the weakness of others, exhibited in this whole connection, may well excite the highest admiration. The most enlight- ened man of his whole generation, was the most yielding and conciliatory in all matters of indifference.
The clause, " For the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," at the end of this verse, is not found in the best manuscripts, and therefore omitted in all the critical editions of the Greek Testament. They seem to be here entirely out of place. In verse 26 they assign the reason why the Corin- thians might eat without scruple whatever was sold in the market. But here they have no connection with what pre- cedes. The fact that the earth is the Lord's, is no reason why we should 7iot eat of sacrificial meat out of regard to a brother's conscience. There is little doubt, therefore, that it should be omitted.
29, 30. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another (man's) conscience ? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks ?
As in the preceding vs. 25. 27 the word conscience refers to one's own conscience, to prevent its being so understood in V. 28, Paul adds the explanation, ' Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other's.' That is, ' I do not mean your con- science, but the conscience of the man who warned you not to eat.' For why is my liberty judged of another man's con- science f These and the words following admit of three inter- pretations. 1. If connected with the preceding clause, they must give the reason why Paul meant " the conscience of the other." ' Conscience I say, not one's own, but of the other ; for why is my liberty (or conscience) to be judged by an- other man's conscience ? if I eat with thanksgiving (and with a good conscience, why am I blamed ? ' ) The obvious objec- tion to this interpretation is, that it exalts a subordinate clause into the principal matter. It was plain enough that Paul did not mean the man's own conscience, and therefore it is unne- cessary to take up two verses to prove that he did not. Be- sides, this interpretation makes the apostle change sides. He has from the beginning been speaking in behalf of the weak. This interpretation makes him here speak almost in terms of