But, short of that extreme case, Paul lays down the law of curbing liberty in deference to ‘narrowness.’  In verse 14 he states with equal breadth the extreme principle of the liberal party, that nothing is unclean of itself.  He has learned that ’in the Lord Jesus.’  Before he was ‘in Him,’ he had been entangled in cobwebs of legal cleanness and uncleanness; but now he is free.  But he adds an exception, which must be kept in mind by the liberal-minded section—­namely, that a clean thing is unclean to a man who thinks it is.  Of course, these principles do not affect the eternal distinctions of right and wrong.  Paul is not playing fast and loose with the solemn, divine law which makes sin and righteousness independent of men’s notions.  He is speaking of things indifferent—­ceremonial observances and the like; and the modern analogies of these are conventional pieces of conduct, in regard to amusements and the like, which, in themselves, a Christian man can do or abstain from without sin.

Verse 15 is difficult to understand, if the ‘for’ at the beginning is taken strictly.  Some commentators would read instead of it a simple ‘but’ which smooths the flow of thought.  But possibly the verse assigns a reason for the law in verse 13, rather than for the statements in verse 14.  And surely there is no stronger reason for tender consideration for even the narrowest scruples of Christians than the obligation to walk in love.  Our common brotherhood binds us to do nothing that would even grieve one of the family.  For instance, Christian men have different views of the obligations of Sunday observance.  It is conceivable that a very ‘broad’ Christian might see no harm in playing lawn-tennis in his garden on a Sunday; but if his doing so scandalised, or, as Paul says, ‘grieved’ Christian people of less advanced views, he would be sinning against the law of love if he did it.

There are many other applications of the principle readily suggested.  The principle is the thing to keep clearly in view.  It has a wide field for its exercise in our times, and when the Christian brotherhood includes such diversities of culture and social condition.  And that is a solemn deepening of it, ’Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.’  Note the almost bitter emphasis on ‘thy,’ which brings out not only the smallness of the gratification for which the mischief is done, but the selfishness of the man who will not yield up so small a thing to shield from evil which may prove fatal, a brother for whom Christ did not shrink from yielding up life.  If He is our pattern, any sacrifice of tastes and liberties for our brother’s sake is plain duty, and cannot be neglected without selfish sin.  One great reason, then, for the conduct enjoined, is set forth in verse 15.  It is the clear dictate of Christian love.