, or has done a kindness; and against another, because of the reverse, Lev 19:15; nor in religious assemblies, making a difference between the rich and the poor, Jam 2:1; this is not good in itself, nor productive of good effects, and cannot be well pleasing to God, who himself is no respecter of persons;

for for a piece of bread that man will transgress; the laws of God and men; having used himself to such unrighteous methods of proceeding, he will do any base action for a small gain, he will stick at nothing, and do it for anything; as Cato used to say of M. Coelius the tribune,

"that he might be hired, for a morsel of bread, to speak or hold his peace;''

see Eze 13:19.

respect of persons-- (Pro 24:23). Such are led to evil by the slightest motive.