practice in reference to unessential points should not be allowed to disturb the harmony of Christian intercourse. It is to be observed that the exercise of the virtues here spoken of, is represented by the apostle as a service rendered to Christ; "he that in these things serveth Christ, &c.," which implies that Christ has authority over the heart and con- science.
(19) Let us, therefore, follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherehy one may edify another. That is, let us earnestly endeavour to promote peace and mutual edification. The things which make for peace is equivalent to peace itself, and things wherewith one may edify another is mutual edification. This verse is not an inference from the immediately preceding, as though the meaning were, ' Since peace is so acceptable to God, therefore let us cultivate it ;' but rather from the whole passage. ' Since Christian love, the example of Christ, the comparative insignificance of the matters in dispute, the honour of the truth, the nature of real religion, all conspire to urge us to mutual forbearance, let us endeavour to promote peace and mutual edification.'
(20) For meat destroy not the work of God. This clause is, by many commentators, considered as a repetition of v. 15. "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." The work of God then means a Christian brother ; see Eph. 2: 10. Others much more natu- rally refer the passage to the immediately preceding verses, in which the nature of true religion is exhibited. The work of God, in that case, is piety, and the exhortation is, 'Do not, for the sake of indulgence in certain kinds of food, injure the cause of true religion, i. e. pull not down what God is building up.' The figurative expression used by the apostle (^pull not down), shows that the reference is to the preceding verse; compare Gal. 2 : 18.
.^11 things indeed are pure ,• but it is evil for that man who eateih with offence. The ground on which forbearance is urged, is not that the things in question are in themselves evil, but solely that the use of them is injurious to others. 'All articles of food are in themselves innocent, but it is wrong in any man so to use them as to give offence, i. e. as to cause others to stumble.' With offence, i. e. offensively, so as to give offence. The same sentiment occurs in 1 Cor. 8: 9, "But take heed, lest by any means this liberty become a stumbling-block to them that are weak."
(21) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, norzny thing whereby thy brother stumhleth, or is offended, or is made weak. That is, abstaining from flesh, wine, or any thing else which is injurious to our brethren, is right, i. e. morally obligatory. The words stumbleth, offended, made weak, do not in this connexion, differ much from each other. The ground on which some of the early Christians thought it incumbent on them to abstain from wine, was not any general ascetic principle, but be- cause they feared they might be led to use wine which had been offered to the gods ; to which they had the same objection as to meat which had been presented in sacrifice.