Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary

CHAPTER 10

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

From speaking of the contest, in which those who deny themselves and strive lawfully are rewarded, and in which the slothful and self-indulgent are condemned and put to confusion, of which the Apostle treated at the end of the preceding chapter, he goes on to the manners of the Hebrews of old, their lusts and vices, especially idolatry, its punishment and condemnation, that by such examples he may teach the Corinthians how vices and temptations, and especially idolatry, are to be guarded against.

Consequently, in

ver. 18 he descends and returns to things offered to idols, and answers a question concerning them which had been broached in chapter viii. And

i. He lays down that it is not lawful for them to eat of things in so far as they are offered to idols; for this would be to give consent to the sacrifice, and to profess idol worship.

ii. In

ver. 22 he points out that it is not lawful to eat of them when the weaker brethren are offended at it. Hence in

Ver. 4.For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them. The rock which gave water to the Hebrews was a type of Christ, who is the true Rock from which flowed the blood to quench the heat of our lust. But what is meant by saying that this rock followed the Hebrews?

1. The Hebrews reply that their tradition, and the Chaldean rendering of Num. xxi. 16, is that this rock miraculously followed the Jews everywhere in the wilderness till they came to Canaan, and supplied them with water. Hence Ephrem renders this, "They drank of the spiritual rock which same with them;" and Tertullian (de Baptismo, c. ix.) calls this rock their "companion." He says: "This is the water which flowed from the rock which accompanied the people." But farther on he interprets this rock of Christ, who in His Godhead accompanied and led the Hebrews through the wilderness. He says again (contra Marcion, lib. ii. c. 5): "He will understand that the rock which accompanied them to supply them with drink was Christ." S. Ambrose, too (in Ps. 38) says: "There is a shadow in the rock which poured forth water and followed the people. Was not the water from the rock a shadow of the blood of Christ, who followed the people, though they fled from Him, that He might give them drink and quench their thirst, that they might be redeemed and not perish?" Again, S, Ambrose (de Sacramentis, lib. v. c. 1) takes the rock to be Christ. He says: "It was no motionless rock which followed the people. Drink, that Christ may follow Thee also." But I should like to have better authorities for this tradition, for it is against it that after this water came from the rock (Num_20:11), the people murmured again because of the scarcity of water

ver. 16).

2. Others soften down the passage and explain it thus: "The waters which burst forth from the rock flowed for a long time and rushed forth as a torrent, and this stream followed the Hebrews till they came to a place where there was plenty of water. For had it been a supply to last but for one day, the rock would have had to be struck on the next day, and the third, and the fourth, and so on, to get a supply of water." And this explanation they support by pointing out that the manna is literal manna, and that therefore the rock or the drink spoken are material rock and material drink; but the objections to the first explanation are equally strong against this.

3. Photius supposes that the word for following simply means serving, and he would paraphrase the verse, "This rock satisfied the thirst of the Hebrews." But the Greek cannot possibly bear this interpretation.

4. It is better, then, to understand this of the spiritual Rock signified, not the one signifying. The meaning is then: By the power of the Godhead of Christ, which was the spiritual Rock signified by the rock that gave water to the Hebrews, and which was their constant companion in the wilderness, water was given to them from the material rock. It is so explained by S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Œcumenius.

It may be said, By "spiritual meat" the Apostle meant manna, not the body of Christ, and by "spiritual drink" he means the water signifying the blood of Christ, not the blood itself; therefore, by parity of reasoning, the "spiritual rock" is the actual rock that typified Christ, not Christ Himself.

I deny the consequence, for the Apostle in speaking of the Rock inverts the phrase, and passes from the sign to the thing signified. This is evident from his saying in explanation of the Rock, "That Rock was Christ." In other words, "When I speak of the spiritual Rock, I mean Christ." What can be clearer? For it was not the material but the spiritual Rock which was Christ: one was type, the other antitype.

It may be urged again, that the phrase "They drank of the spiritual Rock," means that they drank the spiritual or typical drink, for the rock giving this drink was spiritual or typical. This would give the connecting idea, and the reason for saying that "they drank the same spiritual drink," for the rock was a type of Christ.

The answer to this objection is that the sequence of thought is clear enough. The particle for gives the efficient cause of so great a miracle; in other words, the Hebrews drank of water which served as a type, for Christ was foreshadowed by the rock which gave this water, and He miraculously gave them this typical water in order that they might know and worship Christ giving it; but this, as the sequel shows, very many of them did not do.

The rock that gave the water allegorically stood for Christ, because Christ, like a rock most firm, supports the Church, and was smitten, i.e., killed, by Moses, i.e., the Jews, with a rod; that is, the Cross poured forth waters, that is, most fruitful streams of grace, to the faithless of contradiction, to the faithful of sanctification. This is especially true of the waters of His blood in the Eucharist, with which He gives us drink in the desert of this life, that, strengthened by them, we may attain to our country in the heavens. See S. John vii. 37 and iv. 14. S. Augustine (contra Faustum, lib. xvi. c. 15).

It may be argued: Some Catholic writers, according to the first explanation given above, say that, as "that Rock was Christ" means that it was typical of Christ, so in the same way it can be said of the Eucharist, that "this is My body" means "this bread is a figure of My body."

But add that the Apostle expressly says that he us speaking of the spiritual, not the material rock. "They drank of that spiritual Rock," he says, and "that spiritual Rock was Christ." It is called a spiritual Rock, or typical, because it was a type of Christ. But neither Christ nor S. Paul speak then of the Eucharist.  S. Paul and all the Evangelists uniformly declare that Christ said, "This is My Body," not, "This is My spiritual or typical Body." Secondly, I answer that that explanation of some writers is not a very probable one; for that spiritual Rock, i.e., the One signified, was really Christ, not a type of Him. The words of S. Paul clearly say this.

Ver. 14.Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. Not only avoid the worship which is given in sacrificing to and calling on idols, but also abstain from eating things offered to idols from any feeling of their sanctity, as the heathen eat them when the sacrifice is completed, either at the altars of in the temples. So you would share in their sacrifices, and would be thought to approve of them, and even to offer them. The Apostle is now going on to speak of the eating of things offered to idols. Chapter ix. was a long digression about a paid or unpaid ministry, about the Christian contest, the prize, and the competitors; the earlier part of chap. x. has been about the sins and punishments of the Hebrews; and now, after this long digression, he returns to the subject of things offered to idols, which was begun in chap, viii. The "wherefore" signifies, then, that he had written all that precedes for the purpose of warning them against idolatry and idol-offerings.

Ver. 16.The cup of blessing which we bless. (1.) That is the wine in the chalice which is blessed by the priest, and hence the chalice itself, containing this consecrated wine, does it not communicate to us the blood of Christ? (2.) It may be called the cup of blessing, because it blesses us and loads us with grace, as Anselm and Chrysostom say. (3.) More accurately, it is called "the cup of blessing," because Christ blessed it before consecration, i.e., called down the power of God to afterwards effect a change both in the bread and in the cup (S. Matt. xxvi. 26).

1. We see from the accounts of the Last Supper in S. Mat_26:20-32., S. Luk_22:14-22, and here and in 1Co_11:23-29 that Christ, before consecration of the Eucharist, gave thanks to God thee Father, and, as He was wont, lifted up his eyes to heaven, as is enjoined in the Roman Canon of the Mass and in the Liturgy of S. James. Hence this sacrament is called the Eucharist, or Thanksgiving, because it is the greatest act of grace, and consequently is to be received with the greatest thanksgiving.

2. Christ blessed the bead and wine, not, as heretics say, His Father. And so Paul says expressly, "The cup which we bless." Christ blessed the bread and the cup, i.e., invoked the blessing and power of God on the bread and wine, that it might be present, both then and at all future consecrations, to change the bread into the body, and the wine of the chalice into the blood of Christ, when ever the words of consecration should be duly pronounced. Of the same kind was the blessing of the bread in S. Luke ix. 16. This blessing, then, was not the consecration, though S. Thomas thinks that it was (pt. iii. qu. 78, art. i. ad 1). Hence in the Liturgies of S. James and S, Basil, and in the Roman, after Christ's example, God is prayed to bless the gifts, that the Divine power may descend upon the bread and the cup to complete the consecration; and it is thence that we have "the cup of blessing," i.e., the cup blessed by Christ.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 1. The communion, or communication, of the body and blood of Christ not only signifies that we receive the same body and the same blood of Christ, but also, as is said in

ver. 17, we become one body and one blood. Therefore, the sacrament is not a type of the blood, as Calvin thinks, but it is the very blood of Christ itself, and is given to us in the Eucharistic chalice. If I were to say, "I give you a golden one," you would rightly understand that I did not mean a painted one. If I were to invite you to dinner, and a feast on the hare or stag caught in the chase, and instead of the hare or stag were to put before you on a dish a picture of animals, should I not be acting ridiculously?should I not hear myself called an impostor? Are not then the Protestants who transform the blood and flesh of Christ, which He declares that He gives, into a figure of that blood and flesh, acting ridiculously? Are they not making Christ an impostor?

2. If this cup is only a figure of the blood, as the Protestants think, then we have not more, but less, in the Eucharist than the Jews had in the manna and the water miraculously provided for their drink. The apostle, too, should have said that we eat the spiritual body and drink the spiritual blood of Christ, that is that which represents them, just as he said that the Jews ate the spiritual meatthe manna, and drank the spiritual drinkthe water from the rock. But as a fact he contrasts the blood and the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, as the reality and the thing signified, with the manna and water, as the figure and spiritual type, signifying the flesh and blood of Christ. Moreover, he calls the manna spiritual meat, i.e., typical, and the water, spiritual drink; but he calls the body of Christ in the Eucharist the body, and the blood the blood. Who, then, can doubt that, as the manna was truly a type and shadow, so in the Eucharist there is really the blood, flesh, and body of Christ?

3. Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, S. Thomas expressly explain this passage in this way. Theophylact says: "He does not say the 'participation,' but the 'communion,' because he wished to indicate something more excellent, viz., the closest possible union. What he really says is this: What is in the chalice flowed from the side of Christ; and when we receive it, we have communion with, or are united to Christ. Are you not then ashamed, O Corinthians, to have recourse to the cup of idols, and to leave this cup which sets us free from idols?"

S. Chrysostom most plainly dwells on this thought (in Hom. 24, Moral.), where, exhorting Christians to mutual charity through Holy Communion, he says: "If, then, dearly beloved, we understand these things, let us also strive to maintain unity among ourselves; for this dreadful and wonderful sacrifice leads us to this: it bids us approach one another with concord and perfect charity, and, like the eagles that Christians have been made in this life, let us fly to heaven itself, or rather above the heavens." And again a little further on he thus explains what the body of Christ in the Eucharist is like: "If no one would lightly lay hold of another man's clothing, how can we receive with insults the pure and immaculate body of the Lord, which is a partaker of the Divine Nature, through which we are and live, which burst open the gated of hell and opened heaven? This is the body which was pierced by nails, scourged, unconquered by death; this is the body at the sight of which the sun hid his rays; through which the veil of the Temple was rent, and the rocks and the whole earth quaked; this is the body which was suffused with blood, pierced by the spear, and which poured forth streams of blood and water to regenerate the wwole world." And a little further on he says that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is the same as was in the manger: "This body in the manger the Magi adored, and with great fear and trembling worshipped. But thou seest Him not in a manger, but on the altar. It is not a woman holding Him in her arms that you see, but a priest is before you, and the spirit shed abundantly upon the sacrament spread forth. Let us, therefore, be stirred up and fear, and show greater devotion than ever those barbarians did." And after some other remarks he asserts mist clearly that in the Eucharist we touch and feed on God Himself, and receive from Him all good thing, saying: "This table is the strength of our soul, the vigour of our mind, the bond of mutual trust, our foundation, hope, and salvation, our light and our life, If we depart fortified by this sacrifice, we shall with the greatest confidence climb the sacred hill which leads to heaven's gate. But why speak of the future? For even while we are here in this life, this mystery makes earth heaven: for the body of the King is set before our eyes, on earth, as it is in heaven. I show you, not angels or archangels, not heaven or the heaven of heavens, but the Lord of them all. Nor do you merely gaze on Him: you touch Him, you feed on Him: you receive not a child of man, even though of kingly birth, but the Only-Begotten Son of God. Why, then, do you not shudder at such Presence, and cast away the love of all worldly things?"

A new preacher of a new word of God has lately answered these words by saying that S. Chrysostom spoke rhetorically. But this evasion is as silly as futile; for S. Chrysostom is, I admit, an orator, but he is also a teacher of Christian truth. Hence in his commentary itself, he days that he is treating of the literal meaning of the Apostle. It is true that in the application of his sermon he does enlarge on that meaning, but not so as to exceed or to deny the truth, as, i.e., if he were to say that wood is stone, that a man is a brute, that bread is flesh; else he would not be an orator, but a lying impostor, and that in matters of faith. For an orator would be false and foolish who should say that the water of baptism was the very same blood of Christ that flowed from His side, when the Jews pierced His body with nails, and smote it with scourges; if he were to say that it was the God and Lord of all, he would no doubt mean that the water of baptism is a type of the blood of Christ, who applied it to us to wash away our sins. In the same way he is false and foolish who says that the bread and wine are the very blood, the very body of Christ, which was adored by the Magi in the manger, nailed to the Cross, scourged, and crucified by the Jews, nay, that it is the very Lord of all things, and the Only-Begotten Son of God, as S. Chrysostom says. I appeal to you, reader, to read these words of his candidly and impartially, or to say whether they are true of the manna, of the Paschal lamb, or of any such type. Would S. Chrysostom have spoken of them thus? Would Calvin, or Viretus, or Zwinglius, or any of their following, no matter how eloquent an orator he might be, speak of their supper in this way? If it is lawful t sublimate and invert the meanings of authors and the words of the Fathers in this way, it will be lawful to invert all faith, all history, all the opinions of these men, and to twist them to a totally different sense, all this will better appear in the following verses.

The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The sense is, The communication to us, or the eating of the bread which we break, communicates to us also the very body of Christ, so that each one actually partakes of it in the Eucharist.

It may be said: The Eucharist is here called the bread, therefore it is not the flesh of Christ.

I reply that bread, by a Hebraism, stands for any food (2Ki_2:22). So Christ is called manna (S. Joh_6:31), and bread (Ibid. ci. 41). The reason is that bread is the common and necessary food of all. Moreover, S. Paul does not say "bread" simply, but "the bread which we break," i.e., the Eucharistic or transubstantiated bread, which is the body of Christ, and yet retains the species and power of bread. In this agree all the Fathers and orthodox doctors. Christ, on other occasions as well as in the Last Supper, is said to have broken and distributed the bread, according to the Hebrew custom by which the head of the house was wont to break the bread and divide the food among the guests sitting at table. For the Easterns did not have loaves shaped like ours, which need a knife to cut them up, but they used to make their bread into wide and thin cakes, as, amongst others, Stuckius has noticed (Convival. lib. ii. c. 3). Hence "to break bread" signifies in Scripture "to feast," and breaking bread signifies any feast, dinner, or meal. In the New Testament it is appropriated to the Eucharist; therefore "to break bread" is a sacramental and ecclesiastical term. Hence S. Paul calls here the Eucharist "the bread which we break," meaning the species of the body of Christ which we break and consume in the sacrament. See further on c. xi. 24.

Ver. 17.For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. As one loaf is made out of many grains of wheat, so of many faithful is made one holy and living bread, the one mystical body of Christ, the Church. Not only generally and mystically, but properly and substantially, because all are really united to the body of Christ, and become one with it, in the Eucharist, just as food becomes one with him that eats it. Hence it may be rightly argued against Protestants that we all eat really the same body of Christ. They, however, say that in the Eucharist all Christians become one, because they eat the same sacramental bread, which is a type of the body of Christ. But who share in it one, merely because they sit at the same table and eat of the same bread? It would be a statement at once untrue and foolish. It is, however, true when applied t the body of Christ, because we all feed on what is numerically one, especially because this holy bread, as S. Augustine says, when eaten, is not changed into our substance, but rather changed us into its own, and unites us to itself and makes us like it, which ordinary bread does not do. Here Cyril of Alexandria (in Joan. lib. iv. c. 17) says: "As wax is incorporated into wax, and leaven permeated through bread, so do we become fused into the body of Christ." And Cyril of Jerusalem (Catachesis, 4) says: "In Holy Communion we become, not only bearers of Christ, but also sharers of the same body and the same blood as He." This is because we become one with Christ and Christ with us, because we are really blended with the flesh of Christ, and therefore with his Person, His 244 Godhead, and His omnipotence. Irenæus says the same (lib. iv. c. 34), and Hilary (de Trin. lib. viii.).

It is for this reason that the Eucharist is called Communion by the Fathers: it really unites us to the body of Christ, so that all become one in Him and with Him. "Communion," then, is the common union of the faithful, who, by feeding on the same true body of Christ in the Eucharist, are made one mystical body, the Church. So says Bede, following S. Augustine. Hence, too, the Council of Trent (sess. xii. c. 8) says: "This sacrament is the sign of unity, the bond of charity, the symbol of peace and concord," no doubt because, in a wonderful way, it signifies and perfects the unity of the body of Christ, i.e., of the faithful of the Church. For this reason, too, the Eucharist was formerly given to infants after their baptism, that they might be perfectly incorporated into Christ (vide S. John vi. 55). Again for the same reason the Eucharist was called by S. Dionysius, Synaxis, i.e., "congregation," because the faithful were in the habit of assembling in the church to receive the Eucharist. Tertullian even says (de Oratione, cap. ult.) that prayer should end when the body of the Lord has been received. The Apostle too, in the next chapter (

ver. 20), says: "When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." For although the Church becomes the body of Christ through faith and baptism, yet this is done more truly and properly in the Eucharist.

Heretics raise the objection that therefore only the good and righteous are parts and members of the Church, for the Apostle says, "We are all one bread;" but bread, they say, is made from grains of wheat, not from chaff; therefore the Church is formed from the righteous, not from the wicked; for the righteous are the corn, the wicked are the chaff.

I reply (1.) that this does not follow, because a similitude is not bound to be in all points alike; (2.) that the major premiss is false, for often chaff, grains of sand, lentils are mingled with the wheat, and with it go to make up the bread. Hence S. Paul (c. xi. 29) says that even the wicked eat of this bread. But here he says that all who partake of this bread make up the one body of Christ, which id the Church: therefore the wicked, also, who eat of this bread are of the Church. Vide S. Cyprian (Ep. ad Magnum, lib. i.; Ep.6).

Ver. 18.Behold Israel after the flesh . . . partakers of the alter? That is, of the victim offered on the altar, by metonymy. All this is meant to prove that things sacrificed to idols ought not to be partaken of; and the sense is: See, O Corinthians, Israel after the flesh: when they eat of the victims offered to God, are they not deemed to be partakers of the sacrifice offered on the altar to God, and to consummate the sacrifice, and in a sense therefore to sacrifice? In the same way that they who eat of the Eucharistic bread are sharers of the Eucharistic sacrifice, are they who eat of things offered to idols sharers of idolatrous sacrifices: they consummate them, and in a sense sacrifice to idols. He proves, from the example of the Jews, that they who eat of things sacrificed to idols give their consent to such sacrifices, and tacitly sacrifice to those idols.

Ver.19.What say I then? that the idol is anything, &c. By no means: for the idol and that offered to it are nothing, have no influence or power. See viii. 4.

Vers. 20, 21.But I say . . . Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils. The table is the altar, which is, as it were, God's table at which He feasts with us, See Lev. i.;  Mal_1:12; Ambrose, Anselm, and the Council of Trent (sess. xxii. c. 1), where it lays down from this passage that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. For that the Apostle is dealing with the Eucharist and not with the sacrifice of the Cross appears plainly1. Because the Victim of the Cross has passed away, and long ago creased; but the Apostle is here treating of a sacrifice of which the Corinthians were partakers daily.

2. From the phrase, "the Lord's table," i.e., the altar. Where there is an altar there is a priest and a sacrifice, for the three are correlative terms. If, then, the Corinthians had an altar, they had also a sacrifice, and that of course none other than the Eucharist.

3. "The cup of the Lord" can only be the cup offered to the Lord, for the cup of devils is none other than the one offered to them.

From the context, and the line of the Apostle's argument, which is this: As the Jews, when they eat if their peace-offerings, share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made on God's altar, so do those who eat of things sacrificed to idols share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made to idols; and so do Christians, when they receive the Eucharist, become partakers of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and sacrifice the Eucharist to God by the priest, It is consequently unseemly altogether that they should also sacrifice to a devil, which they do by partaking of things offered to idols, as a part of the idolatrous sacrifice; for no one can at once sacrifice to God and a devil. Cf. S. Augustine (contra Advers. Legis et Prophet. lib. i. c. xix). Chrysostom in loco, Anselm, Theophylact, Œcumenius, Ambrose, Theodoret say the same thing.  S. Cyprian (de Lapsis) expressly teaches the same lesson, and confirms it by the numerous examples of those who, after eating of things offered to idols, came to the Eucharist, and were punished by God accordingly; and he adds: "An earthly commander will not suffer any one of his soldiers to fly to the camp of his enemies and there to work; how much less can God suffer His followers to take part in the banquets of devils?"

Notice (1.) that when the sacrifice was completed, the flesh which had been offered on the idol's altar was removed from it to a table, near the altar or temple, in order that they who had offered it might, with the friends they had invited, eat of it there; for sacrifices and religious feasts were generally concluded with such a sacred banquet. Cf. the sacrifice offered by Evander and Æneas in Virgil (Æneid, viii. 179-183). So, too, the Jews were in the habit of eating in the porch before the Temple of the sacrifices which they had offered (1 Sam. ix.13). So, too, Christ concluded the concluded the Eucharistic sacrifice with a banquet in it, and a distribution of it to the Apostles. Hence, too, in the primitive Church, all the faithful communicated at the Mass, that they might be partakers of the sacrifice, and conclude it with such a banquet. Again, the heathen, who sacrificed victims to their idols, used, after the sacrifice, to carry home with them portions of it to give to those in their house, and to send to their friends, that so the absent might be partakers of the sacrifice, as Giraldus (de Diis Gentium) points out from Herodotus and others, Similarly, the Christians in the time of persecution used to carry home the Eucharist , and even sent it to the absent, as a mark of love and communion, and to enable them to be partakers of the sacrifice. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. lib. v. c. 24 and 29.

Notice (2.) that the Apostle gives a plain answer to the question whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols. He says that it never had been, nor was then, lawful to eat of things offered to idols, as such, or as being sacred to idols. He who so eats of them tacitly admits by the very act that the idol is sacred, has some Divine influence, and that, because of the idol, the flesh offered is sacred, because offered to a Divine being, which is idolatry. This takes place whenever such food is partaken of in such a place, in such a way, and under such circumstances, as that the eater is morally thought to eat it out of honour to the idol, as when the offerers sent portions to their friends with the intention of showing worship to the idol, when their friends received and ate them. Again, the case is still more clear, if you eat directly after the sacrifice, near the altar of the temple, together with those that offer the sacrifice, in presence of idolaters; for then you are rightly judged to eat it to the honour of the idol. It is otherwise if afterwards you feed on it alone, and from hunger of greediness, whither it be at home of at the temple, because in that case you are not thought to feed on it as being sacred to the idol, but you are seen to be merely gratifying your hunger or appetite. It may be said, S. Augustine (Ep. 154, and de Bono Conj. c. xvi., and contra Faustum, lib, xxxii. c. 13) asks whether a Christian, when travelling and pressed by hunger, may, if he can find nothing but some food offered to an idol, and if no one is present, eat of it, or whether it is better for him t die; and he answers, It may be said that it is either known to have been offered to the idol or not; if it is known, it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue; if it is not known, it may be taken for his necessity without any scruple of conscience." Otherwise, as I have said, it is better to reject it, lest the eater should seem to have communicated with idols. He ought then to abstain from things offered to idols, if they are known to be such.

I reply that S. Augustine does not say that he must abstain from it, if he knows that it has been so offered. He says "it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue," implying pretty plainly that it is lawful to eat of it, but that it would be better and more noble if he abstained from it and preferred death. There is a parallel case in the Carthusian rule. One in extreme weakness is allowed to eat flesh to save his life; but he will do what is better and more holy if he follow his profession and abstain and so die. Cf. Victoria (Relect. de Temperant. num. 8), Azorius (Morals, lib. v. c. 6), and others. For he is not bound to save his life at all costs, but he may rank it below his vow, or rather the holiness of his profession, so as to give as example of virtue to others, and to hallow the discipline and rigour of his order. The Carthusians do not take a formal vow of abstinence from flesh, but merely have it enjoined on them by the constitution of their order.

Ver. 22.Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? I.e., to anger. Do we set up a rival to the Lord? De we leave Him, our Bride-groom, and cling to a devil, and the things offered to him, or at all events wish to serve both, and yoke together God and the devil? So Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact.  S. Paul is alluding to Deu_32:21.  S. Jerome, commenting of Habakkuk ii., rightly says the unclean spirits preside over all idols, and answer those who call on the idols, and give oracular replies, and lend them help.

Are we stronger than He? By no means; therefore our provoking God to anger will not go unpunished by Him.

ver. 14, he bids the Corinthians fly from idolatry, i.e., the meats of

ver. 20. But in this verse he passes on to the second case, when meat that has been offered to idols is partaken of, not formally as such, but materially, as mere food or flesh; and with regard to this he says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient," Because all things do not edify. Materially, you may eat of things offered to idols considered in themselves, but if there is attached to such action the giving of offence, then you may not; see

There are various kinds of idolatry. It is the perfection of Angels never to err: it is a human imperfection to fall into error, but a diabolical crime, so to love our error, as to divide the Church by schism, or leave it by heresy: this love of self is the most dangerous idolatry.

The chalice of benediction,[2] &c. Which the priests bless or consecrate, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, (so called because of the outward appearance of bread) is it not the partaking or communion of the body of the Lord? See St. John Chrysostom here, hom. xxiv. p. 396. and p. 400. See also the Annotations, Matthew xxvi. 26. (Witham) --- Here the apostle puts them in mind of the partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, (ver. 21.) that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice, and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils, by eating of the meats sacrificed to them. (Challoner)

Calix benedictionis cui, (or as it is in the Greek) quem benedicimus. See St. John Chrysostom, hom. xxiv. No Catholic now-a-days can declare his faith of the real presence in clearer terms than St. John Chrysostom hath in this, and other places: Greek: oti touto en to poterio on, ekeino esti, to apo tes pleuras reusan, &c. He calls the eucharist, Greek: thusian, a sacrifice.

We being many, are one bread. Or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread. For it is by our communicating with Christ and with one another, in this blessed Sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely united together. (Challoner) --- From the sacrament of the real body of Christ in the eucharist, he passeth to the effect of this sacrament, which is to unite all those who partake of it, as members of the same mystical body of Christ, which is his Church: and from hence he presently draws this consequence, that such as are members of that body, of which Christ is the head, cannot have any communication with idolaters, or with those that offer sacrifices to idols and devils. (Witham)

Behold Israel, according to the flesh. That is, the people that were the offspring of Israel or Jacob. Are not these they who offered sacrifices to the true God, and eat or the sacrifices, which were offered on his altars, and by offering to him such sacrifices, acknowledged him to be their God, and the only true God: and so you, if you partake, and eat of the sacrifices of idolaters, and of what they tell you was offered to their idols, you seem at least, to join with them in acknowledging, and paying reverence to their idols, which are devils: and you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. --- Co we provoke the Lord to jealousy? that is, how dare we provoke our Lord, who is a jealous God, and will admit of no rival, by partaking of sacrifices offered to false gods? how dare we thus contemn his power, as if we were stronger than he, or that he could not punish us? (Witham)

What then? do I say, &c. He puts this objection, as if it were contradictory to what he had taught before, (chap. viii. ver. 4.) that an idol is nothing, &c. but he answers this objection by saying that all things, that is, all meats are lawful in themselves, but not always expedient, nor edifying, when they give scandal to weak brethren, or when the infidels themselves think that such as eat things offered to idols, join with them in honouring their idols. (Witham) --- The meaning of this passage is: whilst I advise you to abstain from eating of any thing consecrated to idols, I do not advise you as supposing that these offerings have any power in themselves to defile your souls, in the same manner as by eating of the body and blood of Christ we receive strength to overcome our spiritual enemies. St. Paul here anticipates an objection that might be made by some to whom he was writing. (Estius)

In all this discourse, a comparison is instituted between the Christian host and oblation, its effects, conditions and properties, with the altars, hosts, sacrifices and immolations of the Jews and Gentiles; which the apostle could not have done, had there not been a proper sacrifice in the Christian worship. The holy Fathers teach the same with the ancient Councils. This in the council of Nice: The lamb of God laid upon the altar. Conc. Ephes., The unbloody service of the sacrifice. In St. Cyril of Alexandria, in Conc. Ephes., Anath. 11, The quickening holy sacrifice; the unbloody host and victim. Tertullian, de coron. milit., The propitiatory sacrifice both for the living and the dead. This Melchisedech did most singularly prefigure in his mystical oblation of bread and wine; this also according to the prophecy of Malachias, shall continue from the rising to the setting sun, a perpetual substitute for all the Jewish sacrifices; and this, in plain terms, is called the Mass, by St. Augustine, Serm. ccli. 91.; Conc. Cartha. ii. chap. 3. 4. chap. 84. Milevit. 12.; St. Leo, ep. 81. 88. chap. 2.; St. Gregory, lib. ii. ep. 9. 92. &c. &c. See next chapter ver. 24.

6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

The apostle, having recited their privileges, proceeds here to an account of their faults and punishments, their sins and plagues, which are left upon record for an example to us, a warning against the like sins, if we would escape the like punishments. We must not do as they did, lest we suffer as they suffered.

I. Several of their sins are specified as cautions to us; as, 1. We should shun inordinate desires after carnal objects: Not lust after evil things, as they lusted, v. 6 . God fed them with manna, but they must have flesh, Num. xi. 4 . They had food for their supply, but, not content with this, they asked meat for their lusts, Ps. xvi. 14 . Carnal desires get head by indulgence, and therefore should be observed and checked in their first rise: if once they prevail, and bear sway in us, we know not whither they will carry us. This caution stands first, because carnal appetites indulged are the root and source of much sin. 2. He warns against idolatry ( v. 7 ): Neither be you idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. The sin of the golden calf is referred to, Exod. xxxii. 6 . They first sacrificed to their idol, then feasted on the sacrifices, and then danced before it. Though only eating and drinking are mentioned here, yet the sacrifice is supposed. The apostle is speaking to the case of the Corinthians, who were tempted to feast on the heathen sacrifices, things offered to idols, though they do not seem to have been under any temptation to offer sacrifice themselves. Even eating and drinking of the sacrifices before the idol, and as things sacrificed, was idolatry, which, by the example of the Israelites, they should be warned to avoid. 3. He cautions against fornication, a sin to which the inhabitants of Corinth were in a peculiar manner addicted. They had a temple among them dedicated to Venus (that is, to lust), with above a thousand priestesses belonging to it, all common prostitutes. How needful was a caution against fornication to those who lived in so corrupt a city, and had been used to such dissolute manners, especially when they were under temptations to idolatry too! and spiritual whoredom did in many cases lead to bodily prostitution. Most of the gods whom the heathens served were represented as patterns of lewdness; and much lewdness was committed in the very worship of many of them. Many of the Jewish writers, and many Christians after them, think that such worship was paid to Baal-Peor; and that fornication was committed with the daughters of Moab in the worship of that idol. They were enticed by these women both to spiritual and corporal whoredom; first to feast on the sacrifice, if not to do more beastly acts, in honour of the idol, and then to defile themselves with strange flesh ( Num. xxv. ), which brought on a plague, that in one day slew twenty-three thousand, besides those who fell by the hand of public justice. Note, Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge, in whatever external relation they may stand to him, and whatever outward privileges he may bestow upon them. Let us fear the sins of Israel, if we would shun their plagues. 4. He warns us against tempting Christ (as some of them tempted, and were destroyed of serpents, v. 9 ), or provoking him to jealousy, v. 22 . He was with the church in the wilderness; he was the angel of the covenant, who went before them. But he was greatly grieved and provoked by them in many ways: They spoke against him and Moses, Wherefore have you brought us out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for which reason God sent fiery serpents among them ( Num. xxi. 5, 6 ), by which many of them were stung mortally. And it is but just to fear that such as tempt Christ under the present dispensation will be left by him in the power of the old serpent. 5. He warns against murmuring: Neither murmur you as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer ( v. 10 ), by a destroying angel, an executioner of divine vengeance. They quarrelled with God, and murmured against Moses his minister, when any difficulties pressed them. When they met with discouragements in the way to Canaan, they were very apt to fly in the face of their leaders, were for displacing them, and going back to Egypt under the conduct of others of their own choosing. Something like this seems to have been the case of the Corinthians; they murmured against Paul, and in him against Christ, and seem to have set up other teachers, who would indulge and soothe them in their inclinations, and particularly in a revolt to idolatry. Rather let them feast on idol sacrifices than bear the reproach, or expose themselves to the ill-will, of heathen neighbours. Such conduct was very provoking to God, and was likely to bring upon them swift destruction, as it did on the Israelites, Num. xiv. 37 . Note, Murmuring against divine disposals and commands is a sin that greatly provokes, especially when it grows to such a head as to issue in apostasy, and a revolt from him and his good ways.

II. The apostle subjoins to these particular cautions a more general one ( v. 11 ): All these things happened to them for ensamples, and were written for our admonition. Not only the laws and ordinances of the Jews, but the providences of God towards them, were typical. Their sins against God, and backslidings from him, were typical of the infidelity of many under the gospel. God's judgments on them were types of spiritual judgments now. Their exclusion from the earthly Canaan typified the exclusion of many under the gospel out of the heavenly Canaan, for their unbelief. Their history was written, to be a standing monitor to the church, even under the last and most perfect dispensation: To us, on whom the end of the world is come, the concluding period of God's gracious government over men. Note, Nothing in scripture is written in vain. God had wise and gracious purposes towards us in leaving the Jewish history upon record; and it is our wisdom and duty to receive instruction from it. Upon this hint the apostle grounds a caution ( v. 12 ): Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. Note, The harms sustained by others should be cautious to us. He that thinks he stands should not be confident and secure, but upon his guard. Others have fallen, and so may we. And then we are most likely to fall when we are most confident of our own strength, and thereupon most apt to be secure, and off our guard. Distrust of himself, putting him at once upon vigilance and dependence on God, is the Christian's best security against all sin. Note, He who thinks he stands is not likely to keep his footing, if he fears no fall, nor guards against it. God has not promised to keep us from falling, if we do not look to ourselves: his protection supposes our own care and caution.

III. But to this word of caution he adds a word of comfort, v. 13 . Though it is displeasing to God for us to presume, it is not pleasing to him for us to despair. If the former be a great sin, the latter is far from being innocent. Though we must fear and take heed lest we fall, yet should we not be terrified and amazed; for either our trials will be proportioned to our strength, or strength will be supplied in proportion to our temptations. We live indeed in a tempting world, where we are compassed about with snares. Every place, condition, relation, employment, and enjoyment, abounds with them; yet what comfort may we fetch from such a passage! For, 1. " No temptation, " says the apostle, " hath yet taken you, but such as is common to man, what is human; that is, such as you may expect from men of such principles as heathens, and such power; or else such as is common to mankind in the present state; or else such as the spirit and resolution of mere men may bear you through." Note, The trials of common Christians are but common trials: others have the like burdens and the like temptations; what they bear up under, and break through, we may also. 2. God is faithful. Though Satan be a deceiver, God is true. Men may be false, and the world may be false; but God is faithful, and our strength and security are in him. He keepeth his covenant, and will never disappoint the filial hope and trust of his children. 3. He is wise as well as faithful, and will proportion our burden to our strength. He will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able. He knows what we can bear, and what we can bear up against; and he will, in his wise providence, either proportion our temptations to our strength or make us able to grapple with them. He will take care that we be not overcome, if we rely upon him, and resolve to approve ourselves faithful to him. We need not perplex ourselves with the difficulties in our way when God will take care that they shall not be too great for us to encounter, especially. 4. When he will make them to issue well. He will make a way to escape, either the trial itself, or at least the mischief of it. There is no valley so dark but he can find a way through it, no affliction so grievous but he can prevent, or remove, or enable us to support it, and in the end overrule it to our advantage.

15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

In this passage the apostle urges the general caution against idolatry, in the particular case of eating the heathen sacrifices as such, and out of any religious respect to the idol to whom they were sacrificed.

I. He prefaces his argument with an appeal to their own reason and judgment: " I speak to wise men, judge you what I say, v. 15 . You are great pretenders to wisdom, to close reasoning and argument; I can leave it with your own reason and conscience whether I do not argue justly." Note, It is no dishonour to an inspired teacher, nor disadvantage to his argument, to appeal for the truth of it to the reason and consciences of his hearers. It comes upon them with the greater force when it comes with this conviction. Paul, an inspired apostle, would yet, in some cases, leave it with the Corinthians to judge whether what he taught was not conformable to their own light and sense.

II. He lays down his argument from the Lord's supper: The cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Is not this sacred rite an instrument of communion with God? Do we not therein profess to be in friendship, and to have fellowship, with him? Is it not a token whereby we professedly hold communion with Christ, whose body was broken, and blood shed, to procure remission of our sins, and the favour of God? And can we be in alliance with Christ, or friendship with God, without being devoted to him? In short, the Lord's supper is a feast on the sacrificed body and blood of our Lord, epulum ex oblatis. And to eat of the feast is to partake of the sacrifice, and so to be his guests to whom the sacrifice was offered, and this in token of friendship with him. Thus to partake of the Lord's table is to profess ourselves his guests and covenant people. This is the very purpose and intention of this symbolical eating and drinking; it is holding communion with God, and partaking of those privileges, and professing ourselves under those obligations, which result from the death and sacrifice of Christ; and this in conjunction with all true Christians, with whom we have communion also in this ordinance. Because the bread is one, we, being many, are one body, for we are made partakers of one bread, or loaf ( v. 17 ), which I think is thus more truly rendered: "By partaking of one broken loaf, the emblem of our Saviour's broken body, who is the only true bread that came down from heaven, we coalesce into one body, become members of him and one another." Those who truly partake by faith have this communion with Christ, and one another; and those who eat the outward elements make profession of having this communion, of belonging to God and the blessed fraternity of his people and worshippers. This is the true meaning of this holy rite.

III. He confirms this from the Jewish worship and customs: Behold Israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar, that is, of the sacrifice offered upon it? Those who were admitted to eat of the offerings were reckoned to partake of the sacrifice itself, as made for them, and to be sanctified thereby; and therefore surely to worship God, and be in alliance or covenant with him, even the God of Israel, to whom the sacrifice was made: this was a symbol or token of holding communion with him.

IV. He applies this to the argument against feasting with idolaters on their sacrifices, and to prove those that do so idolaters. This he does, 1. By following the principle on which they would argue it to be lawful, namely, that an idol was nothing. Many of them were nothing at all, none of them had any divinity in them. What was sacrificed to idols was nothing, no way changed from what it was before, but was every whit as fit for food, considered in itself. They indeed seem to argue that, because an idol was nothing, what was offered was no sacrifice, but common and ordinary food, of which they might therefore eat with as little scruple. Now the apostle allows that the food was not changed as to its nature, was as fit to be eaten as common food, where it was set before any who knew not of its having been offered to an idol. But, 2. He proves that the eating of it as a part of a heathen sacrifice was, (1.) A partaking with them in their idolatry. It was having fellowship with devils, because what the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to devils; and to feast with them upon these sacrifices was to partake in the sacrifice, and therefore to worship the god to whom it was made, and have fellowship or communion with him just as he who eats the Lord's supper is supposed to partake in the Christian sacrifice; or as those who ate the Jewish sacrifices partook of what was offered on their altar. But heathens sacrificed to devils: "Therefore do not feast on their sacrifices. Doing it is a token of your having fellowship with the demons to whom they are offered. I would not have you be in communion with devils." (2.) It was a virtual renouncing of Christianity: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils, v. 21 . To partake of this Christian feast was to have communion with Christ: to partake of the feasts made in honour of the heathen idols, and made of things sacrificed to them, was to have communion with devils. Now this was to compound contraries; it was by no means consistent. Communion with Christ, and communion with devils, could never be had at once. One must be renounced, if the other was maintained. He who held communion with Christ must renounce that with devils; he who held communion with devils must by that very deed renounce communion with Christ. And what a manifest self-contradiction must that man's conduct be that would partake of the Lord's table, and yet partake of the table of demons! God and mammon can never be served together, nor fellowship be at once had with Christ and Satan. Those who communicate with devils must virtually renounce Christ. This may also intimate that such as indulge themselves in gluttony or drunkenness, and by so doing make their own table the table of devils, or keep up fellowship with Satan by a course of known and wilful wickedness, cannot partake truly of the cup and table of the Lord. They may use the sign, but do not the thing signified thereby. For a man can never be at once in communication with Christ and his church and yet in fellowship with Satan. Note, How much reason have we to look to it that every sin and idol be renounced by us, when we eat and drink at the Lord's table.

14. Resuming the argument, 1Co 10:7 ; 1Co 8:9 , 10 .

flee-- Do not tamper with it by doubtful acts, such as eating idol meats on the plea of Christian liberty. The only safety is in wholly shunning whatever borders on idolatry ( 2Co 6:16 , 17 ). The Holy Spirit herein also presciently warned the Church against the idolatry, subsequently transferred from the idol feast to the Lord's Supper itself, in the figment of transubstantiation.

15. Appeal to their own powers of judgment to weigh the force of the argument that follows: namely, that as the partaking of the Lord's Supper involves a partaking of the Lord Himself, and the partaking of the Jewish sacrificial meats involved a partaking of the altar of God, and, as the heathens sacrifice to devils, to partake of an idol feast is to have fellowship with devils. We cannot divest ourselves of the responsibility of "judging" for ourselves. The weakness of private judgment is not an argument against its use, but its abuse. We should the more take pains in searching the infallible word, with every aid within our reach, and above all with humble prayer for the Spirit's teaching ( Ac 17:11 ). If Paul, an inspired apostle, not only permits, but urges, men to judge his sayings by Scripture, much more should the fallible ministers of the present visible Church do so.

To wise men-- refers with a mixture of irony to the Corinthian boast of "wisdom" ( 1Co 4:10 ; 2Co 11:19 ). Here you have an opportunity of exercising your "wisdom" in judging "what I say."

16. The cup of blessing-- answering to the Jewish "cup of blessing," over which thanks were offered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ instituted this part of the Lord's Supper ( Mt 26:27 ; Lu 22:17 , 20 ).

we bless-- "we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister "blesses" (that is, consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is the corporate act of the whole Church. The act of joint blessing by him and them (not "the cup" itself, which, as also "the bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Compare 1Co 10:18 , "They who eat ... are partakers" (joint communicants). "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ ( Ep 5:30 , 32 ), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare 1Co 10:18 ). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" ( 1Co 10:20 ). Alford explains, "The cup ... is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour ( Joh 6:53-57 ). It is not said, "The cup ... is the blood," or "the bread ... is the body," but "is the communion [joint-participation] of the blood ... body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is the sign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ "in remembrance of Himself." To drink literal blood would have been an abomination to Jews, which the first Christians were ( Le 17:11 , 12 ). Breaking the bread was part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body ( 1Co 11:24 ). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of the laity from the cup.

17. one bread-- rather, "loaf." One loaf alone seems to have been used in each celebration.

and one body-- Omit "and"; "one loaf [that is], one body." "We, the many (namely, believers assembled; so the Greek), are one bread (by our partaking of the same loaf, which becomes assimilated to the substance of all our bodies; and so we become), one body" (with Christ, and so with one another).

we ... all-- Greek, "the whole of us."

18. Israel after the flesh-- the literal, as distinguished from the spiritual, Israel ( Ro 2:29 ; 4:1 ; 9:3 ; Ga 4:29 ).

partakers of the altar-- and so of God, whose is the altar; they have fellowship in God and His worship, of which the altar is the symbol.

19-20. What say I then?-- The inference might be drawn from the analogies of the Lord's Supper and Jewish sacrifices, that an idol is really what the heathen thought it to be, a god, and that in eating idol-meats they had fellowship with the god. This verse guards against such an inference: "What would I say then? that a thing sacrificed to an idol is any real thing (in the sense that the heathen regard it), or that an idol is any real thing?" (The oldest manuscripts read the words in this order. Supply "Nay") "But [I say] that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (demons)." Paul here introduces a new fact. It is true that, as I said, an idol has no reality in the sense that the heathen regard it, but it has a reality in another sense; heathendom being under Satan's dominion as "prince of this world," he and his demons are in fact the powers worshipped by the heathen, whether they are or are not conscious of it ( De 32:17 ; Le 17:7 ; 2Ch 11:15 ; Psa 106:37 ; Re 9:20 ). "Devil" is in the Greek restricted to Satan; "demons" is the term applied to his subordinate evil spirits. Fear, rather than love, is the motive of heathen worship (compare the English word "panic," from Pan, whose human form with horns and cloven hoofs gave rise to the vulgar representations of Satan which prevail now); just as fear is the spirit of Satan and his demons ( Jas 2:19 ).

21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord-- really and spiritually; though ye may outwardly ( 1Ki 18:21 ).

cup of devils-- in contrast to the cup of the Lord. At idol feasts libations were usually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guests drank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol.

the Lord's table-- The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all. The Lord's Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ's sacrifice, as the Jews' sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Mal 1:7, "altar ... table of the Lord"), and the heathen idol feasts to their idolatrous sacrifices ( Is 65:11 ). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities, behind which Satan lurked. The Jews' sacrifice was but a shadow of the substance which was to come. Our one sacrifice of Christ is the only substantial reality; therefore, while the partaker of the Jew's sacrificial feast partook rather "of the altar" ( 1Co 10:18 ) than of God manifested fully, and the heathen idol-feaster had fellowship really with demons, the communicant in the Lord's Supper has in it a real communion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.

22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?-- by dividing our fellowship between Him and idols ( Eze 20:39 ). Is it our wish to provoke Him to assert His power? De 32:21 is before the apostle's mind [Alford], ( Ex 20:5 ).

are we stronger?-- that we can risk a contest with Him.

(ver. 12). He saith not, for all the benefits that He hath done unto me but "for all the benefits that He hath returned unto me." What deeds then on the man's part had preceded, that all the benefits of God were not said to be given, but returned? What had preceded, on the man's part, save sins? God therefore repayeth good for evil, whilst unto Him men repay evil for good; for such was the return of those who said, "This is the heir: come, let us kill him."

10. But this man seeketh what he may return unto the Lord, and findeth not, save out of those things which the Lord Himself returneth. "I will receive," he saith, "the cup of salvation, and call upon the Name of the Lord"

(ver. 13). "My vows will I render to the Lord, before all His people"

(ver. 17). For I have not found any deserts of mine, since Thou hast broken my bonds asunder; I therefore owe Thee the sacrifice of praise; because, although I will boast that I am Thy servant, and the son of Thy handmaid, I will glory not in myself, but in Thee, my Lord, who hast broken asunder my bonds, that when I return from my desertion, I may again be bound unto Thee.

13. "I will pay my vows unto the Lord"

(ver. 18). What vows wilt thou pay? What victims hast thou vowed? what burnt-offerings, what holocausts? Dost thou refer to what thou hast said a little before, "I will receive the cup of salvation, and will call upon the Name of the Lord;" and, "I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving"? and indeed whosoever well considereth what he is vowing to the Lord, and what vows he is paying, let him vow himself, let him pay himself as a vow: this is exacted, this is due. On looking at the coin, the Lord saith, "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which are God's:" his own image is rendered unto Cæsar: let His image be rendered unto God.

14. "In the courts," he saith, "of the Lord's house"

or Hebrew Psalm cxvi. Ver. 12. To me. I have deserved chastisement; how, therefore, shall I express my gratitude for God's innumerable benefits? (Worthington)

or Hebrew Psalm cxvi. Ver. 13. Chalice. I will submit to any afflictions, (St. Augustine) seeing they procure such an ample reward. I will unite my sufferings with those of Jesus Christ, (Haydock) and accept the great benefit of his blood, shed for mankind. (Worthington) --- Chaldean seems to have had this in view, calicem redemptionis levabo mundo venturo, and Houbigant explains it of Christ, who prayed that the chalice might be taken from him, (Berthier) but presently resigned himself to God's will. It may also (Haydock) imply, the cup of thanksgiving, which was used in pacific sacrifices, Psalm xxi. 27. Our Saviour followed this custom, when he instituted the blessed Eucharist, as (Calmet) the Jews do on solemn occasions, (Leo. iii. 7., and ix. 2.) The pagans had something very similar. Homer speaks of the "free bowl, or cup of liberty," (Iliad 2.) and Athenæus (i. 23., and ii. 2., and xv. 5.) of "the cup of Jupiter, the Saviour," in which, after tasting a little wine, water was mingled, with invocations of Jupiter, and all drank what they pleased. (Calmet) --- The custom of drinking healths might originate in the same jovial humour. (Haydock)

or Hebrew Psalm cxvi. Ver. 17. Praise. Or thanksgiving, Psalm xxvi. 6., and Leviticus vii. 12. (Calmet) --- Lord. There is but one, as there is but one faith. Without the latter, it is in vain to call upon God, Ephesians iv. 4. (Berthier) --- "Whosoever eats the lamb out of this house, (the Church) is profane." (St. Jerome, ep. 57. ad Dam.)

PSALM CXV. (CREDIDI.)

This, in the Hebrew, is joined with the foregoing psalm, and continues to express the faith and gratitude of the psalmist.

10 I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted: 11 I said in my haste, All men are liars. 12 What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me? 13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord . 14 I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people. 15 Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. 16 O Lord , truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds. 17 I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord . 18 I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people, 19 In the courts of the Lord 's house, in the midst of thee, O Jerusalem. Praise ye the Lord .

The Septuagint and some other ancient versions make these verses a distinct psalm separate from the former; and some have called it the Martyr's psalm, I suppose for the sake of v. 15 . Three things David here makes confession of:—

I. His faith ( v. 10 ): I believed, therefore have I spoken. This is quoted by the apostle ( 2 Cor. iv. 13 ) with application to himself and his fellow-ministers, who, though they suffered for Christ, were not ashamed to own him. David believed the being, providence, and promise of God, particularly the assurance God had given him by Samuel that he should exchange his crook for a sceptre: a great deal of hardship he went through in the belief of this, and therefore he spoke, spoke to God by prayer ( v. 4 ), by praise, v. 12 . Those that believe in God will address themselves to him. He spoke to himself; because he believed, he said to his soul, Return to thy rest. He spoke to others, told his friends what his hope was, and what the ground of it, though it exasperated Saul against him and he was greatly afflicted for it. Note, Those that believe with the heart must confess with the mouth, for the glory of God, the encouragement of others, and to evidence their own sincerity, Rom. x. 10 ; Acts ix. 19, 20 . Those that live in hope of the kingdom of glory must neither be afraid nor ashamed to own their obligation to him that purchased it for them, Matt. x. 22 .

II. His fear ( v. 11 ): I was greatly afflicted, and then I said in my haste (somewhat rashly and inconsiderately—in my amazement (so some), when I was in a consternation— in my flight (so others), when Saul was in pursuit of me), All men are liars, all with whom he had to do, Saul and all his courtiers; his friends, who he thought would stand by him, deserted him and disowned him when he fell into disgrace at court. And some think it is especially a reflection on Samuel, who had promised him the kingdom, but deceived him; for, says he, I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul, 1 Sam. xxvii. 1 . Observe, 1. The faith of the best of saints is not perfect, nor always alike strong and active. David believed and spoke well ( v. 10 ), but now, through unbelief, he spoke amiss. 2. When we are under great and sore afflictions, especially if they continue long, we are apt to grow weary, to despond, and almost to despair of a good issue. Let us not therefore be harsh in censuring others, but carefully watch over ourselves when we are in trouble, Ps. xxxix. 1-3 . 3. If good men speak amiss, it is in their haste, through the surprise of a temptation, not deliberately and with premeditation, as the wicked man, who sits in the seat of the scornful ( Ps. i. 1 ), sits and speaks against his brother, Ps. l. 19, 20 . 4. What we speak amiss, in haste, we must by repentance unsay again (as David, Ps. xxxi. 22 ), and then it shall not be laid to our charge. Some make this to be no rash word of David's. He was greatly afflicted and forced to fly, but he did not trust in man, nor make flesh his arm. No: he said, " All men are liars; as men of low degree are vanity, so men of high degree are a lie, and therefore my confidence was in God only, and in him I cannot be disappointed." In this sense the apostle seems to take it. Rom. iii. 4 , Let God be true and every man a liar in comparison with God. All men are fickle and inconstant, and subject to change; and therefore let us cease from man and cleave to God.

III. His gratitude, v. 12 , &c. God had been better to him than his fears, and had graciously delivered him out of his distresses; and, in consideration hereof,

1. He enquires what returns he shall make ( v. 12 ): What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits towards me? Here he speaks, (1.) As one sensible of many mercies received from God— all his benefits. This psalm seems to have been penned upon occasion of some one particular benefit ( v. 6, 7 ), but in that one he saw many and that one brought many to mind, and therefore now he thinks of all God's benefits towards him. Note, When we speak of God's mercies we should magnify them and speak highly of them. (2.) As one solicitous and studious how to express his gratitude: What shall I render unto the Lord? Not as if he thought he could render any thing proportionable, or as a valuable consideration for what he had received; we can no more pretend to give a recompense to God than we can to merit any favour from him; but he desired to render something acceptable, something that God would be pleased with as the acknowledgment of a grateful mind. He asks God, What shall I render? Asks the priest, asks his friends, or rather asks himself, and communes with his own heart about it. Note, Having received many benefits from God, we are concerned to enquire, What shall we render?

2. He resolves what returns he will make.

(1.) He will in the most devout and solemn manner offer up his praises and prayers to God, v. 13 , 17 . [1.] " I will take the cup of salvation, that is, I will offer the drink-offerings appointed by the law, in token of my thankfulness to God, and rejoice with my friends in God's goodness to me;" this is called the cup of deliverance because drunk in memory of his deliverance. The pious Jews had sometimes a cup of blessing, at their private meals, which the master of the family drank first of, with thanksgiving to God, and all at his table drank with him. But some understand it not of the cup that he would present to God, but of the cup that God would put into his hand. I will receive, First, The cup of affliction. Many good interpreters understand it of that cup, that bitter cup, which is yet sanctified to the saints, so that to them it is a cup of salvation. Phil. i. 19 , This shall turn to my salvation; it is a means of spiritual health. David's sufferings were typical of Christ's, and we, in ours, have communion with his, and his cup was indeed a cup of salvation. "God, having bestowed so many benefits upon me, whatever cup he shall put into my hands I will readily take it, and not dispute it; welcome his holy will." Herein David spoke the language of the Son of David. John xviii. 11 , The cup that my Father has given me, shall I not take it and drink it? Secondly, The cup of consolation: "I will receive the benefits God bestows upon me as from his hand, and taste his love in them, as that which is the portion not only of my inheritance in the other world, but of my cup in this." [2.] I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, the thank-offerings which God required, Lev. vii. 11, 12 , &c. Note, Those whose hearts are truly thankful will express their gratitude in thank-offerings. We must first give our ownselves to God as living sacrifices ( Rom. xii. 1 , 2 Cor. viii. 5 ), and then lay out of what we have for his honour in works of piety and charity. Doing good and communicating are sacrifices with which God is well pleased ( Heb. xiii. 15, 16 ) and this must accompany our giving thanks to his name. If God has been bountiful to us, the least we can do in return is to be bountiful to the poor, Ps. xvi. 2, 3 . Why should we offer that to God which costs us nothing? [3.] I will call upon the name of the Lord. This he had promised ( v. 2 ) and here he repeats it, v. 13 and again v. 17 . If we have received kindness from a man like ourselves, we tell him that we hope we shall never trouble him again; but God is pleased to reckon the prayers of his people an honour to him, and a delight, and no trouble; and therefore, in gratitude for former mercies, we must seek to him for further mercies, and continue to call upon him.

(2.) He will always entertain good thoughts of God, as very tender of the lives and comforts of his people ( v. 15 ): Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints, so precious that he will not gratify Saul, nor Absalom, nor any of David's enemies, with his death, how earnestly soever they desire it. This truth David had comforted himself with in the depth of his distress and danger; and, the event having confirmed it, he comforts others with it who might be in like manner exposed. God has a people, even in this world, that are his saints, his merciful ones, or men of mercy, that have received mercy from him and show mercy for his sake. The saints of God are mortal and dying; nay, there are those that desire their death, and labour all they can to hasten it, and sometimes prevail to be the death of them; but it is precious in the sight of the Lord; their life is so ( 2 Kings i. 13 ); their blood is so, Ps. lxxii. 14 . God often wonderfully prevents the death of his saints when there is but a step between them and it; he takes special care about their death, to order it for the best in all the circumstances of it; and whoever kills them, how light soever they may make of it, they shall be made to pay dearly for it when inquisition is made for the blood of the saints, Matt. xxiii. 35 . Though no man lays it to heart when the righteous perish, God will make it to appear that he lays it to heart. This should make us willing to die, to die for Christ, if we are called to it, that our death shall be registered in heaven; and let that be precious to us which is so to God.

(3.) He will oblige himself to be God's servant all his days. Having asked, What shall I render? here he surrenders himself, which was more than all burnt-offerings and sacrifice ( v. 16 ): O Lord! truly I am thy servant. Here is, [1.] The relation in which David professes to stand to God: " I am thy servant; I choose to be so; I resolve to be so; I will live and die in thy service." He had called God's people, who are dear to him, his saints; but, when he comes to apply it to himself, he does not say, Truly I am thy saint (that looked too high a title for himself), but, I am thy servant. David was a king, and yet he glories in this, that he was God's servant. It is no disparagement, but an honour, to the greatest kings on earth, to be the servants of the God of heaven. David does not here compliment God, as it is common among men to say, I am your servant, Sir. No; "Lord, I am truly thy servant; thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I am so. " And he repeats it, as that which he took pleasure in the thoughts of and which he was resolved to abide by: " I am thy servant, I am thy servant. Let others serve what master they will, truly I am they servant. " [2.] The ground of that relation. Two ways men came to be servants:— First, by birth. "Lord, I was born in thy house; I am the son of thy handmaid, and therefore thine." It, is a great mercy to be the children of godly parents, as it obliges us to duty and is pleadable with God for mercy. Secondly, By redemption. He that procured the release of a captive took him for his servant. " Lord, thou hast loosed my bonds; those sorrows of death that compassed me, thou hast discharged me from them, and therefore I am thy servant, and entitled to thy protection as well as obliged to thy work." The very bonds which thou hast loosed shall tie me faster unto thee. Patrick.

(4.) He will make conscience of paying his vows and making good what he had promised, not only that he would offer the sacrifices of praise, which he had vowed to bring, but perform all his other engagements to God, which he had laid himself under in the day of his affliction ( v. 14 ): I will pay my vows; and again, ( v. 18 ), now in the presence of all his people. Note, Vows are debts that must be paid, for it is better not to vow than to vow and not pay. He will pay his vows, [1.] Presently; he will not, like sorry debtors, delay the payment of them, or beg a day; but, " I will pay them now, " Eccl. v. 4 . [2.] Publicly; he will not huddle up his praises in a corner, but what service he has to do for God he will do it in the presence of all his people; nor for ostentation, but to show that he was not ashamed of the service of God, and that others might be invited to join with him. He will pay his vows in the courts of the tabernacle, where there was a crowd of Israelites attending, in the midst of Jerusalem, that he might bring devotion into more reputation.

12-14. These are modes of expressing acts of worship (compare Psa 116:4 ; Psa 50:14 ; Jon 2:9 ).

17-19. An ampler declaration of his purpose, designating the place, the Lord's house, or earthly residence in Jerusalem.

CHAPTER 6

Ver. 1.And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first.On the second Sabbath. The Arabic version.

What was this Sabbath?

1. The eighth day of unleavened bread or the last day of the Passover. Epiphanius, Vetablus, and others.

The first day of unleavened bread or the second day of the Passover, and therefore both the first and second Sabbath or Feast-day. Isidore, Euthymius, and another.

3. The Feast of Pentecost. The second or next greatest to the Passover. Maldonatus.

4. I however consider that this Sabbath was not a feast but a Sabbath in the strict sense of the word, i.e. a day on which the Jews were forbidden even to prepare their food (Exo_35:3), which they were permitted to do on other feasts (Exo_12:16).

That this is the true interpretation is clear from the other Evangelists, who speak of this day as simply a Sabbath.

(In accordance with À Lapide the Revised Version reads, "Now it came to pass on a Sabbath.")

But why is this Sabbath called the second after the first?

1. Because it followed on a feast (Theophylact); or, as others hold, because it was followed by a feast, and thus became the first before the second, which was close at hand.

2. Scaliger considers it to be the first Sabbath after the Feast of the Passover, called the second after the first, because it was the first after the second day of unleavened bread, from which day was numbered the seven weeks to Pentecost. So, also Vasquez.

3. S. Chrysostom and others think the words imply a feast or Sabbath in a twofold sense, a day on which another feast-day falls, and that they convey the same meaning as the Latin word "duplitia;" but to this interpretation Jansenius objects.

4. But it is most probable that the words mean the Sabbath which fell within the week of Pentecost or on the Feast-day itself. The Pascal Sabbath being distinguished as the first or principal Sabbath of the whole year. S. Joh_19:31.

(1.) This opinion is confirmed by the fact that what is here narrated of the disciples must have happened about the time of Pentecost, i.e. when the corn was ripe. Hence the command to the Jews to offer their firstfruits, Lev_23:17.

(2.) And because, as I have showed, this was a Sabbath in the strict sense of the word, and was called second, in respect of some other Sabbath which held rank as the first, and not with any reference to the Passover or any other feast.

(3). Because, again, none of the other opinions seem to be probable. For, to sum up, the Feasts of the Passover and Pentecost are so nearly connected, that, although one is first in dignity and order, the second follows in all respects closely upon it. For this reason the Italians call Pentecost the Passover of the Holy Ghost. The same may be said also of the Sabbaths which fall within these feasts; therefore the Church numbers her Sundays from Easter to Pentecost, and from the latter festival to Advent.

But you will object that the week of Pentecost was not a feast in the same sense as the week of the Passover: therefore that the Sabbath which fell in it was not of more importance than any other. I answer that although the Pentecostal week was not commanded by the law to be kept as a feast, it was so kept by the piety of the Jews. Genebrardus' Hebrew Calendar, and on the Psalms.

Figuratively, saysS. Ambrose, we may understand this Sabbath to mean the Gospel, which is second to the law in point of time, but first in dignity and importance.

He further adds, commenting on Ps. xlvii., the words "second Sabbath after the first" mean the Jewish Sabbath, for after the resurrection the Lord's day took its place. From that time therefore it became second in dignity, yet at the same time it was rightly called first, because of its sanctity and the priority of its institution.

Figuratively, Christ taught and worked His chief miracles on the Sabbath not only to prefigure the spiritual Sabbath, when the mind, no longer taken up with evil lusts and passions, will be free to serve God alone, but because of the gathering together of the people, as they assemble now on the Lord's-day.

There was also another reason, viz., to teach the Jews the true observance of the Sabbath, and that they might no longer be offended at the wonderful works which Christ wrought on that day, as were the Scribes, who accused Him of transgressing the law, and gave Him up to that death by means of which God effected the redemption of mankind. Bede.

Ver. 5.The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. See S. Mat_12:8.

Ver. 11.And they were filled with madness. α̉νοίας, deprived of understanding, they could not answer Him a word; they were filled with anger because they could not gainsay the reasoning of Christ, and with envy, as the Syriac renders it, which was the cause of their madness. Their eyes were blinded so that they could not see the truth! Hence Francis Lucas adds, they communed one with another what they might do with Jesus, i.e. how they might make away with Him.

Ver. 12.He went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to Godcommuning with God in prayer, asking the Father that He might choose for the ministry men fitted to be apostles, and would obtain for them an abundance of spiritual grace to enable them to fulfil the duties of their office; and also that He might teach us to pray in like manner.

So the Church at Ember-tide enjoins her children to fast and to pray that fitting persons may be chosen for the work of the ministry, and that those admitted to any holy function may be filled with grace and heavenly benediction; for as with the priest so with the people. When a chief pastor is zealous and God-fearing, he is a blessing and a strength to his diocese, but if he be an evil liver or slothful, he becomes a stumbling-block and offence to believers. In like manner, also, a good priest makes a good parish, but an evil one is for a destruction to his people.

Figuratively, Christ teaches us to pray in the night season that we may be the better able in silence and solitude to collect our thoughts and lift our hearts unto God; that we may be preserved from terror by night and from the pestilence that walketh in darkness, and also that by our prayers during the night we may obtain spiritual graces for the profit of our fellow-men during the ensuing day.

Hence Christ prayed by night and taught in the daytime. So did S. Paul, Act_16:25; and many other saints; 1Ti_5:5.

For the same reason David so often commends prayer during the night time, "Ye that by night stand in the house of the Lord. Lift up your hands in the sanctuary," Psa_134:1-2.

"At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto Thee," Psa_119:62.

"In the night I commune with mine own heart," Psa_77:6.

"My tears have been my meat day and night," Psa_42:3.

See also Commentary on Deu_6:7.

Ver. 20.Blessed are ye poor . . . in spirit (See S. Mat_5:3), for poorness of spirit is a rich and precious virtue. Therefore S. Ambrose rightly concludes that poverty, privations, and sorrow, which the world counts evil, not only are no hindrances, but on the contrary have been declared by Him who could neither deceive nor be deceived, to be of great assistance towards the attainment of a holy and a happy life.

The same writer goes on to give the reason why S. Luke has reduced the number of the beatitudes to four. He was content that they should include the four cardinal virtues. Justice, which, coveting not the possessions of others, rejoices in holy poverty; temperance, which had rather suffer want than be full; prudence, which chooses to sorrow here, in hope of the joy which shall be revealed; and Fortitude, which for sake of Christ and His Gospel, endures persecution and so triumphs over every enemy. Hence we read that the poor, the temperate, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (S. Matthew), the just, those who weep, the prudent who despise earthly things and seek heavenly, those hated of their fellowmen, not because of any misdeeds but for the Gospel's sake, who, steadfast in the faith, seek for future happiness by pleasing God rather than menthat these are indeed blessed.

Ver. 24.But woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation. To the four beatitudes Christ, by antithesis, opposes as many states of misery and unhappiness.

The poor are blessed for all eternity, but the rich receive in this world their consolation; the hungry shall be satisfied with good things, but those that are full now shall be sent empty away. They who weep here shall hereafter rejoice, but for those who laugh now there is reserved a future of mourning; and those that are spoken well of by their fellow men, are laying up for themselves an eternity of woe.

For Ου̉̀αὶ, Latin væ, as S. Gregory points out (Hom. ix. on Ezekiel), oftentimes in Scripture denotes the wrath of God and everlasting punishment. Hence this word is here used by Christ partly as a lament over the future and eternal misery of the worldly, (S. Chrysostom, Hom. 44 ad pop.); partly as a prophecy of it (Titus); partly as threatening and decreeing such punishment against them (Tertullian, bk. iv. against Marcian).

You that are rich. As by poor we understand those poor in spirit who love poverty because thereby they are the better able to please God, so we may take the word rich to mean those who, greedy of gain, heap up riches by any means in their power, and look upon wealth as their sole happiness and the one object of their life. Hence mortal sin, robbery, extortion, unfair dealing, and other such like sins. Therefore the denunciation of Christ. But those who are rich by inheritance and honest labour, as long as they are not corrupted by their riches, but use them for the glory of God and the good of their fellow men, in reality are poor, as were the patriarchs, David, and many other of the saints of old.

For it is not the amount he possesses, but the use a man makes of his riches which is accounted sin. So "they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil." See 1Ti_6:9.

Ye have received your consolation. Ye set your heart on your riches, use them for your own evil gratification, and put them in the place of your God. Therefore ye are allowed the enjoyment of them in this life, but in the life which is to come ye will, as Christ has here declared, come short of everlasting happiness, for those who have in this world received their consolation will lose their eternal reward.

Hence S. Hieronymus (Epist. xxxiv.), when endeavouring to persuade Julian, a rich nobleman, to give up the world and devote himself to a holy and religious life, uses this powerful argument. "It is difficult, it not impossible," he says, "to enjoy happiness in both worldsto give ourselves up to our evil lusts and passions here, but to become spiritually minded after deathto pass from one state of happiness to the otherto acquire glory both in this world and in the next, . . . and to be distinguished equally in heaven and on earth. Hence Abraham returned none other answer to the rich man than this, 'Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now be is comforted and thou art tormented.'" See chapter xvi. 25.

So also Christ is said to have offered S. Catherine of Siena two crowns, one set with jewels, the other begirt with thorns, bidding her choose which she would wear in this life, which in the life to come. She chose the thorny crown, and, regardless of the anguish, pressed it firmly on her head.

Ver. 25.Woe unto you which are full, &c.ye who live only for eating and drinking, for ye shall hunger in eternity.

Actual evil-doers will indeed endure heavier punishment, but those who are gluttonous will suffer torment from the absence of those things wherein they delighted. Hence Dives prayed for but one drop of water to cool the tongue which he had accustomed to the richest food and the choicest wine. S. Euthymius.

For, as S. Basil writes, to live for pleasure alone is but to make a god of one's belly (Phi_3:19). From the one vice of gluttony spring innumerable others which war against the soul. Subdue then this one vice, and you will at the same time subdue many others, for innumerable are the promptings of lust, which following in the train of gluttony, hold out promise of enjoyment, but lead to everlasting misery. S. Gregory in lib. regum, lib. v. cap 1.

The mind which is always accustomed to pleasure, and never weeded of evil by discipline, contracts much moral defilement (S Bernard, Epist. 152); and again (Serm. 48, in Song),"A life spent in pleasure is both death and the shadow of death,, for as a shadow follows close on that by which it is cast, a life of pleasure, beyond dispute, borders on destruction."

On the contrary, fasting and abstinence give rise to chaste thoughts, reasonable desires and healthful counsels, for by voluntary self-denial the flesh is mortified and spiritual virtues are strengthened and renewed. S. Leo, (serm. 11, de jejunio).

Hence Christ gave S. Catherine this rule of life, "Choose that which is bitter as sweet, avoid that which is sweet as bitter." See also Ecc_2:1.

Woe unto you which laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weepin this life, and much more in the life to come.  S. Basil seems in his rules to forbid all laughter, because this is a life of penitence and sorrow, but the future one of joy and gladness. Certain it is, as S. Augustine points out, that Christ is never said to have laughed, although He often wept.

Mirth in moderation, however, is not forbidden to the followers of Christ. "A fool lifteth up his voice with laughter, but a wise man doth scarce smile a little" (Ecclus. 21:20; and Ecc_2:2), "I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?" Commenting on which passages, I have shown that it is immoderate laughter which is condemned, and not that moderate mirth which is the mark of a kindly disposition and well-regulated mind.

Woe to you that laugh, i.e. to you who laugh with the drunken, and make merry over sinful enjoyment, for you will weep and lament for ever in hell.

Ver. 26.Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you, &c.When men, who for the most part are carnally minded, speak well of you as setters forth of that which is pleasing to their ears, for they hate the truth, and persecute those who rebuke vice and restrain the evildoer, but praise them who excuse iniquity, whom God abhors. Thus did their forefathers speak well of the false prophets of old, and therefore they all have entered into condemnation. I also condemn you inasmuch as ye follow after their example. This "woe" is the contrary to the blessing promised to the true prophets, who for the gospel's sake endure persecution, v. 22. So S. Paul: "If I pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." See Gal_1:10. For he who preaches false doctrine and things pleasing to the carnal mind, causes his hearers to continue in wickedness and commit many sins, and therefore will receive greater damnation.

Again, the preacher who seeks the applause rather than the conversion of his hearers, and looks upon this as the end and object of his ministry, will be condemned; because he sought to obtain the praise of men rather than to advance the glory of God, and made the vainglory of the world the one object of his life, thus destroying the souls of those committed to his care.

Such were the false teachers whom Jeremiah and the other prophets so often were called upon to refute. "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so," Jer_5:31.

Ver. 27.But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies. Christ, after solemnly warning those who live for pleasure alone, now addresses His own disciples. "I have denounced woe against the wicked, but to you who hear my words, and seek the salvation of your souls, I give as a first and chief commandment that you should love your enemies." See S. Mat_5:44.

Ver. 30.Give to every man that asketh of thee. Not only if lie is in want of the necessaries of life, but if he needs counsel, advice, or aid of any kind, for thus ye will be showing mercy and pity both to the souls and bodies of your fellow men. See S. Mat_5:42.  S. Luke here adds the words "to every man," which S. Matt. omits, from which we are to understand that we are to give as far us we honestly and rightly can to every one that asketh, but not to one that asketh for anything or everything. For a man may ask us to give him money for a wrongful purpose, or even to commit actual sin. Hence we are only bound to give that which, as far as we know, will neither be hurtful to ourselves or to him that receiveth the gift: and in case we refuse to give, we must justify our refusal, so that he who asks may not go discontented away.

To every one therefore that asketh of thee, give not always that which he asks, but oftentimes that which is bettera denial if the request is one which we can show that it would be wrong to comply with. S. Augustine.

And of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again, neither by power of law or in any other way, as S. Augustine explains. Which is a command, in the case of one who, under pressure of want, has despoiled thee, but is otherwise a counsel. So we read, "Ye exact all your labours," Isa_58:3.

And again in the parable, the unmerciful servant, because he had no pity, was delivered to the tormentors until he should pay all the debt which had been forgiven him. S. Matt. xviii. So Spiridion, and many hermits of old, gave up to the owners the sheep which they had stolen.

Ver. 34.And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive (a like benefit), what thank have ye?" For this is not kindness but commerce, the exchange of kindness for kindness. Ye give for what ye hope to receive, not for love of God; and thus the hope of a return of the benefit conferred deprives the act of the favour of God. Interlinear Gloss.

Ver. 35.Lend, hoping for nothing again. "From men," adds the Syriac, "that you may receive your reward of God."

Nothing, i.e. no pledge or return of any kind. Christ would have us lend, not only without exacting usury for the loan, but also without expecting a similar kindness in return. For what is it but self-seeking and avarice, if I lend to another that he in his turn may lend to me? Christ here enjoins the true benevolence which lends freely, content that at the appointed time the loan should be returned. Some, indeed, think that there should be no return, but the words of Christ do not bear this construction. For that which is lent without expectation of return, is given, not lent, and becomes not a loan but a gift. Toletus, Lessius, Valentia, and others.

Hence to seek to profit by a loan is contrary to the meaning of the word and the nature of the transaction. For the word mutuum (in the Greek δανείζητε, mutuum date, Vulgate), implies that they are mutuo animo, who give because of duty (Varro); or, as Verius Marcellus better explains it, mutuum means the same as meum tuum, because out of friendly feeling mine becomes thine for present needs and necessities. Hence S. Gregory Nyssen writes, "He who exacts interest on a loan, is condemned as a usurer;" for a loan is a friendly transaction, freely given and to be freely restored.Cicero, Epist. ad Metellum.

A kindly-hearted man, therefore, will lend to him who is in need, even though he may have reason to believe he will never be repaid, for there are many poor who cannot, and many unworthy persons who will not return that which is lent them.

Hence a witty writer, "If you lend to your friend and ask a return of the loan, you will lose either the one or the other;" and again, "By lending money, I have purchased to myself an enemy and lost a friend." He therefore who lends should lend for the love of God, who will richly repay, as is written, "He that hath pity on the poor lendeth unto the Lord." See Pro_19:17.

Hence S. Chrysostom: "The poor receive the gift, but God becomes the debtor;" and S. Basil (conc. 4 de Eleemosyna) "That which thou art about to give to the poor for the love of God, becomes both a gift and a loan,a gift, because there is no expectation of returna loan, because of the goodness of God, who will richly recompense in their name those who have relieved the necessities of the poor."

Wherefore we may take in a Christian sense that which is written: "Lose thy money for thy brother and thy friend." See Ecclus, xxix. 10, and my comments thereon. But when men take that which is lent, without a thought of returning it, no one is willing to become a lender.

Ver. 38.Give, and it shall be given unto you. Many are lavish of their promises, few are liberal in their gifts. Hence Antigonus as Plutarch tells us, was commonly called Doson, because he was always ready to say δώσω, I will give, but never performed his promise of giving. Therefore, Christ bids us "give," i.e. give a once and without delay, and it shall be given you.

For God puts it in the hearts of men amply to repay a liberal giver. It is said that a certain monastery became rich because of the large amounts expended in charity, but that, when these were withheld, it was reduced to poverty. When the steward was complaining of this to one whom he was entertaining, the guest said Date and dabitur are sisters: you cast out the former, and soon her sister and inseparable companion followed. If you wish the latter to return, recall the former, and give as largely as you were accustomed to do. See verse 27, S. Mat_5:42, and elsewhere. For almsgiving enriches and does not impoverish. Hence S. Chrysostom says it is the most profitable of all acts. And Christ has declared that the merciful are blessed, for they shall obtain mercy. See S. Mat_5:7.

For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit; neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.44. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.45. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

Our Lord continues the words which He had begun against the hypocrites, saying, For a good tree brings not forth corrupt fruit; i.e. as if He says, If you would have a true and unfeigned righteousness, what you set forth in words make up also in works, for the hypocrite though he pretends to be good is not good, who does evil works; and the innocent though he be blamed, is not therefore evil, who does good works.

But take not these words to thyself as an encouragement to idleness, for the tree is moved conformably to its nature but you have the exercise of free will; and every barren tree has been ordained for some good, but you were created to the good work of virtue.

He does not then exclude repentance, but a continuance in evil, which as long as it is evil cannot bring forth good fruit, but being converted to virtue, will yield abundance. But what nature is to the tree, our affections are to us. If then a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, how shall a corrupt heart?

But although the fruit is caused by the tree, yet, it brings to us the knowledge of the tree, because the distinctive nature of the tree is made evident by the fruit, as it follows, For every tree is know by its fruit.

Each man’s life also will be a criterion of his character. For not by extrinsic ornaments and pretended humility is the beauty of true happiness discovered, but by those things which a man does; of which he gives an illustration, adding, For of thorns men do not gather figs.

On the thorns of this world the fig cannot be found, which as being better in its second fruit, is well fitted to be a similitude of the resurrection. Either because, as you read, The fig trees have put forth their green figs, that is, the unripe and worthless fruit came first in the Synagogue. Or because our life is imperfect in the flesh, perfect in the resurrection, and therefore we ought to cast far from us worldly cares, which eat into the mind and scorch up the soul, that by diligent culture we may obtain the perfect fruits. This therefore has reference to the world and the resurrection, the next to the soul and the body, as it follows, Nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. Either because no one living in sin obtains fruit to his soul, which like the grape nearest the ground is rotten, on the higher branches becomes ripe. Or because no one can escape the condemnations of the flesh, but he whom Christ has redeemed, Who as a grape hung on the tree.

Or, I think the thorns and bramble are the cares of the world and the prickings of sin, but the figs and the grapes are the sweetness of a new life and the warmth of love, but the fig is not gathered from the thorns nor the grape from the bramble, because the mind still debased by the habits of the old man may pretend to, but cannot bring forth the fruits of the new man. But we must know, that as the fruitful palm tree is enclosed and supported by a hedge, and the thorn bearing fruit not its own, preserves it for the use of man, so the words and acts of the wicked wherein they serve the good are not done by the wicked themselves, but by the wisdom of God working upon them.

But having shown that the good and the bad man may be discerned by their works as a tree by its fruits, he now sets forth the same thing by another figure, saying, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth that which is evil.

The treasure of the heart is the same as the root of the tree. He therefore who has in his heart the treasure of patience and perfect love, brings forth the best fruits, loving his enemy, and doing the other things which have been taught above. But he who keeps a bad treasure in his heart does the contrary to this.

The quality of the words shows the heart from which they proceed, plainly manifesting the inclination of our thoughts. Hence it follows, For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

For it is a natural consequence when wickedness abounds within, that wicked words are breathed as far as the mouth; and therefore when you hear of a man uttering abominable things, do not suppose that there lies only so much wickedness in him as is expressed in his words, but believe the fountain to be more copious than the stream.

By the speaking of the mouth the Lord signifies all things, which by word, or deed, or thought, we bring forth from the heart. For it is the manner of the Scripture to put words for deeds.

And why call you me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?47. Whosoever comes to me, and hears my sayings, and does them, I will show you to whom he is like:48. He is like a man which built a house, and dug deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.49. But he that hears, and does not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth: against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Lest any one should vainly flatter himself with the words, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, as if words only and not rather works were required of a Christian, our Lord adds the following, But why call you me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? As if He said, Why do you boast of sending forth the leaves of a right confession, and show forth no fruit of good works.

But Lordship both in name and reality belongs only to the Highest Nature.

This is not then the word of man, but the Word of God, manifesting His own birth from the Father, for He is the Lord Who is born of the Lord alone. But fear not the duality of Persons, for they are not separate in nature.

But the advantage which arises from the keeping of the commandments, or the loss from disobedience, he shows as follows; Whosoever comes to me, and hears my sayings, he is like to a man who built his house upon a rock, etc.

The rock is Christ. He digs deep; by the precepts of humility He plucks out all earthly things from the hearts of the faithful, lest they should serve God from regard to their temporal good.

But lay your foundations upon , a rock, that is, lean upon the faith of Christ, so as to persevere immovable in adversity, whether it come from man or God.

Or the foundation of the house is the resolution to live a good life, which the perfect hearer firmly lays in fulfilling the commandments of God.

Or, He teaches that the obedience to heavenly precepts is the foundation of all virtue, by means of which this our house can be moved neither by the torrent of pleasures, nor by the violence of spiritual wickedness, neither by the storms of this world, nor by the cloudy disputations of heretics; hence it follows, But the flood came, etc.

A flood comes in three ways, either by unclean spirits, or wicked men, or the very restlessness of mind or body; and as far as men trust in their own strength they fall away, but as long as they cling to the immovable rock they cannot even be shaken.

The Lord also shows us that faith profits a man nothing, if his manner of life be corrupt. Hence it follows, But he that hears and does not, is like a man, that without a foundation built an house upon the earth, etc.

The house of the devil is the world which lies in wickedness, which he builds upon the earth, because those who obey him he drags down from heaven to earth; he builds without foundation, for sin has no foundation, standing not by its own nature, for evil is without substance, which yet whatever it is, grows up in the nature of good. But because the foundation is called so from fundus, we may not unfitly understand that fundamentum is placed here for fundus. As then he who is fallen into a well is kept at the bottom of the well, so the soul falling away remains stationary, as it were, at the very bottom, as long as it continues in any measure of sin. But not content with the sin into which it is fallen, while daily sinking into worse, it can find no bottom, as it were, in the well to which it may fix itself. But every kind of temptation increasing, both the really bad and the feignedly good become worse, until at last they come to everlasting punishment Hence it follows, Against which the stream did beat vehemently. By the force of the stream may be understood the trial of the last judgment, when both houses being finished, the wicked shall go into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal.

Or they build upon the earth without foundation, who upon the quicksand of doubt, which relates to opinion, lay the foundation of their spiritual building, which a few drops of temptation wash away.

Now this long discourse of our Lord, Luke begins in the same way as Matthew; for each says, Blessed are the poor. Then many things which follow in the narration of each are like, and finally the conclusion of the discourse is found to be altogether the same, I mean with respect to the men who build upon the rock and the sand. It might then easily be supposed that Luke has inserted the same discourse of our Lord, and yet has left out some sentences which Matthew has kept, and likewise put in others which Matthew has not; were it not that Matthew says the discourse was spoken by our Lord on the mountain, but Luke on the plain by our Lord standing. It is not however thought likely from this that these two discourses are separated by a long course of time, because both before and after both have related some things like or the same. It may however have happened that our Lord was at first on a higher part of the mountain with His disciples alone, and that then he descended with them from the mount, that is, from the summit of the mountain to the flat place, that is, to some level ground, which was on the side of the mountain, and was able to hold large multitudes, and that there He stood until the crowds were gathered together to Him, and afterwards when He sat down His disciples came nearer, and to them, and the rest of the multitude who were present, He held the same discourse.

That man buildeth safely who hath both faith and good works; whereas the man that trusteth to his faith alone, to his reading or knowledge of Scripture, and doth not work and live accordingly, buildeth on sand. (Bristow)

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. 39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? 40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. 41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye. 43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. 46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: 48 He is like a man which built a house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. 49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built a house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

All these sayings of Christ we had before in Matthew; some of them in ch. vii. , others in other places. They were sayings that Christ often used; they needed only to be mentioned, it was easy to apply them. Grotius thinks that we need not be critical here in seeking for the coherence: they are golden sentences, like Solomon's proverbs or parables. Let us observe here,

I. We ought to be very candid in our censures of others, because we need grains of allowance ourselves: "Therefore judge not others, because then you yourselves shall not be judged; therefore condemn not others, because then you yourselves shall not be condemned, v. 37 . Exercise towards others that charity which thinks no evil, which bears all things, believes and hopes all things; and then others will exercise that charity towards you. God will not judge and condemn you, men will not." They that are merciful to other people's names shall find others merciful to theirs.

II. If we are of a giving and a forgiving spirit, we shall ourselves reap the benefit of it: Forgive and you shall be forgiven. If we forgive the injuries done to us by others, others will forgive our inadvertencies. If we forgive others' trespasses against us, God will forgive our trespasses against him. And he will be no less mindful of the liberal that devise liberal things ( v. 38 ): Give, and it shall be given to you. God, in his providence, will recompense it to you; it is lent to him, and he is not unrighteous to forget it ( Heb. vi. 10 ), but he will pay it again. Men shall return it into your bosom; for God often makes use of men as instruments, not only of his avenging, but of his rewarding justice. If we in a right manner give to others when they need, God will incline the hearts of others to give to us when we need, and to give liberally, good measure pressed down and shaken together. They that sow plentifully shall reap plentifully. Whom God recompenses he recompenses abundantly.

III. We must expect to be dealt with ourselves as we deal with others: With the same measure that ye mete it shall be measured to you again. Those that deal hardly with others must acknowledge, as Adoni-bezek did ( Judg. i. 7 ), that God is righteous, if others deal hardly with them, and they may expect to be paid in their own coin; but they that deal kindly with others have reason to hope that, when they have occasion, God will raise them up friends who will deal kindly with them. Though Providence does not always go by this rule, because the full and exact retributions are reserved for another world, yet, ordinarily, it observes a proportion sufficient to deter us from all acts of rigour and to encourage us in all acts of beneficence.

IV. Those who put themselves under the guidance of the ignorant and erroneous are likely to perish with them ( v. 39 ): Can the blind lead the blind? Can the Pharisees, who are blinded with pride, prejudice, and bigotry, lead the blind people into the right way? Shall not both fall together into the ditch? How can they expect any other? Those that are led by the common opinion, course, and custom, of this world, are themselves blind, and are led by the blind, and will perish with the world that sits in darkness. Those that ignorantly, and at a venture, follow the multitude to do evil, follow the blind in the broad way that leads the many to destruction.

V. Christ's followers cannot expect better treatment in the world than their Master had, v. 40 . Let them not promise themselves more honour or pleasure in the world than Christ had, nor aim at the worldly pomp and grandeur which he was never ambitious of, but always declined, nor affect that power in secular things which he would not assume; but every one that would show himself perfect, an established disciple, let him be as his Master —dead to the world, and every thing in it, as his Master is; let him live a life of labour and self-denial as his Master doth, and make himself a servant of all; let him stoop, and let him toil, and do all the good he can, and then he will be a complete disciple.

VI. Those who take upon them to rebuke and reform others are concerned to look to it that they be themselves blameless, and harmless, and without rebuke, v. 41, 42 . 1. Those with a very ill grace censure the faults of others who are not aware of their own faults. It is very absurd for any to pretend to be so quick-sighted as to spy small faults in others, like a mote in the eye, when they are themselves so perfectly past feeling as not to perceive a beam in their own eye. 2. Those are altogether unfit to help to reform others whose reforming charity does not begin at home. How canst thou offer thy service to thy brother, to pull out the mote from his eye, which requires a good eye as well as a good hand, when thou thyself hast a beam in thine own eye, and makest no complaint of it? 3. Those therefore who would be serviceable to the souls of others must first make it appear that they are solicitous about their own souls. To help to pull the mote out of our brother's eye is a good work, but then we must qualify ourselves for it by beginning with ourselves; and our reforming our own lives may, by the influence of example, contribute to others reforming theirs.

VII. We may expect that men's words and actions will be according as they are, according as their hearts are, and according as their principles are.

1. The heart is the tree, and the words and actions are fruit according to the nature of the tree, v. 43, 44 . If a man be really a good man, if he have a principle of grace in his heart, and the prevailing bent and bias of the soul be towards God and heaven, though perhaps he may not abound in fruit, though some of his fruits be blasted, and though he may be sometimes like a tree in winter, yet he does not bring forth corrupt fruit; though he may not do you all the good he should, yet he will not in any material instance do you hurt. If he cannot reform ill manners, he will not corrupt good manners. If the fruit that a man brings forth be corrupt, if a man's devotion tend to debauch the mind and conversation, if a man's conversation be vicious, if he be a drunkard or fornicator, if he be a swearer or liar, if he be in any instance unjust or unnatural, his fruit is corrupt, and you may be sure that he is not a good tree. On the other hand, a corrupt tree doth not bring forth good fruit, though it may bring forth green leaves; for of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble do they gather grapes. You may, if you please, stick figs upon thorns, and hang a bunch of grapes upon a bramble, but they neither are, nor can be, the natural product of the trees; so neither can you expect any good conduct from those who have justly a bad character. If the fruit be good, you may conclude that the tree is so; if the conversation be holy, heavenly, and regular, though you cannot infallibly know the heart, yet you may charitably hope that it is upright with God; for every tree is known by its fruit. But the vile person will speak villany ( Isa. xxxii. 6 ), and the experience of the moderns herein agrees with the proverb of the ancients, that wickedness proceedeth from the wicked, 1 Sam. xxiv. 13 .

2. The heart is the treasure, and the words and actions are the expenses or produce from that treasure, v. 45 . This we had, Matt. xii. 34, 35 . The reigning love of God and Christ in the heart denominates a man a good man; and it is a good treasure a man may bring forth that which is good. But where the love of the world and the flesh reign there is an evil treasure in the heart, out of which an evil man is continually bringing forth that which is evil; and by what is brought forth you may know what is in the heart, as you may know what is in the vessel, water or wine, by what is drawn out from it, John ii. 8 . Of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks; what the mouth ordinarily speaks, speaks with relish and delight, generally agrees with what is innermost and uppermost in the heart: He that speaks of the earth is earthly, John iii. 31 . Not but that a good man may possibly drop a bad word, and a wicked man make use of a good word to serve a bad turn; but, for the most part, the heart is as the words are, vain or serious; it therefore concerns us to get our hearts filled, not only with good, but with abundance of it.

VIII. It is not enough to hear the sayings of Christ, but we must do them; not enough to profess relation to him, as his servants, but we must make conscience of obeying him.

1. It is putting an affront upon him to call him Lord, Lord, as if we were wholly at his command, and had devoted ourselves to his service, if we do not make conscience of conforming to his will and serving the interests of his kingdom. We do but mock Christ, as they that in scorn said, Hail, King of the Jews, if we call him ever so often Lord, Lord, and yet walk in the way of our own hearts and in the sight of our own eyes. Why do we call him Lord, Lord, in prayer (compare Matt. vii. 21, 22 ), if we do not obey his commands? He that turns away his ear from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination.

2. It is putting a cheat upon ourselves if we think that a bare profession of religion will save us, that hearing the sayings of Christ will bring us to heaven, without doing them. This he illustrates by a similitude ( v. 47-49 ), which shows,

(1.) That those only make sure work for their souls and eternity, and take the course that will stand them in stead in a trying time, who do not only come to Christ as his scholars, and hear his sayings but do them, who think, and speak, and act, in every thing according to the established rules of his holy religion. They are like a house built on a rock. These are they that take pains in religion, as they do,—that dig deep, that found their hope upon Christ, who is the Rock of ages (and other foundation can no man lay); these are they who provide for hereafter, who get ready for the worst, who lay up in store a good foundation for the time to come, for the eternity to come, 1 Tim. vi. 19 . They who do thus do well for themselves; for, [1.] They shall keep their integrity, in times of temptation and persecution; when others fall from their own stedfastness, as the seed on the stony ground, they shall stand fast in the Lord. [2.] They shall keep their comfort, and peace, and hope, and joy, in the midst of the greatest distresses. The storms and streams of affliction shall not shock them, for their feet are set upon a rock, a rock higher than they. [3.] Their everlasting welfare is secured. In death and judgment they are safe. Obedient believers are kept by the power of Christ, through faith, unto salvation, and shall never perish.

(2.) That those who rest in a bare hearing of the sayings of Christ, and do not live up to them, are but preparing for a fatal disappointment: He that heareth and doeth not (that knows his duty, but lives in the neglect of it), he is like a man that built a house without a foundation. He pleases himself with hopes that he has no ground for, and his hopes will fail him when he most needs the comfort of them, and when he expects the crowning of them; when the stream beats vehemently upon his house, it is gone, the sand it is built upon is washed away, and immediately it falls, Such is the hope of the hypocrite, though he has gained, when God takes away his soul; it is as the spider's web, and the giving up of the ghost.

41-49. (See on Mt 7:3-5 , Mt 7:16-27 .)