eateth with offence. 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.
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.'--ROMANS xiv. 12-23.

The special case in view, in the section of which this passage is
part, is the difference of opinion as to the lawfulness of eating
certain meats. It is of little consequence, so far as the principles
involved are concerned, whether these were the food which the Mosaic
ordinances made unclean, or, as in Corinth, meats offered to idols.
The latter is the more probable, and would be the more important in
Rome. The two opinions on the point represented two tendencies of
mind, which always exist; one more scrupulous, and one more liberal.
Paul has been giving the former class the lesson they needed in the
former part of this chapter; and he now turns to the 'stronger'
brethren, and lays down the law for their conduct. We may, perhaps,
best simply follow him, verse by verse.

We note then, first, the great thought with which he starts, that of
the final judgment, in which each man shall give account of himself.
What has that to do with the question in hand? This, that it ought to
keep us from premature and censorious judging. We have something more
pressing to do than to criticise each other. Ourselves are enough to
keep our hands full, without taking a lift of our fellows' conduct.
And this, further, that, in view of the final judgment, we should
hold a preliminary investigation on our own principles of action, and
'decide' to adopt as the overruling law for ourselves, that we shall
do nothing which will make duty harder for our brethren. Paul
habitually settled small matters on large principles, and brought the
solemnities of the final account to bear on the marketplace and the
meal.

In verse 13 he lays down the supreme principle for settling the case
in hand. No Christian is blameless if he voluntarily acts so as to
lay a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in another's path. Are
these two things the same? Possibly, but a man may stumble, and not
fall, and that which makes him stumble may possibly indicate a
temptation to a less grave evil than that which makes him fall does.
It