Is it not this—­to abridge your Christian liberty—­and to go through rain, and mud, and snow, rather than give pain to one Christian conscience?

To give one more instance.  The words, and garb, and customs of that sect of Christians called Quakers may be formal enough; founded, no doubt, as in the former case, upon a mistaken interpretation of a passage in the Bible.  But they are at least harmless; and have long been associated with the simplicity, and benevolence, and Christian humbleness of this body of Christians—­the followers of one who, three hundred years ago, set out upon the glorious enterprise of making all men friends.  Now would it be Christian, or would it not rather be something more than unchristian—­would it not be gross rudeness and coarse unfeelingness to treat such words, and habits, and customs, with anything but respect and reverence?

Further:  the apostle enjoined this duty upon the Corinthian converts, of abridging their Christian liberty, not merely because it might give pain to indulge it, but also because it might even lead their brethren into sin.  For, if any man should eat of the flesh offered to an idol, feeling himself justified by his conscience, it were well:  but if any man, overborne by authority or interest, were to do this, not according to conscience, but against it, there would be a distinct and direct act of disobedience—­a conflict between his sense of right and the gratification of his appetites, or the power of influence; and then his compliance would as much damage his conscience and moral sense as if the act had been wrong in itself.

In the personal application of these remarks, there are three things which we have to say.  The first is this:—­Distinguish I pray you, between this tenderness for a brother’s conscience and mere time-serving.  This same apostle whom we here see so gracefully giving way upon the ground of expediency when Christian principles were left entire, was the same who stood firm and strong as a rock when any thing was demanded which trenched upon Christian principle.  When some required as a matter of necessity for salvation, that these converts should be circumcised, the apostle says—­“To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour!” It was not indifference—­it was not cowardice—­it was not the mere love of peace, purchased by the sacrifice of principle, that prompted this counsel—­but it was Christian love—­that delicate and Christian love which dreads to tamper with the sanctities of a brother’s conscience.

2.  The second thing we have to say is this—­that this abridgement of their liberty is a duty more especially incumbent upon all who are possessed of influence.  There are some men, happily for themselves we may say, who are so insignificant that they can take their course quietly in the valleys of life, and who can exercise the fullest Christian liberty without giving pain to others.