overboard in order to save life; and the expressions, 'cut it off,' 'pluck it out,' and 'cast it from thee,' are designed to indicate both the resolution required, and the energy that should be exerted, in the execution of this duty. Dean Alford regards ver. 29 as "an admonition, arising out of the truth announced in ver. 28, to withdraw the first springs and occasions of evil desire, even by the sacrifice of what is most useful and dear to us"; and he observes "that our Lord grounds this precept of the most rigid and decisive self-denial on considerations of the truest selfinterest-sumpherei soi (it is profitable to thee)."-Greek Test. 5th edit. vol. i. p. 48. None will controvert the fact that, to the inebriate, strong drink comes within the prohibitive scope of this precept, and that he is called upon to dash away from him the liquor which has enthralled and cursed him. The difficulty of compliance with this rule is, however, extremely great, arising from the morbid condition of the drinker, till, in the case of the oinomaniac or dipsomaniac, voluntary compliance with the safeguard becomes impossible. Hence (1) the importance of abstinence from drinking customs and the use of strong drink on the part of the sober and virtuous, so that the victims of intemperance may escape external temptation to drink, and be encouraged in their abstinent practice; and (2) the equal importance of abstinence to the sober, as a preventive against the fascinating and ruinous influences of intoxicating liquor, from which so few, comparatively, are ever delivered. [See, on these two latter points, Notes on chap. xviii. 7-9; Rom. xiv. 13, etc.] CHAPTER VI. VERSE 13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. TEMPTATION] Peirasmon, a state of trial,' especially solicitation to sin. Amen. We are taught to pray to God not to lead us, or suffer us to be led, into such circumstances as will tempt and endanger our souls. It is one thing to come into contact with temptation (which is unavoidable), another to be led into it. Such a prayer as this, if put up in a sincere and enlightened spirit, will be answered by the protection of Providence extended to us in our daily walks, and by the diligence we shall evince in shunning whatever we have reason to believe is prejudicial to our moral and spiritual interests. To hundreds of thousands of men alcoholic liquor acts as a temptation to its own use in a manner the most injurious; and in countless cases it acts, even when short of drunkenness, as an incentive to crime and vice of every description. Who can answer the question, How much strong drink can be taken without its becoming a temptation, or tempting to the com mission of some folly or sin? If 'wine is a mocker,' how can its use be consistent with the spirit of this solemn supplication? On the spiritual affections wine may safely be said to dim where it does not darken; and Chaucer has wisely warned us against temptation that may begrime where it does not burn.* So also as to the prayer, 'Deliver us from evil,'-it must, in its broadest sense, include the causes of social and moral evil: for to seek the exclusion of evil while patronizing its "Sotheby a whit wal although it brenne (burn) not fully by stikyng of a candel, yet is the wal blak (by) the leyte (light)."-Chaucer's Parson's Tale. sources is not to pray so as to be heard; it is to 'pray amiss': yet what cause of nearly all kinds of evil is so prolific and universal among us as the use of intoxicating drink? If the translation deliver us from the evil-one' is preferred, we are strongly reminded of the counsel of Peter,-"Be sober," neepsate (be abstinent), "be vigilant; for your adversary the devil goeth about, as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour ”—katapiee, 'swallow down.' [See Note on 1 Pet. v. 8.] CHAPTER IX. VERSE 17. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles; else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. NEITHER DO MEN PUT] Oude ballousin, ‘nor indeed do they [anthropoi, ‘men,' understood] place.' NEW WINE] Oinon neon, 'new wine,' wine fresh from the press. INTO OLD BOTTLES] Eis askous palaious, 'into old bags '-bags or vessels, askous, generally made out of skins of goats. ELSE] Ei de meege, but if not indeed.' So Codices Aleph, C, and D. Codex B has ei de mee, but if not.' THE BOTTLES BREAK] Rheegnuntai oi askoi, 'the bags burst,' = are rent. So Codices Aleph, B, and C. But Codex D reads, rheessei ho oinos ho neos tous askous, 'the new wine rends the bags.' AND THE WINE RUNNETH OUT] Kai ho oinos ekecheitai, 'and the wine is poured out.' Codex D has kai ho oinos apollutai, and the wine is destroyed' (or perishes). AND THE BOTTLES PERISH] Kai oi askoi apolountai, and the bottles are destroyed' (or perish). So Codex C. Codices Aleph, A, and B have apolluntai. BUT THEY PUT NEW WINE INTO NEW BOTTLES] Alla ballousin oinon neon eis askous kainous, but they place new wine into new bags.' Codex D reads, ballousin de. Codex Aleph has all' oinon neou eis askous kainous blection, but new wine into new bags is-to-be-put.' AND BOTH ARE PRESERVED] Kai amphotera sunteerountai, and both are kept together' preserved. Codices Aleph, B, C, and D have amphoteroi, "both" (masculine plural), instead of amphotera (neuter plural); and Codex D has teerountai, 'are kept,' instead of sunteerountai, are kept together.' The Vulgate reads, Neque mittunt vinum novum in utres veteres; alioquin rumpuntur utres, et vinum effunditur, et utres pereunt. Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittunt, et ambo conservantur: "Nor do they place new wine in old leatherbottles; otherwise the bottles are burst, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles perish. But they place new wine in new bottles, and both are preserved." [See Notes on parallel passages, Mark ii. 22; Luke v. 37, 38.] 1. From this verse (and the parallel passages) we learn (1) that it was not customary in our Lord's day to put new wine into old wine-bags, lest the bags should burst and the wine be lost; and (2) that the opposite practice-that of putting new wine into new wine-bags-was attended with the preservation of both. 2. The usual explanation of this custom-viz., that new skin-bags were used in order to resist the expansive force of the carbonic acid gas generated by fermenta tion-is erroneous and insufficient; for it cannot have been customary to put wine during fermentation into any kind of bottles, either new or old, since fermentation, when permitted, was carried on in the wine-vat (Greek, hupoleenion; Latin, lacus); and when, from inadvertence, fermenting wine was poured into skin-bags drawn tight, the destruction of the bag, however new and strong, was the certain consequence. [See Note on Job xxxii. 19.] 3. The facts stated by the Saviour are only intelligible in the light of the efforts used by the ancients to prevent grape-juice from fermenting, by straining the juice so as to free it from much of its gluten, and then bottling it with sulphur fumigation; or by subjecting the juice to a boiling heat, which checks all incipient fermentation, and then inclosing it in bags or other vessels made air-tight. It is obvious that, to render these precautions effectual, the wine-bags themselves must have been free from ferment; and there was no other way of insuring the absence of ferment save by using perfectly new skin-bags. If old bags were used, some of the decayed albuminous matter adhering to their sides must, by the action of air, have become changed into a leaven or ferment (Hebrew, seor); or, by long wear and heat, cracks or apertures admitting the air might exist undetected; and the wine, thus set a-fermenting, would in due course burst the skin, and be spilled and 'lost'; but if the wine was poured into bags made of skins never before used, no provocative to fermentation would be present, and both the wine and the bags would be preserved,—the wine from fermentation, and the bags from the rupture, otherwise sure to result from the elastic gas generated in fermentation making a violent effort to find a vent. CHAPTER X. VERSE 42. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. A CUP OF COLD WATER ONLY] Poteerion psuchrou monon, 'a cup only of cold' -'water' being understood. In the parallel place, Mark ix. 41, the phrase is poteerion hudatos, a cup of water.' Codex Z has poteerion psuchroun, ‘a cold cup'; Codex D, poteeriou hudatos psuchrou, 'a cup of cold water.' The A. V., 'a cup of cold water only,' is calculated to mislead the reader, as if the thing given were of small value-' a cup of cold water only'; but by the proper collocation, 'a cup only of cold water,' the true meaning is presented,—that even a small donation of water will not pass without the notice of Him who accepts a kindness done to the obscurest disciple as though done to Himself. 19 CHAPTER XI. VERSES 18, 19. 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. V. 18. NEITHER EATING NOR DRINKING] Meete esthiōn meete pinōn, 'neither eating nor drinking'; that is, as the generality of men did, without any peculiarity. His meat was 'locusts and wild honey,' and his drink was restricted to the water of spring or stream. A DEVIL] Daimonion, evil spirit or fallen angel. = = a demon,'-always in New Testament used of an The demons were supposed to haunt solitary places; hence the taunt against John. The name diabolos, 'devil,' is never applied to any evil spirit except the chief of fallen angels Satan Beelzebub: = Apollyon. V. 19. A MAN GLUTTONOUS, AND A WINEBIBBER] Anthropos phagos kai oinopotees, a man (who is) an eater and a wine-drinker.' Wicklif (1380) and Tyndale (1534) translate, 'drynker of wyne.' Beza gives homo, edax, et vini potor, 'a man, an eater, and a drinker of wine.' In Greek as in English, ‘eater' and 'drinker' (phagos and potees) acquired an intensive force, and came to signify one addicted to a more than customary and respectable use of food and drink. The A. V. pretty accurately marks this sense by the renderings 'gluttonous' and ‘winebibber'; but in regard to oinopotees, frequency and love of wine-drinking, not intoxication from wine, was the pith of the charge preferred. OF HER CHILDREN] Tōn teknōn autees, of her children.' Instead of teknōn, Codices Aleph and B read, tōn ergòn autees, ‘of her works.' The reports of St Matthew and St Luke (in the translation of the A. V.) may be placed side by side. Matt. xi. 18, 19. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Luke vii. 33-35. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children. 1. The diet of John was simple and uniform-such as the wilderness spontaneously provided; his dress was rough and hairy; his residence was away from the haunts of man; and his manner was austere. The multitude was awe-struck, but the profanely bold said, 'He has a demon,' an evil spirit that enables him to bear the privations and fatigues of his arduous life. In truth, he was a Nazarite, and more than a Nazarite [see Note on Luke i. 15];-one who, in the performance of his peculiar mission as the Awakening Prophet and Forerunner of the Messiah, was divinely devoted to do and be that which was best adapted for the success of his great work. 2. Jesus, who would have done precisely as John did, had His office been the same, was anointed to another mission-that of preaching and presenting in His own person the gospel of the kingdom. He therefore did not hold Himself aloof from village, town, and city, nor adopt a singular attire, nor use the monotonous food of the wilderness. He came not so much to awe by His wonders as to woo by His gentleness. His life was eminently social; therefore, in common parlance, He came eating and drinking,' while for both food and drink He was dependent upon the grateful bounty of His friends. As the austerity of John's life led his slanderers to charge him with being possessed by a demon, so the suavity of Jesus led the same vituperators to charge Him with indulgence in sensuous delights, with addiction to the pleasures of the table,' with pampering His appetite, and gratifying a taste for 'good living'-with being an eater and wine-drinker,' a LOVER of dainty food and drink! There was no ground for this charge; for self indulgence, especially in meats and drinks, was opposed to the whole purpose of His advent and redeeming work. He was the grandest example of Self-Denial the world ever beheld; and whoever wishes for countenance in luxurious tastes and habits must go elsewhere than to Christ, the Man of sorrows.' The reasoning that "John drank no wine, while Christ did, therefore we may," overlooks or confounds the most important distinctions. (1) It ignores the fact that John, as a Nazarite, abstained from all solid produce of the vine, and from all juice of the grape, and that Jesus, not being a Nazarite, was not under the same obligation, and did not so abstain, as we know from the account of the Last Supper; but the inference that therefore Jesus partook of intoxicating liquor (such as Solomon and Habakkuk condemned) is wholly unsupported and unjustified. The contrast was neither universal nor special, but general, and hence the inference is illogical. It is not necessary to assume that Christ drank all kinds of wine-good, bad, or indifferent-because John abstained from all kinds, much less that He drank only intoxicating wine! No one ever thought of arguing in the same style in regard to the contrast concerning 'eating.' (2) The objection confounds the official life of John and Jesus with their personal character, and virtually assigns to John a superiority in self-denial to the Master. It supposes that Jesus indulged Himself in things which John refrained from under a more rigorous and refined ideal of temperance; whereas, as we have remarked, their difference of living was due to their difference of office; and there is not a particle of evidence for the theory that would assign to John a mortification of fleshly desire which the Saviour did not practise. Men who drink strong drink because they like it'-from the animal excitement or 'comfort' it occasions,—and who refuse to deny themselves its use, in spite of all the good they might thereby effect, cannot be permitted to shield themselves by their appeal to the spotless Saviour, 'who pleased not Himself,' and "whose meat and drink it was to do the will of His father, and to finish His work." The real sacrilege of such an appeal is thinly disguised beneath the veil of affected reverence which it puts on. Whatever food or drink the Lord may have partaken of was not for the purpose of gratifying any mere fleshly desire, nor is any one warranted in affirming that the kind of food or drink He consumed was calculated, like the alcoholic liquors now in use, to engender an intemperate appetite, and rob man of his priceless dower of reason and spiritual affection. John the Baptist had not a demon, and Jesus was neither an effeminate nor voracious consumer of food and drink. 3. Wisdom is justified of her children.' She is vindicated by the works of goodness and utility to which she gives birth; and as John and his Lord have been so justified, despite the aspersions of their enemies, so every true reform, such as the Temperance movement, illustrates the wisdom out of which it has sprung by the excellence of its effects. By their fruits ye shall know them' is a criterion as applicable to institutions as to men. CHAPTER XII. VERSE 26. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? When accused of exerting Satanic power for the expulsion of evil spirits, the Redeemer exposes, by this question, the absurdity of the hypothesis. The principle is absolute in the world of morals,- -as are effects, so are their causes, and vice versa. If we know the nature of a cause, we may predict the nature of the effect; and knowing the effect, we can pronounce as to the quality of the cause. Those |