themselves. This, as might be well expected, gave great offence to their weaker brethren, and proved a stumbling-block to many ; who were induced, by this example, to pursue the same line of conduct, whilst yet they doubted the lawfulness of it in the sight of God; and thus were led to the commission of damning sin by the unhallowed boldness of their own brethren ^ The Apostle marked the precise line of distinction which ought to be observed in this matter. The eating of meat offered to idols was allowable ; since neither the act, nor an abstinence from it, would make them either better or worse in the sight of God. But the eating of it in an idofs temple was decidedly wrong ; since it did, in fact, both sanction idolatry, and involve them in a participation of it^ But the eating of it at all, m the presence of one who doubted the lazvfuhiess of it, was wrong; because it put a stumbling-block in the way of a weak brother, and tempted him to violate the dictates of his less- enlightened conscience. The Apostle acknowledges that the general sentiment respecting the vanity of idols was right ; but still declares, that if any person thought his knowledge so decisive that it needed not to be under the regulation and controul of love, it was a clear proof that, '' as yet, he knew nothing as he ought to know."
Now, though this subject is not of any great in- terest to Christians in general, I conceive it to be of very great importance to Churches, where there is any considerable profession of religion; and especially to Churches wherein there are, as at Corinth, a number of persons who need to have the lines of demarcation drawn between Christian liberty and Christian duty.
I will proceed, then, to set before you, I. The defects usually attendant on knowledge —
We must not take the Apostle's words in too strict a sense, as though a person must be unconscious of any proficiency in knowledge : it is not possible for
a ver. 7 — 11. ^ 1 Cor. x. 18 — 22.