they called them, divinities, or gods. A part were in their view good, and a part evil. Socrates supposed that such a demon or genius attended him, who suggested good thoughts to him, and who was his protector. As these beings were good and well disposed, it was not supposed to be necessary to offer any sacrifices in order to appease them. But a large portion of those genii were supposed to be evil and wicked, and hence the necessity of attempting to appease their wrath by sacrifices and bloody offerings. It was therefore true, as the apostle says, that the sacrifices of the heathen were made, usually at least, to devils or to evil spirits. Many of these spirits were supposed to be the souls of departed men, who were entitled to worship after death, having been enrolled among the gods. The word "demons" among the Jews, was employed only to designate evil beings. It is not applied in their writings to good angels or to blessed spirits, but to evil angels, to idols, to false gods. Thus in the LXX, the word is used to translate, Elilim, idols, (Psal. xcv. 5. Isa. lxv. 10;) and T, Shaid, as in Deut. xxxii. 17, in a passage which Paul has here almost literally used, "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God." Nowhere in the Septuagint is it used in a good sense. In the New Testament the word is uniformly used also to denote evil spirits, and those usually which had taken possession of men in the time of the Saviour. (Matt. vii. 22; ix. 33, 34; x. 8; xi. 18. Mark i. 34, 39, et alii.) See also Campbell on the Gospels, Prel. Diss. part i. § 14-16. The precise force of the original is not, however, conveyed by our translation. It is not true that the heathen sacrificed to devils, in the common and popular sense of that word, meaning thereby the apostate angel and the spirits under his direction; for the heathens were as ignorant of their existence as they were of the true God; and it is not true that they designed to worship such beings. But it is true, (1.) That they did not worship the supreme and the true God. They were not acquainted with his existence; and they did not profess to adore him. (2.) They worshipped demons; beings that they regarded as inferior to the true God; created spirits, or the spirits of men that had been enrolled among the number of the gods. (3.) It was true that many of these beings were supposed to be malign and evil in their nature, and that their worship was designed to deprecate their wrath. So that, although an idol was nothing in itself, the gold or wood of which it was made was inanimate, and incapable of aiding or injuring them; and although there were no real beings such as the heathens supposed -no genii or inferior gods; yet they designed to offer sacrifice to such beings, and to deprecate their wrath. To join them in this, therefore, would be to express the belief that there were such beings, and that they ought to be worshipped, and that their wrath should be deprecated. I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. -I would not that you should have communion with demons. I would not have you express a belief of their existence; or join in worship to them; or partake of the spirit by which they are supposed to be actuated a spirit that would be promoted by attendance on their worship. I

would not have you, therefore, join in a mode of worship where such beings are acknowledged. You are solemnly dedicated to Christ; and the homage due to him should not be divided with homage offered to devils, or to imaginary beings.

VER. 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.

2 Deut. xxxii. 38.

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, &c.— This does not mean that they had no physical ability to do this, or that it was a natural impos sibility; for they certainly had power to do it But it must mean that they could not consistently do it. It was not fit, proper, decent. They were solemnly bound to serve and obey Christ: they had devoted themselves to him and they could not, consistently with these obligations, join in the worship of demons. This is a striking instance in which the word cannot is used to denote not natural but moral inability. And the cup of devils.-Demons. (Ver. 20.) In the feast in honour of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drank by the worshippers. See Virg. En. viii. 273. The custom of drinking toasts at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honour of the heathen gods; and is a practice that partakes still of the nature of heathenism. It was one of the abominations of heathenism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating draught. Such a pouring out of a libation was usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would gran: the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually accompanies the drinking of a glass in this man- | ner, if it mean any thing, is now also a prayer: but to whom? to the god of wine? to a heathen deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer! offered to the true God; the God of purity? Has Jehovah directed that prayer should be offered to him in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to him? Either the sentiment is unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a heathen god, or it is mockery of Jehovah; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul, "Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a prayer is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means any thing, it is a mockery of Jehovah." Now can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations, than he could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there? And of the table of devils.-Demons. It is not needful to the force of this that we should suppose that the word means necessarily evil spirits. They were not God; and to worship them was idolatry. The apostle means that

Christians could not consistently join in the worship that was offered to them, or in the feasts celebrated in honour of them.

a

dient, and are improper. Paul acted for the welfare of the church. His object was to save souls. Any thing that would promote that object was proper; any thing which would hinder

a Deut. xxxii. 21. Job ix. 4. Ezek. xxii. 14.

Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? That is, shall we, by joining in the worship of idols, provoke or irritate God, or excite him to anger? This is evidently the meaning of the word wapaEnλovμev, rendered "provoke to jealousy." The word, usually rendered by this word by the LXX, has this sense in Deut. xxxii. 21. 1 Kings xiv. 22. Ezra viii. 3. Psal. lxxviii. 58. There is a reference here, doubtless, to the truth recorded in Exod. xx. 5, that God “is a jealous God," and that he regards the worship of idols as a direct affront to himself. The sentiment of Paul is, that to join in the worship of idols, or in the observance of their feasts, would be to participate in that which had ever been regarded by God with peculiar abhorrence, and which more than any thing else tended to provoke his wrath. We may observe, that any course of life that tends to alienate the affections from God, and to fix them on other beings or objects, is a sin of the same kind as that referred to here. Any inordinate love of friends, of property, of honour, has substantially the same idolatrous nature, and will tend to provoke him to anger. And it may be asked of Christians now, whether they will, by such inordinate attachments, provoke the Lord to wrath? whether they will thus excite his displeasure, and expose themselves to his indignation? Very often Christians do thus provoke him. They become unduly attached to a friend, or to wealth, and God in anger takes away that friend by death, or that property by the flames: or they conform to the world, and mingle in its scenes of fashion and gaiety, and forget God; and in displeasure he visits them with judgments, humbles them, and recalls them to himself. Are we stronger than he ?-This is given as a reason why we should not provoke his displeasure. We cannot contend successfully with him; and it is therefore madness and folly to contend with God, or to expose ourselves to the effects of his indig

nation.

VER. 23. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. b Chap. vi. 12.

All things are lawful for me.— e.-See Note, chap. vi. 12. This is a repetition of what he had said before; and it is here applied to the subject of eating the meat that had been offered to idols. The sense is, Though it may be admitted that it was strictly lawful to partake of that meat, yet there were strong reasons why it was inexpedient; and those reasons ought to have the binding force of law. All things edify not.-All things do not tend to build up the church, and to advance the interests of religion; and when they do not have this effect, they are not expe

ful, was in his view improper. This is a simple rule, and might be easily applied by all. If a man has his heart on the conversion of men and the salvation of the world, it will go far to regulate his conduct in reference to many things concerning which there may be no exact and positive law. It will do much to regulate his dress; his style of living; his expenses; his entertainments; his mode of intercourse with the world. He may not be able to fix his finger on any positive law, and to say that this or that article of dress is improper; that this or that piece of furniture is absolutely forbidden; or that this or that manner of life is contrary to any explicit law of Jehovah; but he may see that it will interfere with his great and main purpose-to do good on the widest scale possible; and therefore to him it will be inexpedient and improper. Such a grand leading purpose is a much better guide to direct a man's life than would be exact positive statutes to regulate every thing, even if such minute statutes were possible.

VER. 24. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

e Phil. ii. 4. 21.

Let no man seek his own.-This should be properly interpreted of the matter under discussion, though the direction assumes the form of a general principle. Originally it meant, "Let no man, in regard to the question about partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to ido's, consult his own pleasure, happiness, or convenience; but let him, as the leading rule on the subject, ask what will be for the welfare of others. Let him not gratify his own taste and inclinations, regardless of their feelings, comfort, and salvation; but let him, in these things, have a prireference to their welfare." He may dispense with these things without danger or injury; he cannot indulge in them without endangering the happiness or purity of others. His duty, therefore, requires him to abstain. The injunction, however, has a general form, and is applicable to all Christians, and to all cases of a similar

mary

kind. It does not mean that a man is not in any instance to regard his own welfare, happiness, or salvation; it does not mean that a man owes no duty to himself or family; or that he should neglect all these to advance the welfare of others: but the precept means, that in cases like that under consideration, when there is no positive law, and when a man's example would have a great influence, he should be guided in his conduct, not by a reference to his own case, comfort, or gratification, but by a reference to the purity and salvation of others. And the observance of this simple rule would make a prodigious change in the church and the world. But every man another's wealth.-The word "wealth" is not in the Greek. Literally," that which is of another;" the word rò referring to any thing and every thing that pertains to his comfort, useful

ness, happiness, or salvation.-The sentiment of the whole is, "when a man is bound and directed by no positive law, his grand rule should be the comfort and salvation of others." This is a simple rule; it might be easily applied; and this would be a sort of balance-wheel in the various actions and plans of the world. If every man would adopt this rule, he could not be in much danger of going wrong; he would be certain that he would not live in vain.

VER. 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience' sake.

d 1 Tim. iv. 4.

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles.-In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honour of idols: but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them, that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it. Asking no question for conscience' sake.-Not hesitating or doubting, as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things. But, (1.) That which is purchased should be in itself lawful and right. It would not be proper for a man to use ardent spirits, or any other intoxicating drinks, because they were offered for sale, any more than it would be to commit suicide because men offered pistols, and bowie-knives, and halters to sell. (2.) There are many things now concerning which similar questions may be asked; as, e. g. is it right to use the productions of slave-labour, the sugar, cotton, &c. that are the price of blood? Is it right to use that which is known to be made on the sabbath; or that which it is known a man has made by a life of dishonesty and crime? The consciences of many persons are tender on all such questions; and the questions are not of easy solution. Some rules may perhaps be suggested arising from the case before us. (a) If the article is exposed indiscriminately with others in the market, if it be in itself lawful, if there is no ready mark of distinction, then the apostle would direct us not to hesitate. (b) If the use and purchase of the article would go directly and knowingly to countenance the existence of slavery, to encourage a breach of the sabbath, or to the continuance of a course of dishonest living, then it would seem equally clear that it is not right to purchase or to use it. If a man abhors slavery and sabbath-breaking, and dishonesty, then how can he knowingly partake of that which goes to patronize and extend these abominations? (c) If the article is expressly pointed out to him as an article that has been made in this manner, and his partaking of it will

be construed into a participation of the crime, then he ought to abstain. See ver. 28. No man is at liberty to patronise slavery, sabbath-breaking, dishonesty, or licentiousness in any form. Every man can live without doing it; and where it can be done, it should be done. And perhaps there will be no other way of breaking up many of the crimes and cruelties of the earth, than for good men to act conscientiously, and to refuse to partake of the avails of sin, and of gain that results from oppression and fraud.

VER. 26. For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

e Deut. x. 14. Ps. xxiv. 1; 1. 12.

For the earth is the Lord's.-This is quoted from Ps. xxiv. 1. The same sentiment is also found in Ps. 1. 11, and in Deut. x. 14. It is here the meat offered in market. It all belongs to the urged as a reason why it is right to partake of Lord. It does not really belong to the idol, even though it has been offered to it. It may, therefore, be partaken of as his gift, and should be received with gratitude. And the fulness thereof. -All that the earth produces belongs to him. ¦ He causes it to grow; and he has given it to be food for man; and though it may have been devoted to an idol, yet its nature is not changed. It is still the gift of God; still the production of his hand; still the fruit of his goodness and love.

VER. 27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatso ever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake.

f Luke x. 7.

If any of them that believe not. That are not Christians; that are still heathens. Bid you to a feast.-Evidently not a feast in the temple of an idol, but at his own house. If he ask you to partake of his hospitality. And ye be disposed to go.

Greek, "And you will to go." It is evidently implied here, that it would not be improper to go. The Saviour accepted such invitations to dine with the Pharisees; see Note, Luke xi 37; | and Christianity is not designed to abolish the courtesies of social life; or to break the bonds of intercourse; or to make men misanthropes or hermits. It allows and cultivates, under proper Christian restraints, the intercourse in society which will promote the comfort of men, and es- 1 pecially that which may extend the usefulness of Christians. It does not require, therefore, that we should withdraw from social life, or regard as improper the courtesies of society. See Note on chap. v. 10. Whatever is set before you, &c.— ! Whether it has been offered in sacritice or not; for so the connexion requires us to understand it. Eat.-This should be interpreted strictly. The apostle says "eat," not " drink;" and the principle will not authorize us to drink whatever is set before us, asking no questions for conscience' sake; for while it was a matter of indifference, in regard to eating, whether the meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, it is not a matter of in

But if any man.-If any fellow guest; any scrupulous fellow Christian who may be present. That the word "any" (rc) refers to a fellow guest seems evident; for it is not probable that the host would point out any part of the food on his own table, of the lawfulness of eating which he would suppose there was any doubt. Yet there might be present some scrupulous fellow Christian who would have strong doubts of the propriety of partaking of that food, and who would indicate it to the other guests. For his sake that showed it.-Do not offend him; do not lead him into sin; do not pain and wound his feelings. And for conscience' sake.-Eat not, out of respect to the conscientious scruples of him that told thee that it had been offered to idols. The word conscience refers to the conscience of the informer, (ver. 29;) still he should make it a matter of conscience not to wound his weak brethren, or lead them into sin. For the earth is the Lord's, &c.-See ver. 26. These words are wanting in many MSS., see Mill's Gr. Tes., and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic versions; and are omitted by Griesbach. Grotius says that they should be omitted. There might easily have been a mistake in transcribing them from ver. 26. The authority of the MSS., however, is in favour of retaining them; and they are quoted by the Greek fathers and commentators. If they are to be retained, they are to be interpreted, probably in this sense: "There is no necessity that you should partake of this food. All things belong to God; and he has made ample provision for your wants, without subjecting you to the necessity of eating this. Since this is the case, it is best to regard the scruples of those who have doubts of the propriety of eating this food,

and to abstain."

Conscience, I say, not thine own.-I know that you may have no scruples on the subject. I do not mean that with you this need be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that ground, as if an idol were any thing, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulons, or of leading them into sin. For why is my liberty, &c.-There is much difficulty in this clause; for as it now stands, it seems to be en

tirely contradictory to what the apostle had been saying. He had been urging them to have respect for other men's consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their opinions and feelings. Macknight and some others understand it as an objection: “Perhaps you will say, But why is my liberty to be ruled by another man's conscience?" Doddridge supposes that this and ver. 30 come in as a kind of parenthesis, to prevent their extending his former caution beyond what he designed. "I speak only of acts obvious to human observation; for as to what immediately lies between God and my own soul, why is my liberty to be judged, arraigned,

condemned at the bar of another man's con

science?" But it is probable that this is not an objection. The sense may be thus expressed : I am free; I have liberty to partake of that food, if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong: but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to idols, my liberty-the right which I exercisewill be misconstrued, misjudged, condemned (for so the word кpiveraι seems to be used here) by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge, condemn me, as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall in with the customs of idolators; and will suppose that I cannot have a good conscience. Under these circumstances, why should I act so as to expose myself to this censure and condemnation? It is better for me to abstain, and not to use this liberty in the case, but to deny myself for the sake of others."

VER. 30. For if I by grace' be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

For if I by grace be a partaker.-Or rather, “If I partake by grace; if by the grace and mercy of God, I have a right to partake of this; yet why should I so conduct as to expose myself to the reproaches and evil surmises of others? Why subject of eating, when there are so many should I lay myself open to be blamed on the bounties of Providence for which I may be thankful, and which I may partake of without doing injury, or exposing myself in any manner

to be blamed ?"

Why should I pursue such a course as to expose Why am I evil spoken of.myself to blame or censure? For that for which which I give thanks," seems to be a periphrasis I give thanks?-For my food. The phrase "for for food, or for that of which he partook to nourish life. It is implied that he always gave thanks for his food; and that this was with him such a universal custom, that the phrase "for which I give thanks" might be used as convenient and appropriate phraseology to denote his ordinary food. The idea in the verse, then, is this: "By the favour of God, I have a right to partake of this food. But if I did, I should be evil spoken of, and do injury. And it is unnecessary. God has made ample provision elsewhere for my support, for which I may be thankful. I will not therefore expose myself to calumny and reproach, or be the occasion of